I got a pretty thick skin and don't get insulted easily
If one wants to question established dogma one ought to be somewhat resistant to ridicule.
I was hoping you would conclude that fluctuation in Sun's radiation between day and night, cause the differences in temperatures between night and day.
My next point was going to be that it is reasonable to expect that there are other less extreme fluctuations such as the 11 year cycle.
On top of that there might be other cycles.
I want to use scientific method to get a better understanding of the world.
Every scientific hypothesis has to be falsifiable or it is not scientific.
What do you think about possibility of another Maunder minimum around 2035?
Is that to be ignored because it does not fit the model of the predicted warming? It is a way more scientific hypothesis than AGW and fully falsifiable.
The temperature measurement of 2 different gas jars where one contains several orders of magnitude of CO2 more than that claimed to cause the AGW seems like a good validation setup. If the temperatures significantly increased in the CO2 jar would that validate AGW? If so then the opposite result must lead to contrary conclusions.
There may be other factors involved so the result my not be conclusive but it is a strong indication.
Now, having people like Al Gore and Bill Nye falsifying the experiment in order to "prove" AGW means that they are not honest which implies their narrative is not to be trusted. This is a simple conclusion. If someone tries to sell you something and you catch them lying and falsifying data there is no reason to give them any credibility. Do you find my conclusions wrong? I am not being ironic here, I am really asking.
After the Climate Gate why would anyone trust people who admit to falsifying the data in email exchanges between themselves.
When you say "equating that with the overwhelming evidence that is a matter of public record - I submit that not only is that false balance, but it is just plain idiotic" this is just talk and talk is cheap.
I grew up under an economic system called "Scientific Socialism"
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_socialism
where all the "scientists" based on their study of the Theory of Evolution declared that socialism was next step in the evolution of the human race. If you were an economist and disagreed you did not get any funding.
Yet at the same time few believed it and lots of people run away to the West. At the same time nobody fled to Soviet Union.
When you want to see what people really believe in see how they behave economically.
Have you seen property prices consistently dropping in coastal areas? They don't because nobody take it seriously, even people who say they do.
My point is not that the AGW hypothesis is false, which more appropriate to the General forum, but that few take it seriously unless they have a personal gain, and therefore there will be no fusion research funding coming from that corner.
My hypothesis is fully falsifiable. If there is a significant fusion research funding from the AGW crowd before fusion is just short term economic investment then I am wrong. And that is of course what I would be hoping for if the evidence did not point to the contrary.