In a proof by contradiction, one only needs to point out a flaw in reasoning. That’s not a publication, just of critique of one. The burden of proof is with IPCC, not the critics.
No it isn’t. This isn’t an austere abstract logical argument, it is science.
Even if “the burden of proof” were with the IPCC, but the proof (actually ‘evidence’, as this is science, not mathematics) has been given with enormous effort and seriousness. This has resulted in a self-consistent logically and scientifically justified consensus. At the moment, the nay-sayers need to actually present their own contrary physical theory and supporting data instead of relying on sterile “null hypthothesis” BS. An amateur just cleverly thinking up some random wild-ass-guess conceivably relevant mechanism without further investigation does not fly. There’s no “so there, gotcha!”, and by now there is no large obvious physical mechanism which the entire scientific community has somehow missed (and even if it were so, the presently known mechanisms do NOT stop working).
You can look that the 944 page report on the scientific basis (which itself quotes probably thousands of journal articles over the years, representing maybe 10000 man-years of work)
climateaudit.org appears to be a McKitrick blog.
McKitrick has been the attempted “hockey stick” breakers, but he’s been basically wrong. (McKitrick is an economist)
In another circumstance when he & co-workers attempted to show spurious temperature correlations with economic activity (in an attempt to impeach {a tiny fraction} of the global-warming data), it turned out he made a large calculational error by improperly failing to convert from degrees to radians in the regression analysis.
