Editing Openai/6938382f-f9e4-8003-a158-6d812c1bce84 (section)

==== 9. Rhetorical signals and potential motivated reasoning ====

A few things to flag:
* Dramatic contrast between modest inputs and extreme outputs – modest cloud biases are transformed into ±15°C uncertainty and “no possible evidence” of anthropogenic warming, without intermediate sanity checks.
* Selective focus on one type of model diagnostic (clouds) and one propagation method, while ignoring: - other sources of constraint (TOA flux, ocean heat content), - well-developed detection-and-attribution methods, - the enormous literature on climate model performance and uncertainty.
* Repeated framing of standard practice as essentially devoid of proper uncertainty analysis, even though IPCC and many modelling papers devote entire sections to uncertainty sources and limitations. IPCC<ref>{{cite web|title=IPCC|url=https://www.ipcc.ch/site/assets/uploads/2018/02/WG1AR5_Chapter09_FINAL.pdf|publisher=ipcc.ch|access-date=2025-12-10}}</ref>

Overall, the paper raises a legitimate theme (“be honest about structured uncertainty”), but its central quantitative claims rely on an internally inconsistent and physically implausible error model. The headline conclusion that anthropogenic warming cannot be detected is not supported by the broader body of evidence. Propagation_of_Error_and_the_Re…