<p>It wasn’t an ad hominem attack, because I wasn’t trying to discredit your views on global warming or whatever this giant monstrosity of a thread is arguing about now. You’re just sitting in a self-righteous “only RWers make personal attacks” throne, and it’s undeserved.</p>
<p>We believe in global warming like frogs believe that water boils. Nah! ;)</p>
<p>
irony indeed</p>
<p>Okay, ff, Iloveagoodbrew and neverborn, I’ll spell it out for you: each of you responded to a post by attacking someone you perceive to be somehow allied with the advocate of the position you oppose, without actually making any point regarding the subject at hand. Fundingfather apparently thinks that John Kerry’s personal residences are logically relevant to a discussion of global warming - they’re not; Iloveagoodbrew apparently thinks that Al Gore taking a plane to a conference is somehow pertinent to a discussion of global warming - that’s not either. They’re both just cheap shots at the messenger. When I point that out, neverborn brings up some guy I’ve never heard of, to prove - what? </p>
<p>In each case you’ve just taken a cheap shot at someone you believe is “on the other team” without even attempting to comment on the actual subject at hand.</p>
<p>And no, FF, pointing out that a person has resorted to argumentum ad hominem is not an ad hominem argument itself. Try to keep up, OK?</p>
<p>How about deriding young people who disagree with you–about their age, instead of facing the fact that they’ve run rings around you logically? Ad hominem?</p>
<p>Here’s a comment on you, personally - not on your position or anything - you’re an arrogant ******* who wastes an awful lot of time trying to prove to himself he is superior to teenagers. Go **** yourself. =)</p>
<p>^^ There you go, Driver - another recruit for you! A little love-bombing and you can have another mini-driver.</p>
<p>I’ve never posted anything remotely like that, Kluge. I think you’ve just engaged in another ad hominem. Enjoy your quality time with the search engine tonight.</p>
<p>A very, very wise man once said:
Words to live by. I know what you mean.</p>
<p>Kluge what is wrong with you? When did I say anything that could be construed as an ad hominem? You irrational people are as intolerable on a forum as much as you are in real life.</p>
<p>
You are not half as witty as you think. Try learning how to use sarcasm, or don’t at all.</p>
<p>The ad hominem might have been the part where you equated Al Gore and his “zealots” to creationism believers, despite the minor technicality of scientific authority being on Mr Gore’s side. Just a possibility!</p>
<p>Iloveagoodbrew, what do you consider this:
Did you view that as a pertinent comment regarding whether global warming is a valid scientific theory, which suggests that unless we take significant steps in the near future we will doom our children and grandchildren to a dismal future? Or was it just a chance to take a cheap shot at a prominent protagonist of the global warming theory? Because if it is the latter (as it appears to me) then it is an ad hominem argument. Do you have an alternative explanation as to why you posted that?
What on earth makes you think I was being sarcastic?</p>
<p>Driver: Keep swinging. Under the “infinite numbers of monkeys” hypothesis, you’re bound to actually hit something some day.</p>
<p>
Correct me if I am wrong my friend, but what part of what I said was fiction?</p>
<p>
Yes. Global warming zealots are hypocrites. That is my alternative explanation.</p>
<p>
A zealot by any other name is still a zealot. Gore has no more scientific authority on his side than creationists do.</p>
<p>
Your monkey comment sounds like more ad hominem, to me. However, the consistent opportunity to beat on you like a bad sparring partner makes it all worthwhile.</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Iloveagoodbrew, you asked:
“Global warming zealots are hypocrits” is an ad hominem argument. Please look it up. Google. Wikipedia. Whatever. You’re entitled to your opinions. Right, wrong, cogent, loony - but attacking the individuals who hold opposing viewpoints instead of addressing their theories is still “ad hominem.”</p>
<p>“Many global warming alarmists are hypocrites” is not an ad hominem argument if the alleged hypocrites are asking their fellow citizens to do that which they will not do themselves. Such as: cut down on their vacation mansions, their private planes…perhaps allow wind farms near their “compounds.” Why should I drive an electric Yugo in view of what these guys do while allegedly trying to save Gaiea? However you spell it. I’m going to bed. Kluge, you will have at least 7 hours to spout off without being cut off at the knees. G’night.</p>
<p>Let me get this right. You said that I used ad hominem before I used the term hypocrite. Not only are you a bit…uh, interesting, but you can also predict the future, eh?</p>
<p>Also, its not an ad hominem if I am right is it now?</p>
<p>Have a good night mate. I am off to see a movie.</p>
<p>Kluge, you seem to be having a hard time grasping the relevance of pointing to the hypocrisy of people like Al Gore. Al Gore has set himself up to be an “expert” on global warming and the leading advocate of cutting back on consumption as a means to solve it. He has gone so far as to compare it on equivalent terms as the holocaust. Certainly if he is to be believed, he should, as a presumed leader, be willing to lead by example. The fact that he doesn’t undermines the credibility of his position. </p>
<p>When in court do you not question the credibility of the witnesses that are challenging your client? By doing so are you indulging in an ad hominem attack? I think not.</p>
<p>However, the fact that you try to claim this as an ad hominem speaks to the “general intellectual bankruptcy” of your position.</p>
<p>FF–the difference is that a court case is not truly about truth; it’s about winning and losing. Whoever sways the jury wins the case–but this doesn’t change the facts of what actually happened. It’s not supposed to. You can win all the arguments about Al Gore you want, but that won’t change the facts about global warming. Either we need to pay attention to it or we don’t. Refusing to do so because we don’t like the messenger, rather than judging the actual message, makes no sense.</p>
<p>garland, I disagree. Gore is like the doctor who tells you that you have to lose weight but who is 75 pounds overweight and indulges in super-sized Big Macs and fries. It has nothing to do with whether you like the doctor or not. When you see that he doesn’t follow his own advice it is natural to question the message.</p>
<p>In Gore’s case, the fact that he doesn’t personally treat global warming as the holocaust that he claims it is along with the fact that there are credible scientists who question Gore’s theories opens him up to be just another cheap politician.</p>
<p>I saw the movie. The rationale behind Gore’s introduction to and continued interest in the subject of global warming seems plausible. </p>
<p>He is not a scientist, nor does he claim to be. But he is a layman who is interested enough in a subject to get acquainted with it. He is hardly the first to do so. In fact, I would venture that most people are interested in something else in addition to their chosen profession. One need to look no further than CC to find scores of experts in politics and current events.</p>
<p>This, by itself, does not make him right. He asserts that this round of climate change was brought about by human actiivity and that people could change their habits that would help slow down or eliminate this process. </p>
<p>As to the first point, he cites a number of items to support his position. Many of these items are precise enough that they could fact-checked. </p>
<p>On the second point, there are some things he says he and his family do to cut back on greenhouse gas emission. The ending also mix in a number of things that people can do to cut back with the usual film credits. Nothing struck me as being particularly radical or as something that would hurt our way of life in any significant way.</p>