Sock-Puppet's Go-To Sources vs. Science Go-To Sources

Juxtaposing 'trusted' websites of "climate science skeptics" with those of "warmists". 

Recently I had a dialogue with a character who talked with much self-certitude - but little actual interest in the science, though he did try talking science-ie.  He also offered a number of links to support his arguments.  I made a tally and it's quite the Who's Who of political interests focused on promoting their agenda rather than global climate understanding. 

Then, this morning, I came across an interesting 22 item long collection by Peter Gaeta who (like me has taken the time to seriously investigate contrarian claims) put together "… some CRUCIAL links/information on global warming that have proven utterly accurate and reputable" and since he invites us to share his effort, I am happy to do it, particularly since it makes such a perfect contrast to my collection regarding science contrarian blogs.
  
You can find Gaeta's list following my collection of links.  Feel free to copy and pass along these interesting links to important information.

The names below are linked to revealing bios and further information:

CO2Science   (Craig   Idso}

WUWT   (Anthony    Watts)

Climate Depot   (Marc   Morano)

NoFrakkingConsensus  (Donna   Laframboise)

Climatism  (John   Coleman)

SPPI   (Idso,   Carter,   Soon)

Roy  Spenser  (Roy's blunders)

Freeman   Dyson {The ancient theoretical physicist and dreamer who's still pissed at the world for not allowing him to build his atomic bomb powered spaceship.}

Then there's Heartland Institute:

Nasif S. Nahle - a look at Science in a Vacuum

{edited 7/16/14 evening}

Back on October 23, 2012, {Before creating WUWTW to funnel my "virtual dialogue with climate science denialist" types into}, I wrote a post about Nasif Nahle over at citizenschallenge.blogspot.com a biologist by training and experience.  The man's interests extend beyond biology to a whole spectrum of our planet's processes.  He's a guy I can identify with, you know that spirit of curiosity encompassing all of this creation we inhabit.

But Nahle has taken his passion a step further and we have our differences.  He occasionally comments, though always saying pretty much the same thing.  His most recent comment,

7/13/14 - It's not my own reality. Science has to do with experimentation. If you're a scientist, you could REPEAT my experiments and then report your results. As long as you don't do it, you'll be lying. (At Nasif S. Nahle... Google "Scholar"... and atmospheric CO2 cooling )

has inspired me to bring his conversation over here.  Like myself, Nahle has lots of conviction and we've invested a good deal of our lives soaking up all the information we can, devoting time to "specialize" here and there as we fancied.  Like myself among a certain crowd we've attained a degree "authority."  Even within our-own-eyes we feel we have attained an above average level of understanding and deserve some of the trust a few have in us. 

Now, here's where the difference comes in,
and it has to do with that all important "ego thing"
The big question: How full of our selves are we?

Myself, I believe in my understanding.  I do so because my decades long skeptical pursuit of information is a process, a life's adventure.  I am open to new information and validating that info is the game.  I have had my ego bruised and battered, publicly and privately by having my presumed understanding shown to be way out of date, or way off the mark.  But that's part of the fun - like getting bruised while cavorting on canyon lands slickrock, it's part of the game of life and learning, otherwise we wouldn't be out there in the first place.  

I appreciate that my understanding is provisional, always vulnerable to newer or better information.  Thing is, when proven wrong while the bruises heal whole new realms of understanding and appreciation have opened up to us.  I love it!  To me that's what life and growing and being witness to this incredible creation we were born into is all about. 

I also understand that folks who have spent years and live's focused on studying specific issues know way the heck more than I do.  Experts are experts for a very good reason!  And though at times I might think I know plenty and them mistaken - I'd never imagine that my fragmentary knowledge could trump their professional understanding.  Only fools could ever presume to achieve expert status with the ease of a bit of dedicated part-time study. 

And only a fool can't accept that the higher math of science is a "For Members Only" affair - if you don't comprehend it, you don't comprehend it and should butt out.  Making sweeping and earth-shattering claims with fragmentary understanding belongs to the realm delusion.

Yet, here we have a jack of all trades claiming to contradict decades worth of the generally accepted physics of atmospheric Carbon dioxide and Republican/Libertarians are eating it up. 

