Monday, July 21, 2008

Rocket scientist brought back to earth

In the comments section of the blog of L. Ron Bolt, a cry of dissent. Or was it a straight-out diss?

Ezzthetic replied to Alan of Sydney
Mon 21 Jul 08 (06:20pm)

I would have asked asked her to address the statement Dr. David Evans posed in last Friday’s The Australian

She might have asked you why you are relying on the views of someone who is just a computer programmer.

Evans was a “consultant” a the Australian Greenhouse Office, but not as an environmental expert (which he isn’t). He was merely writing a Windows desktop application for them.

Google cache will get you every time. What a poseur "rocket scientist" this Dr Evans is.

Now what I just is did is called argumentum ad hominem, and this is perfectly legitimate — but only when used against specific denialists, like AGW deniers.

On the other hand, Tim Lambert has chosen to reply to the argument itself, and the not attack the person making the argument.

Desmogblog clear the air: Evans is a self-promoting computer geek, not a science geek.

Technorati Tags: ,


Anonymous said...

argumentum ad hominem

I can't understand what point you are making.

This isn't an "ad hominem" attack, despite what you seem to think.

Saying that someone does not have sufficient expertise in a field to defend their case is not an "ad hominem" attack. It is simply a matter of fact.

I am pointing out that Evans is being touted as an expert in climate science when he clearly isn't. He even admits he isn't in the interview. That is a perfectly legitimate point to make. He is being paraded as a climate specialist who has now seen the light. That is totally misleading.

Either he is mis-representing his abilities ("rocket scientist"???) or others are.

I also point out that all of his claims are directly rebutted by people who actually are climate scientists. He doesn't have to accept those rebuttals, but he obviously needs to address them.

He doesn't support his views in any way, other than by making blank assertions, which are not accepted by the vast majority of experts in the field.

I also, incidentally, link to Lambert in several postings (who, by the way, definitely attacks Christopher Monckton in a very personal way).

I just can't see what you are getting at. Do you actually know what the term "ad hominem" means?

Wadard said...

Relax, I was being flippant. it obviously wasn't clear.