[mistermann]

> or you have a denialist agenda

Simple, honest skepticism, what used to be considered an intrinsic part of the scientific process, literally isn't an option? The irony. :)

Note that in this case I wasn't questioning the science of global warming, I was questioning the methodology and manner in which they qualitatively reviewed these scientific papers. There are, in fact, many different conclusions one could draw, depending on your agenda. Presenting it as nothing more complicated than simple math seems suspicious. Being accused of being a "denialist" when pointing this out is cringe worthy.