[ale] Disappointed in the recent climate research hack

[david w. millians]

Doug McNash wrote:
> Similarly you argue:
> Professor Lindzen does not believe in AGW. Lindzen does not believe
> smoking causes cancer.  Therefore, AGW must be true because Lindzen
> is obviously a kook since everybody know smoking causes cancer
> (another "consensus").  By the same logic it could be argued that the
> sun rises in the west because everything Lindzen asserts is false.
> 
> This is the Ad Hominem argument, attacking the person instead of
> attacking his argument.

To clarify:
You're right. I am using a bit of ad hominem. But, I feel it is warranted.

It is not a "consensus." It is a consensus. Indeed, it is a fact that if 
you smoke, you vastly increase negative effects on your body, and you 
dramatically increase your odds of cancer.

Now, me saying this does not mean that he is not wholly correct about 
climate change. He might be. However, if you have a person who is 
willing to pick nits to an infinite degree to be able to try to get 
around the central concept that smoking is bad, and to assuage the fact 
that he started a stupid behavior and is too addicted to quit, I find it 
wholly reasonable to use that lens to filter his other comments through.

If he held similar views on "evolution" (quotes added for comparison) he 
would be under scrutiny just the same way. I find this a valid method of 
the process of evaluating a person's trustworthiness.

I find this quite similar, actually, to the reports that come out from 
orgs (paid by Microsoft) about the money that Windows saves vs. Linux 
and about how all is rainbows and unicorns.