ScottishSceptic allow me to tell you about the tragedy of our time.

I received another email from the ScottishSceptic and since he's changed tact I'll use the opportunity to write a few words about the difference between the "skeptical of science" community's war-footing and the world of scientists with their commitment to constructive learning.

But first Scotty's email:

The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5) by ScottishSceptic - examined by CC

{edited for grammatical errors and to add a couple more links.  Thursday am}

This post will be reviewing 
ScottishSceptic's 
"The Sceptic View (Rev. 0.5)"

http://scef.org.uk/index.php/climate/the-sceptic-view

Which is a statement prepared by Mike Haseler with the help of… {update - ScottishSceptic tells me that Anthony Watts and Bishop Hill were not directly involved in producing his list.  As for Morano, that was just a wild suspicion (can we examine SS's emails to be sure?).  In any event, I stand corrected… at least til superseding information becomes available.  Sort of like how science works ;-) }.  

They say it "represents the most authoritative statement of the views of Climate "Sceptics"/"Skeptics" as of May 2012."

{update - It appears Mr. ScottishSceptic has taken umbrage at this review of his "copyrighted" list - he thinks it's sacred and shouldn't be questioned or exposed for the fraud that it is.

  Now he wants to sue me.  

As Steven told Yoko, Sosumi ;- }

As such it should make an informative read.  But before ScottishSceptic gets to the list itself he does something strange.  Not sure if it's intended to prime his uncritical audience or be a red flag for rational skeptics.

Colorado Floods - statistical certainty vs geophysical realities

Here is an article I wrote for November's Four Corners Free Press concerning last month's flooding in Colorado.  Should anyone find anything of value in it feel free to lift and use as you see fit.  Memes for the sharing.{I have added many links that offer authoritative support for my claims along with basic educational sources}.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Colorado experienced its most extreme weather event in memory between September 9th to the 15th. Golden, Boulder and Larimer counties received the worst of it with rain accumulations of sixteen/seventeen inches and more, some areas receiving nine inches on Thursday alone, resulting in massive flooding compounded by destructive run-off from mountainsides of burned-out forests that could no longer hold water.

Predictably folks are asking: Is this related to manmade Global Warming? It's an easy and tough question to answer.

Consider please, our climate system is a global heat distribution engine and our land, atmosphere, and the oceans have indisputably warmed, not only that, our atmosphere's moisture content has been measurably increasing. Given such geophysical realities, it is self-evident that all extreme weather events contain elements of this newly energized climate system.  And that much more of the same must be expected.

On the other hand,

5 Sobering Charts from the IPCC Climate Report

OK time for an IPCC reality check.
Here's a Repost from a recent ClimateCentral article written by Andrew Freedman:

"The 5 Most Sobering Charts from the IPCC Climate Report"

The 5 Most Sobering Charts from the IPCC Climate Report (via Climate Central)

By Andrew Freedman Follow @afreedma The first installment in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s latest scientific assessment on climate science came out on Friday, and it’s loaded with dense terminology, expressions of uncertainty…

---

Investigating Dr. Michael Mann... a supplement

To supplement my previous post, here's a list of investigations into Dr. Mann and allegations stemming from the break in and hacking of the University of East Anglia's Climate Research Unit, courtesy of SkepticalScience.com.  I finish with a DeSmogBlog profile of the American Tradition Institute:

What do the 'Climategate' hacked CRU emails tell us?

Michael Mann's continuing saga, Virginia FOIA case moves forward

Well, the climate science "skeptics" have unleashed another flurry substance-less claims and attacks on Dr. Michael Mann in light of the recent court decision allowing the American Tradition Institute's (and a member of  Virginia's House of Delegates, Del Marshall's) lawsuit seeking pretty much any and all working material related to the research of Dr. Michael Mann and his team.  

