A layman I sensed something was wrong with that rebuttal but I did not know what.
This kind of thing is what converted me from a die hard AGW to an outright opponent. There always seems to be some twist, some complex "counter explanation" that doesn't make sense and is filled "scientific jargon". Any question of any report like this, even asking if the article is substantiated elsewhere, draws accusations and insults. "Denier" is an insult, has religious roots and is like screaming "heretic"
If you have to explain what you do with confusing jargon, whether in the computer industry, hi fi, or hawking cheap **** on a midway, then it's likely they don't know what they're talking about or want to deliberately mislead.
A good idea doesn't need lies and exaggerations to live. And aren't we going to see the end of life as we know it next year according to Al Gore?