Science has standards for dialog and debate that are the source of its efficacy. If we followed the “skeptic”‘s standards, women would still be dying in childbirth while we “dialogued” over whether to wash our hands.

Yeah, someone who thinks only <i>one</i> tower was brought down by explosives, or that the earth is a hemisphere, couldn’t possibly have a maverick position.
 
<i>Steve Bloom, re the oil-funded libertarian think tanks, you are wrong.  I have it from a good source (Fred Smith, President of the CEI) that the oil company funding has dried up.</i>

You say that you say that you think for yourself rather than trust the IPCC, but you would trust Fred Smith on this? Because some friend introduced you and so you have sort of a personal relationship with him? Is your dictionary missing the word “gullible”? Even if the oil companies are no longer funding him, it is preposterous to think that their funding has dried up generally. You might want to glance at
http://www.desmogblog.com/global-warming-denier-database

Making thing up and then providing a counter argument against the position you made up is called arguing a strawman.  For some reason, lots of people prefer to do that rather than engage the actual arguments put forward by the people with whom they disagree.

In a discussion about who funds libertarian think tanks, I would have expected a “scientist of stature” to base her defense of such organizations (40) on more than the assurances of the president of a libertarian think tank – especially in the wake of charging her fellow scientists with “corruption”.

When a challenge for more substantial evidence was made (44), I would have expected a “scientist of stature” to offer more than additional claims by the same libertarian organization.

It’s not very reassuring that you use seem to employ a common logical fallacy in your arguments. It seems like you are trying to build an Argument to Moderation fallacy. This is a common tactic by denialists of all stripes, and is usually hidden in such populist garb as “let’s have a debate” or “let’s compromise.” I’m not cazllling you a denialist personally, but this tactic is pretty common.

Would science have been improved if scientists had engaged more with skeptics who claimed that smoking did not cause cancer? It’s not my intention to say that the “science is settled” or any such easily regurgitated pablum, just to illustrate that there are cases where “cooperation” between two sides results in a net loss for society and knowledge–and especially time. I don’t see any value at all in engaging with people like Fred Smith. He has proven over and over again that he will twist facts, morph his position and essentially use any rhetorical device at his disposal to advance his agenda. Suggesting that he be taken seriously as one end of a debate is hopelessly naive. Of course he will say reasonable things to you, because if you take him seriously then that improves his position. Even if you debated him and crushed him on every point, the fact that you engaged–and that fact alone–will be used to prop up more of the false nad misleading things he says.

To conflate scientists like Mann with layman like Fred Smith is the first step toward legitimizing nonsense arguments. To criticize Mann for sloppiness and arrogance whilst ignoring the lies of people like Smith makes the problem even worse. You need only look at the AIDS denialists’ success in South Africa to see the toll that such legitimization of fringe, unprincipled voices can have on society.

Whenever the investment stakes get higher, disciplines become more important. I believe you are required to use professional statisticians in medical research circles, because if you get the numbers wrong, it may cost lives. The stakes here are high enough that there should be disciplines to deliberately include both sides. Don’t just invite it, require it.

In the spirit of following my own principle, I should mention that this runs some risk of violating “keep the story simple.” But when the stakes are high, simple isn’t enough.