“They are, you are just too blinded by your own biases to accept it.”
And you’re not blinded and unbiased?
“The IPCC gets routinely criticized in the science circles for being *too* conservative, if they are criticized at all.”
Most of the criticism of IPCC is that they make too many assumptions in their data, and do not follow the usual rigour in scientific methodology (including peer-reviews.)
“Speaking of routine scientific integrity, you do realize that the sites you often reference, such as climateaudit and junkscience.org, have exactly none? No original research, no peer review?”
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.
