Not to your satisfaction. Because, you are poorly informed. But I am willing to say that you are very good with talking points and the FLICC
But if you were to try publish in a journal, you would be rejected. That problem takes you back to the article at the top of this thread. There are very few people with credentials that agree with you.
Instead you have to try to shoot holes in someone else's paper, then "teach the controversy". That never works so you have to bring it back on intervals.
Instead of reading notso Brightbart or listening to Santorium, you need to be reading the published peer reviewed papers. If you dis-agree with the papers then you submit your own paper for peer review, but as I said above, they are not likely to publish your talking points and FLICC.
I haven't made any attempt to “shoot holes” in anything. NO one other than propagandists ever took Cook's paper seriously, not even cook himself. There is nothing to shoot at. He made no attempt to do anything other than mislead.
Thank you for being such a good example of a global warming alarmist. Despite your claimed training in scientific disciplines, you apparently have no knowledge whatsoever of scientific method. You cannot even articulate what it is you are trying to argue. Can you at least tell us what point or points that you are trying to make? You have said nothing meaningful at all in any of your posts.