Originally Posted by Botnst
Look, I don't agree with the guy but I the ad hominem argument I find unproductive.
The point I thought was to be made by posting his argument is this: He is a bright guy and puts together a cogent dissenting view. If the climate change people wish to prevail sooner rather than later they better be able to address the arguments of folks like this.
Name-calling ain't gonna cut it. It doesn't convince the people who need convincing it just pisses them off. Unpersuasive trivialization of an extremely important topic.B
In the case of a paid debunker, the ad hominem argument is part of the discussion. He has a history of twisting facts in his articles, sliding dates [intertwining 50 year old data with current information in a paragraph making it all look current].
I agree that name calling or trivialization of an author is not the A Route BUT, unless people understand where the author is coming from, they don't know how to interpret the data. Just reading the Sloan Scholar at MIT at the bottom of the article gives one impression of Dr. Lindzen. That is not, however his whole story on the subject.
When Lindzen worked in Lexington on his Acid Rain project, he was paid big bucks [$100,000 grant for 3 months] to write a paper that 'reviewed' papers by researchers that stated that acid rain was caused by high sulfur, bituminous coal... His paper, shockingly opposed that view. It was later debunked, the paying organization was charged with fraud and the University had a shakeup in that department. Lindzen kept his money.