Yes, it’s clear that people will leave all sorts of junk out there, not because they want to get rid of it — like dumping an old refrigerator in the woods — but because they want to create fear, uncertainty, and doubt (FUD) in the community of ideas. Unfortunately, this has the effect of poisoning the atmosphere for truly novel ideas in climate science that should be considered.
It really should be no more difficult for you to debunk a serious and earnestly contributed idea as having to wade through the FUD. Note how in the discussion to my own idea, the NOAA reviewer essentially says he has “wasted his time”.
He doesn’t realize that his fellow NOAA scientists have equally novel ideas that they are throwing out there, e.g. http://moregrumbinescience.blogspot.com/2016/01/earth-sun-distance-and-chandler-wobble.html
Same goes for NASA scientists who give up in their quest for funding on these angles, see https://www.moonclimate.org/
All of these get lost in the noise of climate change clutter.
One has to recognize that William Connolley (via Wikipedia) and the folks at SkepticalScience.com have taken their “gatekeeping” duties too zealously, and may routinely throw out the baby with the bathwater for any new climate science research that may come about from amateur channels. Unlike astronomy and astrophysics, where amateur input is typically welcomed, these channels seem to be not conducive to new ideas. I have tried adding discussions to SS.com but they clamp down quickly, to the point I no longer use it as a resource for climate science innovation news — that’s why at least RealClimate.com is refreshing.
Challenge to Skeptical Science is to debunk the stuff that is cutting edge research, such as this from Marcus, previously of NASA JPL. Does an Intrinsic Source Generate a Shared Low-Frequency Signature in Earth’s Climate and Rotation Rate?