Quote:
Originally Posted by HOZ
Lanny I did attack the gist of your post. The one I responded to. You list their affiliation with big oil and concluded that their ideas are false by association. Ad hominem - the attack on the person and not his ideas. Pure Lanny. You do it all the time. I just pointed it out....again.
|
Two points:
1. Exactly how is that different from your attack on Gore? You were the only one in this thread interested in even talking about Gore. He's not relevant in any way--and in any case, you attacked his character rather than his movie, which you give no evidence of having even seen.
2. Lanny did more than merely list affiliations with big oil--he listed affiliations with think tanks whose stated agenda is to create analysis paralysis by producing contrary views to the accepted science. There's a difference between ad hominem (which is what you did with Gore) and considering the credibility of a source (which is what Lanny did).
Look, it's really not that hard. Credibility is important when people have a reason to mislead us--such as the American Enterprise Institute, who notoriously offered 10,000 dollar bounties to scientists who could produce data that contradict the IPCC's findings on global warming. Cato isn't much better. These are think tanks devoted to an ideology, not scientists after the truth. You shouldn't take Greenpeace's word for stuff either--and I'm sure you don't--because they also present their material with a stated ideological agenda.
But there is a lot of honest science out there, people who are trying to learn the truth. They don't all agree with each other on the details--but they do agree on the salient points. It's not that hard to inform yourself properly, and I encourage you to do so.