Before giving him too much benefit of doubt, let me refer you back to the comment that I cited before, and then read the further dialogue that he has with me and others. Do not be misled by the fact that when challenged, he’ll sometimes back off with impeccable politeness. That’s learned behaviour. Observe his behaviour in that old thread:
-
He defends the blithering moron who wrote the thread’s OP as some kind of expert in atmospheric science, even though virtually everything the OP is wrong (in fact, extremely, stupidly wrong) and moreover, doesn’t even directly have anything to do with atmospheric science.
-
When I explain why he’s stupidly wrong in accusing climate science of being “political” and hence “not good science”, he accuses me of deliberately misinterpreting him.
-
When I explain in detail (based on decades of interest in and reading about climate science) why axial tilt is irrelevant to discussions of post-industrial climate change, his response is (I quote): “Nice Wikipedia search. Unfortunately you don’t understand any of it.”
-
When I post an article from NASA Global Climate Change corroborating exactly what I had said, his response is: “It’s cool that you did another google search, and found another article on Milankovitch cycles.” Then he goes for the digression gambit: “Can you explain why the Earth’s axis changes its tilt?” When I once again address his arguments and questions, he stops responding.
I must admit that this encounter left me with a very bad first impression. Maybe it wasn’t a completely fair impression, but it sure as hell was annoying. I particularly don’t appreciate a trollish moron accusing me of copying Wikipedia and not “understand[ing] any of it” when I’m writing on a subject that I actually know something about.