> Papers that are not addressing AGW and take no position on AGW are irrelevant, no matter how many ad hominem labels you spew and assumptions you make.
That statement is incorrect. Such papers are specifically relevant. Scientific papers that do not take a position are not excluded as a factual record that serves as credible evidence. Irrelevancy would be based on insufficient rigor or correlation.
> Taking it further, the prototypal approach to OO that JS uses is, without question, superior to the classical approach
Please point to the study that demonstrates this. I would argue the opposite.
Runtime definition of types (modifications to a prototype has the same effect) has never been shown to be more productive than static typing, so I have to question assertions that it's obviously true.
> Python would be examples of popular languages that would clearly be worse than JS on the web
Java on a browser wouldn't be Java anymore than javascript is (they share some syntax!). Any modern scripting language is going to have to deal with a browser environment in similar ways, so we can just treat them the same. Why isn't a scripting language appropriate? Yes you would have to design a syntax for portability and make a browser vm, but so what? That's part of implementing a language in what we currently have as a browser client.
"Money is the root of all money." -- the moving finger