It doesn't matter to them that the data upon which his studies are based is and has been available, see: http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/tools/tools.php

It doesn't matter to them that Mann et al's studies have been investigated many times over, see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Climategate-CRU-emails-hacked.htm
also see: 
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/22/301163/nsf-investigation-exonerates-hockey-stick-scientist-michael-mann/
and:
http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2011/08/22/300821/nsf-inspector-general-investigation-michael-mann/

It doesn't matter that subsequent studies using different proxies and methods have reported the same basic story, see:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/Hockey-stick-or-hockey-league.html

All that seems to matter to them, is that business leaders and politicians and the public remain as ignorant as possible about what we are doing to our life sustaining climate system.
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

From the Washington Post story by Tom Jackman:

Prince William FOIA case on global warming headed for Virginia Supreme Court 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/local/wp/2013/10/09/prince-william-foia-case-on-global-warming-headed-for-virginia-supreme-court/ 

"... Richard C. Kast and Madelyn F. Wessel, U.Va.’s lawyers, argued that Judge Sheridan got it right when he ruled that the university had properly interpreted FOIA. They acknowledged that there was no judicial precedent on the FOIA exemption, but that “the policy of open government under the act is not ‘absolute,’” citing more than 100 exemptions in Virginia’s FOIA law. 

They noted that the Institute and Marshall challenge the judge’s interpretation of “proprietary,” but that the conservatives “offer no alternative definition or explanation as to why the plain meaning of the term should not apply.” Plain meaning, in U.Va.’s view, being “a thing or property owned or in the possession of one who manages and controls them.” 

Mann said in an e-mail to me that “I believe Judge Sheridan’s ruling protecting faculty research correspondence is correct and is precisely what Sen. Thomas Michie intended when he proposed his legislation to amend Virginia’s FOIA law and the legislature enacted in 1984 to enhance the ability of Virginia’s public colleges and university’s to protect the scholarly research endeavor.” 

But late last month the Supreme Court agreed to take the case, which Schnare said happens in about 10 percent of the civil cases appealed to them."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

For a review of what Dr. Mann has been put through, see:

Timeline: Legal Harassment of Climate Scientist Michael Mann

http://www.ucsusa.org/scientific_integrity/abuses_of_science/va-ag-timeline.html

For a look at the players in this most recent episode:

SPECIAL INVESTIGATION: Who's behind the 'information attacks' on climate scientists?

http://www.southernstudies.org/2011/10/special-investigation-whos-behind-the-information-attacks-on-climate-scientists.html

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

For a bit more on the tactics used by the contrarians, see:

Climate Skeptics Try To Spin Penn State Exoneration of Dr. Michael Mann Into “Whitewash”

http://www.desmogblog.com/climate-skeptics-try-spin-penn-state-exoneration-dr-michael-mann-“whitewash”

~ ~ ~

Michael Mann, hounded researcher

http://www.skepticalscience.com/MichaelMann.html

~ ~ ~

NSF IG report on Michael Mann investigation: “No research misconduct. Case closed.” Don't bother telling Rick Perry.

http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/2011/08/22/nsf-ig-report-on-michael-mann-investigation/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

To finish it seems appropriate to allow Dr. Mann to speak for himself:

Michael Mann responds to the “false and misleading claims” in the error-riddled, defamatory WSJ piece by Jeffrey Ball and Keith Johnson

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/02/26/205566/michael-mann-false-and-misleading-claims-wall-street-journal-oversimplify-piece-by-jeffrey-ball-and-keith-johnson/

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ 

Michael E. Mann on Climate Change and Muzzling Science CBC

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q34jLLTq15o

Published on Mar 29, 2012

MICHAEL E. MANN Physicist, Climatologist, Director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University, author of "The Hockey Stick and The Climate Wars: Dispatches from the Front Lines" was George's guest on March 28, 2012

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Michael Mann: Confronting the Climate Change Challenge - 

Conversations from Penn State

Published on Apr 12, 2012

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=06DdPb_DFo0

Michael Mann was a member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, the team of scientists that shared the 2007 Nobel Peace Prize with Al Gore. Mann discusses his work with the panel, his current outlook on the future of the planet, and his new book, The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

TEDxPSU - Michael Mann - 

A Look Into Our Climate: Past To Present To Future

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ElI-XVGHCHs

Uploaded on Dec 5, 2011

Michael Mann is a professor in the College of Earth and Mineral Sciences, a climatologist, and the director of the Earth System Science Center at Penn State University. Michael is best known for his extensive background and research in the field of paleoclimatology. This work led to Michael's graph of temperature trends over the last thousand years, popularly coined as the "hockey stick graph" because of its resemblance to the sporting equipment. 

