[epistasis]

I don't know how you could have reached that malicious interpretation of why that part was switched off. To go and impugn all of climate science in the basis of a misinterpretation of motivations would indicate that you have internalized the denialists claims and look to seek to justify them.

To point out just how wrong your misinterpretation is, the very next sentence has the "why":

> A new research paper co-authored by Zelinka from the Lawrence Livermore National Lab likewise pointed to the role of virtual clouds in determining the results.

The key phrase being "role of virtual clouds." The motivation wasn't to slavishly reproduce results from the literature, and to even suspect that it completely outside the bounds of reasoned discourse. It comes across as if you are trying your hardest to find something to nitpick, some small phrase that you can misinterpret in order to raise doubts in those who aren't paying close attention.

This is exactly how denialists and propagandists behave.