Confounding makes clear he has no understanding of what credible published papers does for science research, he seems to think they become worthless when they are old as shown by his silly words:
"
Oh, by the way, all three studies you linked are kind of old. The last one is actually from almost 40 fucking years ago. Are you serious right now? Do you have any idea how much more we understand now? Anyway, even if you include your studies from 40 years ago the fact remains that there is a large consensus among scientists. If you dispute that you are disputing reality. There are 100 papers that back AGW claims for every one your conspiracy blog website points at."
See how ignorant he really is, might as well throw away
Einstein's 1916 paper since it is OLD and out of date!
The ignorant fool doesn't realize that science research are at least partially built on
earlier published science research, even Einstein's famous paper was partly built on research published by others.
Heck the Milankovitch hypothesis underwent many challenges over the decades before it was mostly settled in 1976, based on many published papers, pro and con over it from several scientists who debated over the data. I have the book from Dr. Imbrie that talks about it in some detail.
Confounding relies on the following as shown vividly in the thread,
Consensus fallacy
Authority fallacy'
Argumentation fallacies
Make thumper statements he never backs up when challenged
Fails to answer relevant questions
Never made a cogent counterpoint
Profound ignorance on how published papers can advance science research
He doesn't know how to make a cogent argument.