I've not seen any. I've seen links to blogs and journalists who don't appear to be capable of understanding the science. If you can find even a single peer-reviewed study that supports the counter-argument then please post it. This debate is ludicrously one-sided in terms of evidence.
Incredible. Another link to an idiot blog site as evidence. All the data indicate that globally, the past decade was the hottest, not the coldest, decade on record, and an extension of a consistent 100 year trend. Which part of "globally" are you incapable of understanding? And you don't have any scientists supporting your view.
To be fair - he is absolutely being allowed to participate. If his posts were being deleted that would be different. To turn it around, why should Mel not be entitled to put his own viewpoint equally robustly? And which partisan sources are you referring to here? Is that another "scientists are partisan" accusation?
Please - keep going - you are making our point perfectly. If your argument amounts to the observations (1) that the terms "climate change" and "global warming" are both being used (even though the climate change referred to is a warming trend) and (2) that scientific opinions sometimes change (even though they haven't in this case), then you are an excellent example of the irrational and unscientific mindset that @melgross and I were discussing.
The patent certainly indicates separate sensors for each color, and so the beam splitter is not losing light - simply distributing it between the sensors. And since light intensity is not wasted on sensors that filter it out (e.g. red light falling on a blue sensor element) as happens in a conventional single-sensor system, this design is theoretically more light efficient.