Is the global warming denier tactic of attacking the messenger a valid one?

It's not valid as far as disproving any of the science, but it is effective because it confuses people. Think of it as street cunning rather than technical competence.

Personal attacks clearly show a serious lack of understanding of the facts, so in light of that, and for those genuinely concerned with possibly finding a solution to global warming and climate change, attacking the messenger is clearly not a valid tactic.

However, from their point of view, there is, unfortunately, a mentality that a lot of people these days just like to be combative and rebellious even if it isn't in their best interests. With that in mind, we must then realize that it is a complete waste of time to try and convince the so-called "deniers" that they are indeed, just plain wrong. To them, attacking is indeed and unfortunately, a valid tactic...

If you were to profile the various deniers, I'm sure you would find that some simply like to cause trouble and see what they can get away with, some, as mentioned in other questions, have ulterior motives and other agendas - an example being that they've sold out to industries that have no interest in "saving the planet" or "becoming a tree hugger" and finally, you would have those that innocently, yet wrongly believe that there really is no climate change or global warming. Whatever you want to call it, they don't and won't believe in it...

So, therefore, at some point, we must move on, and leave those that are unconvinced to their misinformation. It appears that there is enough support for accurate scientific research and the green movement so that we do not need to convince those that unbelievably rail against what we have found to be true...

Dana, are you seriously suggesting that no Global Warming Liars have ever done that?

You say that you were...

“criticized for "quoting from desmogblog". However, in reality the quote I provided was from a UK government report which happened to be hosted on desmogblog.”

Well, as I pointed out on that question (which I note with interest has now been deleted – you wouldn’t have had a hand in that, would you?) the simple truth is, since the link you gave to the document was to desmogblog.com, you were indeed quoting that website.

Should we conclude anything from that? No! Of course not, because clearly, as you point out, the document was a House of Commons Select Committee report – so who cares where it was hosted.

But you then made the mistake of accusing the questioner of lying. The *implication* of the question may have been false, but the statement itself was fact; you did link to (therefore, by definition, quote from) desmogblog.com.

You can justify that choice of source perfectly reasonably, but you can’t deny it.

Ask yourself this, if I had quoted from the same document via this link: http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2010/03... how many Global Warming Liars do you think would have criticised me for quoting from wattsupwiththat?

Be honest. And would you have defended me?

Now, let’s be clear about this: I think the question was out of order, but, let’s be equally clear, so was your response to it. As I said, your response should have been “Ooops! Perhaps I should have found a better source to link to! LOL” Instead, you accuse the questioner of telling lies.

Bad form, Dana, bad form – and not how science should be carried out. You claim to be ‘better’ than all those ‘evil’ ‘deniers’. Well, not on this evidence, you’re not! Recently you’ve been behaving just like them – lots of cherry-picking of temperature data in your recent questions, for example. You’re better than that Dana, aren’t you?

Oh, is there a chance of you unblocking my account any time soon?

As ever with Global Warming - Don't believe the hype.

You are running together two things. There is an attack on the credentials of someone cited by an opponent, which may or may not be valid, and on occasion parading of the credentials of a supporter. Thus it is valid for a denialist to point out that Lindzen (no denialist, but quantitatively a sceptic) is at MIT. If a denialist quotes Monckton as a source, it is legitimate to point out that Monkton has no scientific credentials.

Then there is guilt by association. Under this tactic, anyone concerned about global warming is for that reason alone labelled left wing; it is taking for granted that left wing is evil; and it is inferred that the person under discussion was doing something evil by expressing concern. (John McCain, 2004 vintage, where are you now when we need you?) Dragging in someone who is already regarded as evil in response to a question that had nothing to do with him is a variant of this.

Personal attacks are only that when the other side of the argument is using them. When believers in AGW maintain skeptics are cognitively impaired or owned by greedy corporations then it ceases to be an attack and is to them just a reality in the debate. Personal attacks are a refuge for people who lack a strong argument. This occurs in elections and on a variety of issues, people on the right and left are just blind to the flaw

Oh Jeez, it has'nt been that long ago you and your brethren were criticizing Spencer, Christy and others. Now you cant wipe the brown stuff of your noses fast enough. Make up your mind for goodness sake.

It's a tactic everyone has. Would you claim that believers never bring up Exxon or Creationism or lack of peer-reviewed studies or whatever else? Do we really need to dig into the archives?

But don't worry, you'll probably get at least one star for this most interesting of questions.

You know, now that I think of it, this question is entirely based on ad hominems against skeptics and nothing about science or logic or economics or even opinion about global warming.

To the denier it makes sense. Because they are not capable of seeing beyond their nose.

.