This kind of Gish Gallop is why our skeptic resource would be so useful. Without lifting a finger other than a few clicks with the Firefox Add-on, we've already created a near comprehensive rebuttal of this article:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/article.php?a=5137

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptic_David_Archibald.htm

The skeptic resource is still buggy and not fit for public consumption but in the meantime, when the skeptic big guns spew forth, we should add them to the database so that the skeptic resource can hit the ground running when it's ready for launch.

Should we have a "Skeptic of the Week" award or something like that - some kind of weekly blog post where we highlight the article cramming the most skeptic arguments in a single article? Or rehashes old material? Or have an automated page that just lists these kinds of articles in a top ten kind of list. List them by skeptic? We have same amazing data here that we need to make more accessible to people - just wondering if there's a way to promote/launch/structure it to give it a bit of x-factor, make it interesting.

The "Monckton Meander" Award? :-)

Showing all their photos in the one place - without saying a word, shows how the fraternity of skeptics are a bunch of old, white haired men:

Anthony Watts

Bob Carter

Christopher Monckton

David Archibald

Fred Singer

Harrison Schmitt

Richard Lindzen

Roy Spencer

The Wall of Scientific Shame

But then we should rise a lot of money to pay for a good lawyer for John :)

Robert,

- There is a difference: These are all very public people, who give talks and presentations. I don't think any of them would have a legitimate beef about being over-exposed.

- As long as we don't label it a "wall of shame," I don't think they'll even mind.

There may not be a problem with them specifically redoing the deed, but perhaps with other less-known contrarians who might seek retribution for such a tactic?

I like the idea of a skeptic of the month, but a wall of shame might be pushing it.  Perhaps a wall of shame for the arguments put forth by them, though that's being redundant I suppose.

And in defense of the skeptics, they're not a group of old white haired men.  Some are losing their hair. 

I shouldn't talk, I am thinning on top.

It would have to be carefully done to avoid ad hominem but instead focus on the science. The point of Monckton Myths was not to attack Monckton but his arguments. This would be the same - a scientific resource but the science grouped around individuals.

That's what I have here - a directory of skeptics:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/skeptics.php?f=embargoed

But it's not live yet. Still building the database of skeptics plus their arguments. I also welcome everyone to add articles to each skeptic's page whenever you encounter an article written by a skeptic - so we can keep building this resource in a crowd sourcing kind of way (many hands...). Here are instructions on how to add articles to a skeptic:

How to assign articles to skeptics