I would also prefer simple and straightforward evidence, but I have told, why I believe that having it at a level that can be presented in net discussion is not possible.
We can tell our arguments to a point, but there’s a limit on that. Real scientific publications are the venue for the most complete discussion, when things get too complicated for net discussion.
I do sincerely hope that more working climate scientists would join the critical discussion, where also stupid comments are allowed and where the approach differs from that of RC, but I don’t expect that everything could be discussed properly on this kind of sites even with their participation.
For some reason no site that I know has been able to attract critical technical discussion of the type that I would consider most valuable for people, who have solid background knowledge, but who are not working climate scientists.