Here's another example of a weak and dishonest debate tactic from Sam Sham:

Me: "If you want to debate that actual scientists doubt global warming, that's one thing. Let's hear which scientists you mean, from which universities and research groups, and what peer-reviewed scientific journals they've contributed to."

You: I gave you the links."

Here it is, the most important question of the debate, and all you can do is utter a single sentence referring me back to vague links (which ones?) hidden in dozens of your posts which are filled with dozens of links. Do you expect people to go to all your links and read every article? I did follow a few of your links but I found them to be mostly concerned with peripheral subjects that didn't have much bearing on the central debate. I didn't see any links from you that directly addressed why the science of global warming is false. If you cut-and-pasted them, why is it so hard for you to cut-and-paste them again?

Here's an example of an outright falsification from Sam Sham in response to a direct question:

Me:"How do you separate credible modern scientists from cultish modern scientists? What is your basis for delineation?"

You: Of course, evidence. Like when someone says we have a consensus when I'm looking at multiple articles saying it's not true."

Actually, the use of the word "consensus" is accurate. Please look up the word in the dictionary. Then show me your evidence that a consensus does not exist. You say "I'm looking at multiple articles saying it's not true." Which articles are you looking at? How many is multiple? What are your sources? What are the links? How are you defining consensus? This is one of the pivotal points of this debate -- since it directly relates to the Camille Paglia article -- and you've blown it. You're quite loquacious when it comes to pasting details about cult medicine, but you can't be bothered to provide information about the actual subject?

"But if you're poo-pooing (or ignoring) what's going outside your Ivory Tower, how would you know anything either?"

Again with the "Ivory Tower" label. What purpose does this sentence even serve other than ad hominem?

Yet another Sam Sham diversion, this one semantic:

Me: "How can you say "all global-warming scientists are cultish" at the same time you say "all neuroscientists are legitimate"?"

You: "You're refusing to be fair - I may have, at one point, implied something but I'd never say "all" scientists are anything. You're not even reading what I say."

In no way did I "refuse to be fair" by asking this question. You're getting hung up on my use of the word "all," but that isn't even what the question is about. The question is this: You have decided that climate scientists are not using legitimate science and instead are involved in some sort of cultish, herd-like thought process. How can you be sure this is true? What have you seen from the scientists, from the actual scientists (and not observers), that displays a different approach than from other scientists whom you consider legitimate? Can you provide examples? (Do not tell me "I already gave links," because you didn't, and if you did, then give them again.)

"Like I said, come out of your tower, professor."

This is something Sam Sham wrote in response to one of my legitimate questions. Just ad hominem. I am very familiar with James Randi (whom you look up to) and he is always very critical of those who descend to ad hominem in debates. So you might want to re-think your methods.