"...you have literal FAITH in Lidzen and Happer..."

You're projecting. They're disproving lies, which I support.

"why should I trust them?"

When did I recommend trusting anyone? They're not proved to be liars, yet, as NASA is. Prove them wrong and I'll agree with you. You tried, but instead proved NASA wrong. When an honest man learns he is wrong, he either ceases to be wrong, or ceases to be honest. Liars just keep on lying, which is why you should not believe anything a liar says.

"your praise is unreal."

You're making shit up and putting words in my mouth. Have you so little self esteem you have to malign others to feel good about yourself?

"...consensus is important..."

Consensus is the antithesis of science.

"Historically, the claim of consensus has been the first refuge of
scoundrels…If it is consensus, it isn't science. If it's science, it
isn't consensus."--Michael Crichton 'Aliens Cause Global Warming', Caltech Michelin Lecture (Jan. 17, 2003).

"...scientific knowledge is determined by the scientific method, testing
theory with observations, not by government opinion, consensus, peer review or cherrypicked, fabricated, falsified or omitting contradictory data."--Lindzen and Happer (2025).

"it's so you can't forge results."

No. The scientific method prevents forging results, because independent replication of research, critical reading of papers, and earnest discussion enables such fraud to be discovered. Consensus can be - and is - bought, and buys exactly that fraud. This is why we discuss evidence and data in actual scientific debate, not what everyone says is such and so. Replication and refutation isn't consensus. It's the opposite of consensus, because it's actually reproducing the experiment to check the results and proving them wrong when you do. Consensus is just taking everybody at their word, without checking to see if they're telling the truth, and today there are $275T reasons for corruption of scientific research.

But you're not discussing evidence and data, you're searching for ways (and making them up when you can't find any) to malign me, the authors of the linked paper, in fact anything besides the linked paper and the disproof of the AGW scam. I feel you're acting in bad faith.