This paper only uses the growth rates in fossil fuel and industry CO2 emissions to arrive at an already catastrophic 2°C. But in the real world there are other

This paper only uses the growth rates in fossil fuel and industry CO2 emissions to arrive at an already catastrophic 2°C. But in the real world there are other climate factors, such as positive feedbacks from the vanishing cryosphere, changes to the biological pump and methanogene organisms. The paper mentions that there are climate factors that allow for an >3°C or <2°C outcome, but then it says that although their research is limited in scope, existing research on those factors should not be considered plausible, because those are not based on observations. They used data published by the International Energy Agency for everything. Even by intentionally keeping the scope this limited they could not manage to keep their projection under 2°C. This paper will be used for further denial, but things are rather dire if the math can no longer be bent enough to spit out better scenarios.