One question, how would a paper which accepted the basic chain of human emissions - > more CO ₂ in the atmosphere - > warming - > positive feedbacks (water vapour, etc) but then proposed that there were large negative feedbacks which cancel out most of the effect be counted? (skepticalscience.com)
e.g. if someone found a very large negative feedback then the abstract would put it in context in terms of climate sensitivity or impact on warming estimates, as the abstract is supposed to provide background. (skepticalscience.com)
A sensitivity which is too low will be inconsistent with past climate changes - basically if there is some large negative feedback which makes the sensitivity too low, it would have prevented the planet from transitioning from ice ages to interglacial periods, for example. (skepticalscience.com)