Why are you so dishonest? The content of my linked article does not rely heavily on Willie Soon's papers. He is mentioned once in the article. My linked article relies heavily on investigative journalists, not scientists.
I've trawled through a number of sites since my previous response to you (not peer-reviewed scientific papers, just to be clear) that cite Willie Soon in support of their point of view - which was pretty unanimously anti-AGW. He clearly was the mainstay of those sites' protagonists' arguments. I wonder how quickly this pinnacle of admiration will dissipate, or will it morph into 'Willie Soon wuz ambushed'? I contend that Willie Soon was cited in your linked article precisely because he was (is?) held in the highest regard by anti-AGW people.
Investigative journalism is an admirable counter to those in positions of power who regard the attainment of power as confirmation of infallibility. I doubt if you would disagree that investigative journalism is in serious decline, which was why since my previous post I've checked out more than a few of the Forbes/Popular Mechanics efforts over the last several years. Much has generally been debunked, but does require patience to absorb dozens of pages of often difficult material.
What I've found interesting in the Forbes/Popular Mechanics articles is that many exhibit what is now termed the 'Gish Gallop' which 'is the debating technique of drowning the opponent in such a torrent of small arguments that their opponent cannot possibly answer or address each one in real time' (Thanks, RationalWiki 15 Feb 15).
Now it is my opinion that investigative journalism by definition cannot employ the 'Gish Gallop' approach (so named after a 'Young-Earth creationist', one Duane Gish, who claimed to be such a creature, whatever that might be), but instead constructs a coherent and articulate argument by providing evidence that itself withstands close examination. In the case of climate science, that necessarily means that worldwide, scientific institutions either are in considerable disagreement - which would feature strongly in the top-ranked scientific journals - or they are not.
Investigative journalism that revealed matters that, after peer-review, were published evidence that the thousands of scientists whose work for the IPCC reports were in error, would ensure that Nobel Prizes in a number of scientific disciplines were awarded. It is also my opinion that the scientists whose work had been overturned would be among the first to acclaim the new evidence.
It is further my opinion, which may or may not be informed from my background in applied science, mathematical modelling (though not as a mathematician designing models), my extensive reading in biological matters, physics, my acquaintance with scientists during critiques of draft complex scientific papers, that I take with considerably more than a pinch of salt countervailing claims of those outside front-line science or without field experience. That said, any investigative journalism from disinterested parties is not only welcome, but is positively to be encouraged.
Your Forbes citation is crammed with expressions that are far from neutral, yet it is the use of neutral language expressed with passion that convinces. I make no claims that my words here are the be-all and end-all and that my opinion should prevail. Instead, I would encourage others to check for themselves to determine what weight should be given to each scientific paper, article or blog.
You obviously have strong views. Would you consider approaching any scientific institution that is involved in climate research to ask for a public seminar?
MJB
