"If so, please present a paper to a scientific journal. Then we can discuss it here."
Yeah, just like you do, eh starbust? What moves you guys from scepticism into the quasi-religious world of sceptology is a failure to provide any basis to your view. You quote a reason for your view, yet does your view change if the reason is shown to be false? Of course not. You grab onto the next reason, and as each also is shown to be false you discard them and grab the next. And when they are all discredited you grab onto a discredited reason and start afresh. Then there are facts like the effect of the circumpolar vortex on Southern Australia's climate that the skeptologists dont want to think about.
The quasi-religious skeptologists and their merry-go-round of bogus dogma has little credibility imo. Of course starbust, you could change that by following your own advice, couldn't you?
