Climate Change, page-455

"Why should I cite someone else in my assertion?"

No, not just someone else, but a credible source. How did you determine the paper was wrong? what lead you to that conclusion?

"I told you what was wrong and you are unable to refute it"

So you're the first person to uncover debunk the whole thing and everyone else is blind to it? Okay.

You see, I'd accept if you'd said, "Oh, his calculations have been refined with more accurate numbers, and he's over estimated climate sensitivity" Which as you'll notice is something I alluded to anyway. And of course there are flaws in the paper, its over 120 years old. But like I said, a lot of the principles are correct.

But see, you haven't provided any evidence! You've just said
"For example, he used data on the absorption of solar radiation by water vapor and carbon dioxide that has later shown to be inaccurate. His conclusions were based on a flawed understanding of the greenhouse effect. For example, he did not take into account the fact that the Earth's atmosphere is not a static body of gas, but is constantly circulating and mixing."

So how inaccurate was he? was he off by 5%? 50%? Again, you haven't explained anything.
What conclusions were incorrect based on his "flawed understandings"? The whole thing was wrong? a small part? again, no explanation.

Stop being dishonest simpleton and debate properly.

Oh, I just read that every scientist in the world has concluded that the current, anthropogenic climate change, is real, it will have catastrophic consequences to the earths ecosystems, and CO2 is one of the major drivers.

How easy it is to assert facts, no wonder you do it.