The graph has received acclaim and criticism since its publishing. He has received many awards and honors including, but not limited to, the Outstanding Scientific Paper Award by NOAA in 2002 and also was named one of the 50 Leading Visionaries in Science and Technology by Scientific American. 

Michael is also one of the founders of RealClimate.org, a highly acclaimed climate science website that was chosen in 2005 as one of the top 25 "Science and Technology" websites by Scientific American and as one of the top 15 "green" websites by Time Magazine in 2008. Michael's educational background includes an M.S. degree in Physics from Yale, and a Ph.D. in Geology & Geophysics from Yale.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

The Climate Denial Machine vs. Climate Science - Dealing in Doubt

Here is a report detailing the various attacks the IPCC has been subjected to over the years.  Including tracking down their originators.  It was compiled by Greenpeace USA, and I believe it worth sharing:

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/campaigns/global-warming-and-energy/polluterwatch/Dealing-in-Doubt---the-Climate-Denial-Machine-vs-Climate-Science/

Dealing in Doubt

The Climate Denial Machine vs. Climate Science

On this page

• Table of Contents:
• INTRODUCTION
• RESOURCES

A brief history of attacks on climate science, climate scientists and the IPCC.

September, 2013.

DEALING IN DOUBT: FULL REPORT

"Doubt is our product, since it is the best means of competing with the 'body of fact' [linking smoking with disease] that exists in the mind of the general public. It is also the means of establishing a controversy...”

Tobacco company Brown and Williamson internal document, 1969

“Skepticism is not believing what someone tells you, investigating all the information before coming to a conclusion. Skepticism is a good thing. Global warming skepticism is not that. It’s the complete opposite of that. It’s coming to a preconceived conclusion and cherry-picking the information that backs up your opinion. Global warming skepticism isn’t skepticism at all.”

John Cook of Skepticalscience.com

Table of Contents:

INTRODUCTION

PART 1: A BRIEF HISTORY OF DENIAL

The 1990s: a network of denial is created

• The funders
• The Players 
• The think tanks
• The roots of climate denial: borne out of Big Tobacco anti science campaigns

The history of IPCC attacks

• 1990 – The IPCC’s First Assessment Report
• 1995 The Second Assessment Report (SAR)
• 2001 – The Third Assessment Report (TAR)   
• 2007 – the Fourth Assessment Report 
• Climategate: No Scandal behind these gates: (updated 2013)     
• The AR5, fifth assessment report:  the cherry-picking begins

The Denial Machine Goes Global

• Australia:  A climate denial front ‘down under
• The UK’s denial machine

PART 2: DENIER TRICKS AND TACTICS

CASE STUDY: The Heartland Institute: a Clearing House of Climate Denial Campaign Tactics

• Heartland’s internal workings exposed
• Heartland’s Fake Scientific Conferences and the Unabomber
• The Origin of the ICCC
• The NIPCC – or “Climate Change Reconsidered” – or “Not the IPCC”
• 2013 NIPCC in China – or: Let not the truth get in the way of a good story
• Heartland, ALEC and the attack on science education

The Attacks on Scientists

• Case Study:  Bad science versus hockey sticks: Michael Mann
• Other attacks on scientists
• Using Freedom of Information to attack scientists
• The American Tradition Institute vs Mann and the University of Virginia
• ATI vs James Hansen and NASA
• ATI vs climate scientists and journalists
• ATI and the EPA
• FOI in Australia
• Conspiracy of Doubt
• Personal attacks and death threats 
• Attacks on the consensus

Faking It

• 2012: “Pal review” replaces “peer review”
• 2012: Fake a Government report
• Fake a counter consensus 
• Fake science and polar bears
• Can’t publish a peer-reviewed article?  Self publish a book!
• Fake – or outdated - qualifications

Climate denial and US politics

• The political effect of climate denial
• 2013:  Republican denial

CONCLUSION

Appendix 1: Climate Denial’s “Continental Army”

