Thanks for the link. I did read it. The comments are also interesting. Some of them even supported Salby. You will note that it's from a 2012 lecture, not t

Thanks for the link. I did read it. The comments are also interesting. Some of them even supported Salby. You will note that it's from a 2012 lecture, not the 2016 lecture I linked to at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sGZqWMEpyUM While most of the commentors were obviously pro-AGW, seeking to pick flaws in whatever he said, even to the point of criticizing his use of 2005 figures instead of 2012 figures, it was refreshing to read people debate real science, rather than what generally happens. Thanks for the link.