re: #1189 shortshrift

Just listen to yourself. “Dare” me, do you? When it has been established time and time again that you will only accept as science the science that you agree with. No data can be sufficiently “hard”, no journal sufficiently respected, no peer peery enough to be admissable to you. But your scorn does not wipe out skeptic science. If I present an argument you will dance in glee at my ignorance and send me to read your approved sites , presumptiously taking for granted that I could not have read them, or I would now be a convert.
This is not the forum for scientific analysis.
I find Nicola Scafetta’s work supplies some cogent explanation of some of the recent warming. Others - Svensmark - too. With respect to the latter, you have already dismissed it as BS. As I say, you are a gnostic on this issue.

No it’s really simple. Get peer reviewed literature that proves that the community is wrong and it will be accepted. What is not accepted is half-formed crazy talk from blogs and pompous grandstanders who think that their degree in what ever qualifies them to enter a “debate” about science.

OK. This is how actual science gets done. YOu are making the extraordinary claim that there is nothing to worry about. Prove it with hard data and strong analysis. If you can not. You have nothing.