Appendix 2: Funding of Think Tanks working on Climate Denial

Professor Anastasios Tsonis replies plus comments (open letter 3)

{Last edited Friday 9:00pm}

Introduction:

I finished this about a week ago and shared it with some pen pals who are within the climate science community (which includes students and researchers and many other specialties besides "scientist").  I admit, I received little positive feedback.  Instead, I received admonishments about my approach being confrontational, even hostile.  For example:

"My advice when emailing Prof. Tsonis is to be as polite and gracious as possible, and to have a completely neutral, non-confrontational and friendly tone" and "The trick is to keep Dr. Tsonis engaged on good terms so that you/we can understand what the heck he actually thinks/understands."

To the second, I would reply, Dr. Tsonis third email does a thorough job of describing what he actually understands and thinks.

To the first one... what can I say.  I am not some student trying to get in the good graces of a professor.  I am a 58 year old adult who has been watching this Global Warming "dialogue" since the early 1970s!  At my most pompous the title "A Citizen's Indictment" comes to mind, because that's how I feel.

But, more down to Earth and realistic, this is about me trying (to the best of my limited abilities) to describe some of the mechanisms that have been used to so completely misdirect this global warming/climate change dialogue into counter-productive dog-chasing-tail dead-ends - that our children will have to pay for.

Right-wing "think-tank" strategies have forced climate scientists to achieve ever higher and more unrealistic standards of "proof" before anyone of their "preliminary findings" are allowed any real world legitimacy.  
And that is plainly counter-productive.

The success of all the misdirection is appalling and this is my effort to help confront it.  These are memes for the broadcasting...

I have no malice towards Dr. Tsonis, in fact, I suspect if we crossed paths under different circumstances we might actually enjoy each other and benefit from the interaction.  But, this is the virtual internet-world, and I only know the character in the blog quotes and the dishonest things others are claiming in his name - plus his own devious replies to my straight forward questions. 

I hope someone out there might be able to do something with the following.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Professor Anastasios Tsonis A Critical Review of Claims (open letter 3)

After posting "Professor Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)"  Professor Tsonis sent me a much more informative letter.  I appreciate him taking the time to do that since I found his first replies disappointingly superficial.  To be clear my issue is not with Professor Tsonis the scientist who has published many interesting studies.  The problem I have is with his selective public commentary which leaves a layperson with a completely contorted and inadequate understanding of what we are collectively doing to our planet's global climate system.

I am reproducing Professor Tsonis's letter (in courier font) complete and untouched except for breaking up paragraphs in order to intersperse my commentary explaining my issues with the professor's words and the impression they project.  Since I will be posting this at my blog I have inserted many links and references to authoritative sources that have helped form my understanding and that support the claims I make.

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)

Last week I wrote an open letter to Professor Tsonis, where he replied with the following

"I am not really sure who you are and what is your profession but it seems you have much more time in your hands to deal with all these issues than I do. You wrote to me and asked me questions. I answered them but obviously you did not understand my replies and asked more questions. I replied to your new request that I cannot continue an exchange of answers and questions for ever. I am dealing with a lot of people and I have a job to attend to. Now if you see this as an evasive action then you need to set back and relax.
All the best
Professor Anastasios Tsonis

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

In reply I would say,

Professor Tsonis, it doesn't matter who I am, nor how much or little time I have at my disposal.

Furthermore professor, you most certainly did not answer my questions - instead you repeated the same old evasions and misdirection.

Thing is, a google search shows that you have been very active in trying to present a science fiction story that Earth as a planet has entered a cooling phase.

Your message flies in the face of known geophysical facts regarding Anthropogenic Global Warming.  It is in fact nothing more that a politically motivated attack on science and attempt to misinform and dumb down the public, when solid information is what they/we need the most. 

And it is about time you are taken to task for your misrepresentations.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

After my post a Steven B came to your defense in a sort of backhanded way, he wrote:

"It would be informative for you to have a look at Tsonis' own research (with various colleagues) pertinent to the discussion. He argues that he has identified a long-term cycle in the climate system (basically a periodic synching and unsynching of known shorter-term ocean cycles like ENSO) that would mean that we're in a hiatus that will last several decades.  

