Interesting. I'm involved in the skeptical movement, and while I've encountered a few similar to what you describe, my impression is that most skeptics don't fall into that category. Skeptics are generally proud that they update based on evidence. Indeed, the most prominent exceptions help drive this point home. PZ Myers has said repeatedly that nothing would convince him that there's a deity and he's been repeatedly hammered by most of the skeptical movement over this statement.

There is a subtype of Donna the 'smug Atheist skeptic' who thinks he knows enough already and spends his day battling superstition.

Again, I like your characters but I think you're missing one. The person who thinks that belief in [a] God is the result of rational and reasonable thought.

I'll be there

could you write the program in your spare time and run the program while you're there, while making it seem like you're working?

My observations on tonight's competition:

The way Watson "sniped" the daily double immediately upon taking control of the board was very interesting to me. I suspect that it was programmed with a statistical distribution of past daily doubles (this site strongly suggests that their placement is not random). Otherwise, its behavior seems inconsistent, given that afterward it went after the 200-point question in each category, presumably in order to get a better read on the qualities of each category.

Its lack of audio input led it to repeat a wrong answer, which was one (probably predictable) flaw. It had trouble with the decades and alternate word meanings, which isn't surprising given the explanation that its algorithms are based on word association. Also, it needs to read more Harry Potter.

I've downloaded a couple of files from there, but they are all encrypted, and nowhere on the site was it clear as to what was the decryption password.

How to find scientific data:

1. Do some research to find out what the two leading entry-level university textbooks are on the subject. To do this, check online course syllabi to see what they're using. Or, just do some searching. After 60 seconds on Google and Amazon, I found these two textbooks on global warming. I dunno if they're the best, but they'll probably do. Be sure to get textbooks and not single-author academic studies, which may be highly skewed toward a particular position that is not mainstream.

2. Skim the textbooks so that you get a sense for the major concepts of the field and how they relate to each other. I buy a lot of textbooks, but maybe you don't want to spend the money. In that case, you can call around to find what university bookstores have the ones you want in stock, then go there and hang out and read it in the store. Or, buy it online and sell it back. If you keep it in good condition, you sometimes end up spending only $20-$30 on the textbook. If either of these two options are inconvenient, well... that's research, yo.

3. Now that you know the standard terms involved, Google searches and Google scholar searches will do wonders.

4. Even better, any textbook worth its salt will give citations for some of the major studies that support its basic claims (they usually mention lots of large meta-analyses, for example).

5. Make a list of all the papers you want to read. Go to an on-campus library at a major university nearby (I drive 30 minutes to UCLA every couple of weeks). Usually you don't need a library card to sit down at one of their computers and download a bunch of papers (they'll have access to JSTOR, etc. on campus computers) to your flash drive. If they don't allow flash drives, upload the PDFs to your free (or paid) Dropbox account.

6. But usually, the textbooks themselves will contain a good overview of which debates are relatively solved, and which ones remain open. They will also describe what major questions need to be answered to solve the open questions, and what the evidence currently suggests. Of course, it's important to get the very latest edition of the textbook. Be sure to check The Best Textbooks on Every Subject.

7. Depending on what you want to learn, you may have to get a more advanced textbook on a narrower subject, but it will probably still help to skim a lower-level textbook to get a handle for the basic concepts involved in the larger field.

8. Did I mention textbooks?

Aubrey de Grey has proposed comprehensively preventing cancer by eliminating genes that code for lengthening of telomeres altogether and supplementing with stem cells on a periodic basis. The periodic stem cell infusions would also act as a delivery mechanism for his proposed solution to the mitochondria problem, i.e. moving certain critical mitochondrial genes to the nucleus.

I think aging will take too long to cure for most of us to benefit from it, so I generally emphasize cryonics. But it is certainly fascinating to read de Grey's proposals, and seems plausible enough that it could work soon if there is big money behind it, i.e. to be a good gamble. It has a high payout in total human lives saved, since (assuming rapid global distribution) developing it a day sooner would effectively save 100,000 people; thus even if one does not anticipate being alive to benefit, that is a significant charitable accomplishment.

Arguably the same is the case of suspended animation research -- it could easily be that reversible cryopreservation would happen within our lifetimes if there was big money behind it. The beauty of suspended animation research is that it coincides with increasing the chances of cryonics working. Rejuvenation research is likely more applicable to the eventual reanimation phase of cryonics.

From the perspective of a biomedical scientist-in-training here. I think you may be underestimating the role that other types of biology research, that's not specifically labeled "longevity" will play in attaining 'immortality.'

For example, it may be necessary to cure cancer before we can safely switch off the cellular aging process. The fact that cancer has such an impact on society makes cancer one of the best funded areas of research, but I don't think you can accurately say that this comes at the opportunity cost of longevity knowledge, because they are really compliments. Most of our knowledge of human cell biology comes from studying cell lines isolated from cancer.

Meanwhile, specialized research increases our general knowledge that, purposeful or not, is leading to longevity if not immortality outright.