We already have a well-established method for challenging climate research. It's called the "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis" report [1]. It com

We already have a well-established method for challenging climate research. It's called the "Climate Change 2013: The Physical Science Basis" report [1]. It comprises 1,500 pages, surveying the results from thousands of journal articles, and is written by 259 experts from fields including meteorology, physics, oceanography, statistics, engineering, ecology, social sciences and economics. The IPCC regularly updates and republishes this report to include more recent findings and data. Anyone who has bothered to download and even skim this report knows how exhaustive, thorough, and--most of all--conservative it is in its predictions and findings. It dedicates a significant amount of space to pointing out where its predictions have failed and where the data does not support the theory of global warming. Anyone who wants to "challenge" climate research by completely circumventing the existing dialogue that has been taking place in peer-reviewed journals for decades now to take their case directly to the policy-makers is a charlatan. [1] https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/ https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/