|Source: Rossland Telegraph|
|Source: Rossland Telegraph|
ad ho·mi·nemadverb and adjective(of an argument or reaction) directed against a person rather than the position they are maintaining.
The rules of impeachment allow an attorney to attack the credibility of any witness even a witness called in support of that attorney’s position. An attorney may use any evidence to impeach the credibility of a witness but that rule is not automatic. In most cases courts will only allow an attorney to attack a witness’s credibility using evidence of prior convictions involving dishonesty or untruthfulness. While a court may allow an attorney to question a witness about other incidents in their past, a judge will not allow this line of questioning if he/she determines that it is not probative (tending to prove) in establishing whether a witness is telling the truth or not.
However, in some cases, ad hominem attacks can be non-fallacious; i.e., if the attack on the character of the person is directly tackling the argument itself. For example, if the truth of the argument relies on the truthfulness of the person making the argument—rather than known facts—then pointing out that the person has previously lied is not a fallacious argument.
These are two people whose job it is to deceive the public about climate change and are both paid shills of the fossil fuel industry. Tom Harris has strong ties to the tobacco and fossil fuel industries, even though he continues to deny it. He also has a strong affiliation with the Heartland Institute which is currently recommending the EPA appoint a man who was arrested on charges of raping his own children and convicted of attempted sodomy on his own under-age daughter. (http://dialoguesonglobalwarming.blogspot.com/2017/11/heartland-institute-reveals-its-true.html) These are the people Tom Harris has professional association with. You can read more about his deceptions on climate change at http://tomharrisicsc.blogspot.com/2016/12/tom-harris-paid-shill.html
Contrary to his by-line, Tim Ball is a doctor of historical geography. He is not a climatologist as he claimed and was not a member of the Department of Climatology at the University of Winnipeg. There was no such department while he was there. He has never been a climate scientist and does not have any peer-reviewed papers on the subject. When Ball sued a paper for libel, the court documents stated, Ball "never held a reputation in the scientific community as a noted climatologist and authority on global warming." Continuing, the courts also stated, "The Plaintiff's credentials and credibility as an expert on the issue of global warming have been repeatedly disparaged in the media,” and "The Plaintiff is viewed as a paid promoter of the agenda of the oil and gas industry rather than as a practicing scientist."
[Anthony]Watts was also on list the Heartland Institute gave to the EPA. Other names included Edwin Berry, the self-funded researcher who spews Islamophobic vitriol online and compares belief in climate change to Aztec human sacrifices; Alan Carlin, the so-called “whistleblower” who challenged the EPA’s finding that rising greenhouse gases warm the planet; and Joe Bastardi, a meteorologist who made repeated appearances on disgraced former Fox News host Bill O’Reilly’s show to yell about why global warming isn’t a problem.
- “be briefing news reporters and news readers at Fox News.”
- “reach the President by tweeting on the issue.”
- “hold more congressional hearings.”
- “simplify the issue by focusing on one or only a few arguments and images.”
- “identify a few good spokespersons and focus on promoting them.”
- “stop chasing the other side’s latest argument and focus instead on the benefits of CO2.”
- “focus on the 'tuning scandal' that discredits the models.”
- “turn debate from referring to median temperatures to high temperatures, which show no trend.”
- “find independent funding for Roy Spencer, David Schnare, Willie Soon, Craig Idso, David Legates, etc.”
- “push Pruitt to start a proceeding for reconsideration of the Endangerment Finding… he won’t do it without pressure”
- “we need to be able to say 'EPA is reconsidering whether CO2 is a pollutant.'”
- “emphasize that we are pro-science and pro-environment… and the other side is not”
- “fundamentally challenge, reform, or replace the National Academy of Sciences, the source of much pseudoscience.”
- “conduct a new survey of scientists to refute the 97% consensus claims.”
- “sue a company for not increasing CO2 emissions, force a court to consider the evidence on CO2 benefits.”
|Source: NSIDC Sea Ice Index|
“The media is so easy to fall for misdirections on this issue, and the Trump nominees have mastered that this week,” he said. “You sort of just laugh at how gullible the media is.”
Meanwhile, what's up with the "the sold[sic] job of attacking one particular blogger" line? What blogger? Show us all exactly where it says that. Surely you don't actually believe the "Pulitzer Prize-winning investigative journalist" Ross Gelbspan is a mere blogger, do you?? Really???