It's interesting to read this thread and see you guys arguing. There's a special art to acting very calm in internet discussions, not expressing any emotions except a generally positive friendly attitude; without this people tend to get into fights, because everyone tends to interpret comments as being a bit more negative than they actually are. However, I suppose a few small fights are an okay way to get to know each other.

I'm very reluctant to study models of the Earth's climate that involve physics ideas that seem "radical" or "heretical" to ordinary climate scientists, because I don't know much climate science, and it seems dangerous to try wild ideas in a subject I'm still just beginning to learn. I don't mind doing wild and crazy things in subjects that I've studied for a long time. But it seems best to start out more cautiously.

Also there's the practical political aspect, that climate scientists won't take the Azimuth Project seriously if we do stuff they think is crazy!

So:

1) I'm reluctant to embrace Paul Pukite's models that couple the Earth's heat energy to its rotational energy.

2) I've been reluctant to embrace Nadja Kutz's theory that an exact biannual cycle in the Earth's temperature could arise from a resonance of the magnetic fields of Earth and Sun.

In both cases I'm happy (of course) to let you folks study these ideas, but I wouldn't want the "Azimuth Project" brand name to be attached to them.

On the other hand, pure data analysis (as opposed to model building) seems slightly less controversial. So, for example, if Nadja could get good statistical evidence that there _is_ an exact biannual temperature cycle, that's the kind of thing I might be happy to investigate this further, by doing more statistics.

(Of course even data analysis is controversial in climate science, so my word "slightly" is important here.)

Anyway, I need to spend the next 30 days getting ready for my NIPS talk, so that's what I'll be concentrating on for the next month.