It's relevant as a reminder that you are an amateur,not a professional climatologist. Anything you or I say is an amateur second,third or fourth hand interpretation. I find studies to fit my narrative and you find studies to suit your narrative.
And my studies are from reputable sources and yours are not. This is not suiting a narrative, this is basic rational thought. This is why my personal opinions and biases are not relevant.
I mean, you could use this argument to defend
any position held. You could defend a flat earth, creationism, homeopathy, anti-vaccines, and on and on with it.
The fact is science works via peer-review and the strength of peer-review for any given science journal determines its reputation. Studies that reject human-caused climate change are typically published in journals like
Energy & Environment,
Climate Research and
Pattern Recognition in Physics, which have been shown to have faulty peer-review processes, or in journals like
The Astrophysical Journal, which doesn't have a climatological board, because they know their faulty research will not pass critical peer-review of established climate journals.
The handful that do get published in legitimate, reputable climate journals are either never replicated in further studies (and, in fact,
studies attempting to replicate them often result in significantly different results) or are
refuted after peer-reviewed for subtle mistakes that were missed by peer-review.
Meanwhile, journals like Science and Nature get their reputation and their impact from only publishing papers with significant peer-review and which often get replicated repeatedly. The fact that the majority of papers which are published in these journals support human-caused climate change should be "an eye-opener" to anyone who actually understands how science works (and you don't need to be a professional for that).
Everything I write is nearly verbatim from the NOAA
[Citation Needed]
Talking with you is pointless as I'm only talking to an amateur numbers reader who I disagree with based on my own amateurish beliefs.
It's interesting that you say this in place of defending your claims now that I've repeatedly asked you to. Very suspicious to me. It's almost as though you know your claims aren't defensible and you know you have to back out of our discussion to save face.