Obama is going to destroy your beloved manned space program. You have less than one year to get your act together. Make wise use of your time.

“Oh wad some power the giftie gie us to see oursels as others see us!”

Me thinks tis time to close this one down, Jeff.

This will become quite apparent to you after the next election cycle is over.

I will be observing, as usual, with great humor and mirth, at your misfortune.

Dave

Actually, if you knew anything about science at all, you would understand that there is no single ‘scientific method’, but rather a multitude of methods which evolve continuously, and in the case of certain paradigm shifts, abruptly and discretely. Furthermore, you would also understand that skepticism without evidence (I suppose you would call that ‘mild’ skepticism) isn’t a valid approach. What is considered a valid scientific method is anything that works and produces results that are useful, and can be reproducibly and repeatably verified or even falsified (i.e. Popper).

I have clearly pointed out that worldclimatereport is a fossil fuel funded shill website run by incompetent and corrupt scientists, who produce no white paper on the site, and when they do produce peer reviewed white papers, they are invariably flawed, and even outright wrong. I did this using simple methods of scientific research, which are accessible even to children in elementary school.

Now if you wish to remain skeptical, I would be more than happy to review your paradigm breaking evidence, but until then, I can assure you I have personally read a large fraction of the relevant white paper on global warming and its associated effects, and I have in the past collected data which has subsequently been incorporated into the volume of evidence, and thus I am qualified to review and judge the veracity of your claims, should you ever get around to making any. Until then, you are not credible.

The ad hominen attack seem to be the favored “method” of debate by both sides. However, the pro-AGW people seem to have taken a master-class in it, to the extent that anyone with even a mildly skeptical attitude is classed as a “denier” or some equivalent epithet that casts them as a danger to society.

This is not how the scientific method works and it certainly does not help to “persuade” anyone, though I’m sure it intimidates many.

And you can say these things with a straight face and in all honesty, because quite honestly, you are too dumb to know any better :

Patrick J. Michaels, also known as Pat Michaels, is a “global warming skeptic” who argues that global warming models are fatally flawed and, in any event, we should take no action because new technologies will soon replace those that emit greenhouse gases.

Michaels, who has completed a Ph.D. in Ecological Climatology from the University of Wisconsin-Madison (1979) is Editor of the World Climate Report. He is also associated with two think tanks: a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute.

Looking very unbiased there. Let’s look further :

Michaels was previously a Professor of Environmental Science at the University of Virgina. While Michaels referred to himself as the State Climatologist for Virginia, in August 2006 the Governor clarified that the appointment was one by the University for its accredited climatology office but not an appointment by the state administration. When Michaels left the university in September 2007, UVa professor James N. Galloway explained that Michaels’ “utility industry funding, private research and controversial views on global warming made him a lightning rod on climate change issues,” and “left the [climatologist’s] office too politicized.”

Writing in Harpers Magazine in 1995, author Ross Gelbspan noted that “Michaels has received more than $115,000 over the last four years from coal and energy interests. World Climate Review, a quarterly he founded that routinely debunks climate concerns, was funded by Western Fuels.”

A furor was raised when it was revealed in 2006 that, at customer expense, Patrick Michaels was quietly paid $100,000 by an electric utility, Intermountain Rural Electric Association, which burns coal to help confuse the issue of global warming.

Wow, that’s actually quite corrupt by my definition. Let’s see more :

Michaels “co-operated with Ross McKitrick on another paper that managed to “prove” that global warming wasn’t happening by [http://timlambert.org/2004/08#mckitrick6 mixing up degrees with radians].”

Michaels has written papers claiming that satellite temperature data shows no global warming trend. But he got this result by cutting the data off after 1996. (Every year after 1996 the satellite measurement showed warming.) Another paper made the bizarre claim that the temperature increases were meaningless because they correlated closely to GDP, without explaining how the GDP caused the increase warming. (A more likely explanation is that high-GDP countries tend to be at higher lattitudes, where global warming has the most impact).

Ok, not only is that corrupt, it’s incompetent. Did you vote for Bush as well?

Now, it’s clear to most people who read white paper on a daily basis that you have no idea what white paper really is. Why don’t you list some white paper you have read lately, or tell us what you think what paper really is.

Well, I do read the reviews of papers over at worldclimatereport.com and similar sites that seem to make an effort to present an unbiased view (which is also why I also try and avoid the stuff over at realclimate.org