[T]he ice age/reglaciation theory that you are presenting has been rejected here on the ASIF. It is not only wrong, but a derailment in every discussion where it pops up. As a moderator in the Cryo section I cannot allow it to be bandied about. IMHO it also muddies the waters with AGW, with no scientific justification, and thus may help deniers, which is why I oppose the concession of allowing it to be discussed in a dedicated thread. . . .
If you wish to be allowed a thread to discuss it, either convince Neven or a majority of the moderators, and I will have to comply. Otherwise, I hope you can get over its absence on the ASIF, and continue to contribute on other subjects.
I think this is very unfair. As you and others have noted, bbr’s theory has never been popular on ASIF. But, as FOOW noted above, it is not bbr’s theory.
There is science supporting what he is saying. It comes from a peer reviewed paper published by Dr. Hansen who is one of the most respected of all climate scientists. A couple of years ago people were picking on bbr, and he shared that paper with us. It was a long one, but I read the whole thing and there is some support for bbr’s interpretation of the science.
That paper might be dated, but it has not been retracted.
As bbr mentioned above, when he had his own thread, he restricted his comments on his controversial theory to just that thread almost 100% of the time.
I see no harm in letting him continue to have a thread on that subject. If people think it is wrong, they can ignore the thread. If people think newer studies contradict the findings from the original paper they can point that out in bbr’s thread, and he can do battle there.
I have always liked bbr, and think he is a valuable member of this community. He has always been picked on because people don’t like his pet theory, but he always presents science and data to back up his arguments.
I am not saying I agree with his theory. I don’t. But, I also know I might be wrong so I don’t mind listening to what he has to say as long as he continues to back it up with science and data.
The theory he proposes is based upon his interpretation of a study by Dr. Hansen. I see no harm in giving him his own thread to discuss that theory.