After that, there will be a price to pay as the warm part of the cycle combines with the inexorably increasing radiative imbalance to create a sharp warming spike. Then lather, rinse, repeat. ..."

~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

OK, so Steven does make a good suggestion and we should look at some of your papers.

My complaint with you is that your often repeated public pronouncements (as opposed to your studies) are taken to mean that society doesn't have to worry about AGW and that our leaders and public should instead continue on with a business as usual attitude as though we don't have a critical situation demanding our immediate attention and action. 

Following your papers and my comments.   
I am including a 'Repost' of SkepticalScience.com's recent article:

Nuccitelli et al. (2013) Debunks Akasofu’s Magical Thinking

 http://www.skepticalscience.com/nuccitelli-et-al-2013-akasofu-debunked.html

Admittedly, Akasofu's paper takes a different tack - Akasofu uses fancy statistical gamesmanship to rationalize that the current warming is merely a remnant of our planet "recovering" from the Little Ice Age.  But, it is also another example of creative science in a vacuum, where a limited number of considerations allow a disingenuous presenter to make unsupportable claims about the state of our climate.

The reason I'm reposting the Nuccitelli et al. (2013) article is because it spells out scientific clarifications that have a direct bearing on the issues you have learned to distortion and evade so well.

Open letter to Professor Anastasios Tsonis: Are you serious?

{I'm just a working guy and writing is a hobby so to speak, so please excuse the rough edges. 
But some of these issues and deceptive practices need to be exposed.
As for the writing I hope this evening's edits have helped a bit.   9/20/2013}
Also see  Prof. Anastasios Tsonis: The Art Of Misdirection (open letter 2)
Professor Anastasios Tsonis replies plus comments (open letter 3)
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~

I would like to share the following open letter.

Professor Anastasios Tsonis,

We have exchanged a few emails and I must say I am very disappointed by your evasion.  A couple fundamental questions regarding the general scientific understanding of Earth's geophysical processes and you turn silent as a salt pillar.  

While our email exchange has taught me nothing about global warming, it has given me another insight into the perplexing mind of your typical denialist type.

It all started with a pal waiving a quote of yours in my face: "We are already in a cooling trend, which I think will continue for the next 15 years at least. There is no doubt the warming of the 1980s and 1990s has stopped."

When I investigated I discovered that you were considered a distinguished professor in your field.  That's when I decided to write you and ask about the statement.  In truth, I was expecting a bit of explanation that would reveal that your words were taken out of context and that they did not actually mean you believed our planet's warming trend had reversed itself.

Just in case I was wrong, I included these questions:

          "Weren't the 2000s the warmest decade on record?"

          "Where does that claim leave the matter of 'greenhouse gases' and the imbalance in Earth's radiative budget?"

          "What about the heat that is being absorbed by the oceans?"
~ ~ ~ 

To my surprise you acknowledged the quote and it's implication that greenhouse gas driven global warming had actually stopped and reversed itself.

To my first question, you suggested the top of the mountain is always the highest point and that it means nothing, since we are now going down the other side.  - Sort of weird logic... if the warming of the 80s, 90s stopped - how can the 2000s be warmer than the "top of the mountain" 90s?  {Sounds like a variation on that denier's optical illusion know as the "global temperature escalator" }

You altogether ignored the question regarding our planet's radiation budget imbalance: "I don't have a comment on this. It's an open question"

To the third question, about the increasing heat being stored in the oceans, you reply "it is another argument without solid proof."  

I guess here we can go into a philosophical discussion regarding "solid proof".  I mean, it can be argued that there is no "solid proof" the sun will rise tomorrow morning, either.  

In my email, I politely asked for a more detailed response, you said you were too busy to answer any such questions.  But, that doesn't seem to be stopping you from going around making claims that can only be interpreted as denying the basics of well known GHG geophysical facts!  You compound the impression of deceit by denying ARGO deep ocean observations.  Not to mention that you are ignoring our planet's cryosphere observations.

HOW can you justify ignoring such huge chunks of fundamental evidence and understanding?