I thank the reviewers for their useful comments and in particular for wading through a very spirited exchange, both for this paper and for the previous paper to which this manuscript responds. After reviewing the manuscript discussion, I have decided to accept the recommendations of reviewers #2 and #3 that this manuscript be published, subject to minor revisions. To me, science is about vigorous debate from which community-vetted, leading hypotheses can emerge. I view commentaries like this one as essential for scientific progress and understanding.

In the interest of improving the manuscript, I will expect point-by-point responses to the reviewers’ comments consisting of either descriptions of how the manuscript has been modified to address the comments or evidence-based rebuttals. As reviewer #1 states, the discussion that does not involve the three anonymous reviewers has digressed quite far from both the initial L&V paper and this comment on it, so responses to these points may be omitted unless they are germane to the manuscript. Reviewer #2 has kindly included a summary of the exchange and its relevance to the present manuscript.

I could not help but notice that part of the debate appeared to stem from fundamental misunderstandings about what this commentary is attempting to do or the methodology employed. In revising the manuscript, I would encourage the authors to keep this in mind. If someone has misunderstood something in the paper, there is perhaps an opportunity to provide additional clarity of language, methodology, or purpose.

As a final word of caution, I would like to echo sentiments brought up by the reviewers. At times, it seemed as though the exchange was frustrating to both parties, and understandably so. However, I will expect that all criticisms, both in the response to reviewers and in the final manuscript, will be of the original paper, not of the authors.

The authors have done a nice job of addressing the reviewers' comments. This manuscript will be suitable for publication after two issues are addressed:
1. There appears to be a typesetting error in line 202.
2. The inclusion of Section 4 appears to be in response to a particularly vigorous (and no doubt frustrating) exchange during the discussion process. However, much of the content appears to be tangential to the main arguments and instead expound upon what the authors see as broader issues in climate science. While I sympathize with the authors' intentions to point out larger problems, I question whether this section is germane to the original purpose of writing this commentary. I recommend that most of this section be cut, and if there are points that truly are important to the manuscript, they should be woven into the other sections.