Oh yeah =)

…, Crichton bundles up the whole of climate science into one bad bunch.

it is just worth pointing out that Crichton’s evidence is the opposite of this; he specifically says:

…I am not casting aspersions on the motives or fair-mindedness of climate scientists.

I think that is a fairly clear example of the deep chasm between your “implications”, and the text of what Crichton actually said.
yours
per

“are their predictions [climate models] of any use to policymakers? I would argue they are not”

sounds bad, till you realise that it is prefaced in the speech by:

“For example, the UN Third Assessment Report defines general circulation climate models as unverifiable. If that’s true,”

so the answer to your question:

Is he not once again dismissing a whole branch of climate science out of hand.

is NO, and his evidence goes nowhere near that.

It is interesting to see that you use selective quotation and mis-representation as an argument.
yours
per

Nancy Oliveri’s lawyer is another Toronto Mc – Jim McDonald, who’s a close friend of ours, so I’ve followed Oliveri’s many legal battles with interest. The protocols for medical review articles (“Evidence-Based Medicine”) have been heavily contributed to in southern Ontario (e.g. Guyatt). “Skepticism” was a term originally associated with David Hume in Scotland and maybe some skeptical traditions persist in the Scottish diaspora within Ontario.

“Single Stage to orbit. The way God and Heinlein intended it.”

It was after reading Heinlein’s “The Moon is a Harsh Mistress,” circa 1979, that I came up with the idea of a space elevator.

It was only many years later that I heard it had been suggested decades before.

Just which of the proxy-based temperature reconstruction papers are worth more than the paper they’re printed on and why do you say so given what’s been presented on this site? In particular do you agree or disagree with the assertion that bristlecome pines are not useful temperature proxies?