Is there anything specifically in that arxiv paper that you see as dodgy? Or is it just the source?
I imagine it can vary a lot by discipline, but in math, physics, etc it is not unusual for important papers to appear on arxiv first or exclusively, so I wouldn't discount something merely due to where it is published. Sure it could be crap, but plenty of peer review papers are crap too, so it's a very weak signal IMO.
For someone who has any appreciation for politicized climate propaganda, which is what this is, the source is all you need.
Sure it could be crap, but plenty of peer review papers are crap too, so it's a very weak signal IMO.
Nice that you have some appreciation of the insignificance of this. We likely won't see if the paper is eventually published anywhere remotely reputable, because it's just bullshit clickbait for the conspiracy theorists to reaffirm their delusions before everyone forgets about it again.
My original comment concerned the Japanese paper - you replied referring to the dodgy arxiv "paper".