I think one reason Glenn gets frustrated with you is that he's foreseeing in
you, I hope incorrectly, the common pattern of incorrigible rejection of a
contrary thesis, so that no matter how many counterfacts he offers, you'll
(he fears) simply ignore those areas and move on to other, new purported
supporting evidence, ad infinitum.
To get away from that: what sort of evidence (data or credible theories)
could Glenn offer that would refute Petersen -in your view-? I.e., "if
Petersen assertion X were shown wrong, I'd agree Petersen was mistaken",
where X = ?
And do you agree that the burden of proof is on Petersen? Or is it on his
critics?
--John