- Comparing the current and early 20th century warm periods in China
- Northern hemisphere snow-cover trends (1967–2018): a comparison between climate models and observations
- Re-calibration of Arctic sea ice extent datasets using Arctic surface air temperature records
- How Much Human-Caused Global Warming Should We Expect with Business-As-Usual (BAU) Climate Policies? A Semi-Empirical Assessment
And much more, see: https://scholar.google.com/citations?user=8JOBXYEAAAAJ
Here's an interesting discussion of the problem of "cognitive fluency". In brief, if it takes effort to evaluate the evidence properly, there is a tendency to dismiss it. It's easier to reassure ourselves that we already know than to investigate the question properly. A pitfall for the unwary.
https://firstdraftnews.org/latest/the-psychology-of-misinfor...
Have you read the welcome page?
"The most important principle on HN, though, is to make thoughtful comments. Thoughtful in both senses: civil and substantial." ...
"What we especially discourage are comments that are empty and negative—comments that are mere name-calling."
I'll leave the hopefully scientifically literate crowd here to see how reputable they are. I skimmed the paper, it seems to be making a "there's no free lunch"/"renewables aren't magic free energy" so let's just keep using fossil fuels argument. None of the authors are economists, physicists, or climate scientists, yet they make assertions that are very much the domain of those experts. I expect better from the HN crowd.