"You are quick to decry the unsubstantiated statements of others and constantly belabour the scientific process."

Why are you so vehemently opposed to an objective approach to matters (which is all that the scientific method is)? Actually, I don't think you really are opposed to it, but for some reason that I can't fathom you choose to express such a view, yet at other times you positively demand objectivity.

A further point that you seem to have neglected to consider about the scientific method is that hypothesis (speculation) is a fundamental component. The scientific process comprises: observation, hypothesis and experiment, repeated in that order with the hypothesis being improved at each cycle until it has been converted into a fully-fledged theory with the resultant empirical evidence to back it up.

Speculation by its very nature does not demand proof and it can be distingushed from fact by the inclusion of words like perhaps, maybe, what if, might, etc.

Also, since you are intent on pedantic interpretation, your use of the word "constantly" is absurd. You perhaps intended to mean "continually" or "repeatedly", but "constantly" by definition excludes any other activity and logically I do not "belabour the scientific process" while I am asleep, for instance.

In any event I don't believe that I do "belabour the scientific process", but I do expect people to be able to justify their assertions, especially where those assertions are contrary to the mainstream view. When I have been critical of others in the past, it has not been because they were indulging in speculation, but because they were making unjustified statements as though they were facts. An example would be Kevin's assertion that churches are built on a foundation of chalk because chalk is a good electrtical insulator, which prevents the earthing of "dowsable" energies. He has made many other wild claims, many of which you yourself have refuted, but that one example should be sufficient to illustrate the point.