Who chose which publications? What was the criteria?
Aren't you the least bit worried that the IPCC for ages went around saying that ALL their evidence was peer reviewed and then it was explored and found that a large percentage of it was not?
Finding that in a court would give you what is called an 'unreliable witness' ----------- in which case you would want to look at exactly what that witness had chosen to show - and very much what that witness had chosen to NOT reveal.
They lied - is that too complex for you!
Why in god's name would you trust what they didn't show was just because it didn't fit their narrative?
Let us see the evidence and we can judge -------------- thank you very much. It isn't a big ask.
