Pointing to the flaws in argument is integral to the ongoing vigorous debate here. It is counterproductive to denigrate posters who use scientific argument. By and large, denier websites avoid scientific argument in favour of the moncktonesque approach; hiding lies within half truths and then brandishing the truthful parts to conceal the lies. Science progresses only when flaws are suspected, described, identified/proven and acknowledged.
Denialsts are very good at suspecting what they imagine as flaws, good at describing them, often ad nauseum, but rather hopeless at taking their arguments any further with any kind of scientific integrity.
How often do we see the supposed "hockey stick graph" pursued? It never gets anywhere because the denialists don't have valid arguments. The Monckton, "hide the lies approach", just doesn't fit into the scientific method.
