The criticism of ad hominem attacks would be apropriate in normal circumstances but, in this case, the head of the IPCC started it with his flat earth denunciation.
Not exact matches
actually nah, most
of your points are simply «
ad hominem» because
of the way the
criticism is framed.
Ellis, though he claims to have a thick skin, has been deeply affected by the barrage
of criticism directed at him, much
of it
ad hominem.
Ante or post publication critics — some lay on the astroturf a little too generously; some lay on the artistic jealousy too heavily, though artfully veiled by emotional - political argumentation appeal (
ad hominem fallacy); some rare few find a sincere, warranted, critical proportion
of constructive
criticism.
It's nothing more than a silly «reaction» to superhero comics that uses snarky
ad hominem criticism of the genre.
There's something hypocritically like an
ad hominem attack in your
criticism of the use
of «adopted».
Kleiman's article is just an extreme example
of the kind
of ad hominem criticism of denialists common among American liberals.
The key problem in science is not censorship per se, but the censorship
of objective and scientific (not
ad hominem)
criticisms.
Either the IPCC defenders make the same objections you have, in which case the
criticism boomerangs on them big time, or the IPCCers try to argue from authority /
ad hominem, which just drags them down further into the swamp
of non-credibility.
You also demonstrate the usual AGW supporters» propensity for
ad hominem attacks, intemperate language, undergraduate - level insults and a desire to shut down
criticism of your agenda and methods by any means possible.
A funny thing has happened in climate science to scientific inquiry: the usual ethics
of free discussion and fact - based
criticism have been discarded in favor
of ad hominem attacks on critics
of AGW theory.
It's funny seeing the
criticisms of Monckton here, as they are all unsubstantiated or
ad hominem or refer to blog posts that attack a very minor point in a much larger argument.