… in the Eco-Chamber:

That means we no longer have the luxury of polite, time-consuming public debate on the issue. “We have to be much more aggressive about pinpointing our enemies, and doing it early—showing how and where they are spending their money to undermine our efforts,” he says. “We need to learn how to inflict pain on the opposition.”

As the saying goes, if you want some, come and get it.

Carl Sagan’s bunkometer can be found in Demon Haunted World. It’s meant to work as a checklist for sceptical thinking, or as a guide for good science. And the warmists score …

• Whenever possible there must be independent confirmation of the “facts”
• Encourage substantive debate on the “evidence” by knowledgable proponents of all points of view.
• Arguments from authority carry little weight as “authorities” have made mistakes in the past. They will do so again in the future. Perhaps a better way to say it is that there are no authorities; at most; there are “experts”.
• Spin a variety of hypotheses. If there’s something to be explained, think of all the different ways in which it could be explained. Then think of tests by which you might systematically disprove each. The ones that survive are the ones to do in depth study on.
• Do not become attached to any hypothesis just because it’s yours. Find reasons for rejecting all, including your own, hypothesis.
• Quantify. If whatever you are explaining has a measure, quantify it so that measurement is more possible. Vague hypothesis, or those difficult to quantify will be the most difficult to prove or disprove.
• If there is a chain argument, then each and every link must work, including the premise.
• Use Occam’s Razor; which is to choose the hypothesis that explains the data in the simplest terms.
• Ask: is the Hypothesis testable and falsifiable. Hypothesis that are not testable are not worth much. Could you duplicate accurately, at least theoretically, the hypothesis?

WOULD YOU LIKE INSTRUCTIONS?
h/t Robert W. (Vancouver)