PaulP:"Dave, so you say that NOAA has all the answers, eh?"
No, NOAA only has some ENSO answers, not all. I continue insisting its a long game, like progress in Weather Modeling and Prediction.
I disagree with Billy too. He did not waste that hour pouring out his skepticism, but diligently provided an honorably contrasting interpretation to yours, in accord with the "Elephant" analogy. "Motivated reasoning" is only bad if one is wrong; then its a rather gentlemanly let-down. NOAA is not "laughably ignorant about how to do (ENSO) physics", except perhaps to the most pitiably ignorant. Rejection by Copernicus Publications means little, even if they use less CAPS than me. Keep trying.
There is a way forward by asserting ENSO Lunisolar Forcing is weak but probable. As a Chaotic System, ENSO is sensitive to initial conditions, therefore occasionally susceptible to Tidal Forcing. As a Quantum Analog System, there must be greater-than-zero entanglement of Lunisolar and ENSO statistics. These are not easy "proofs" of the rigor Wilczek demands, but if you do the homework, you can prevail. Then you might teach NOAA a thing or two.
The winner of ENSO Modeling controversy will be whoever bends from crude starting assumptions (eg. Laplace) to first fit the final validated truths. Best of Luck to You and Billy both, to arrive at that same true science together.