If we apply the same level of nit picking and skepticism to EnaG, not a single one of his observations stand up to any scrutiny at all!
This. And this is where I question whether Tom is serious about FE research or a FE model which matches observations.
Any experiment described in ENaG or which seems to confirm a result in ENaG is accepted unquestionably.
Any experiment which shows that result to be wrong is either declared fake or analysed and analysed until any tiny speck of doubt can be found and it is dismissed.
It's a pretty dishonest way of working.
Tom produced a video of a drone which he claims showed the horizon staying the same as it rose. It didn't, you can clearly see the horizon dropping as the drone rises. When I pointed that out he just said that the video isn't stabilised...well, it's no good for proving the result then, is it?
Then he produced a video showing a camera on one building looking across another building which claimed that the horizon hadn't dipped. The problems with that were
1) The horizon actually was a couple of pixels below the roof of the other building
2) The buildings were 7 stories high and near the coast, so not high enough to clearly show the result
3) There was absolutely no way of calibrating or telling that the camera was the same height as the other building.
I know Tom likes the idea of a debating club and the idea of people arguing from a position they don't hold, I suspect that is what he is doing here.
And of course for a debate you need to have two people who take contrary positions.
But where it gets dishonest is if one side is clearly shown to be wrong just refusing to accept that or concede any ground.
Then it just becomes frustrating and pointless.