Why do Global Warmers consistently answer skeptics with ad hominem attacks?

As far as I have observed if you tell a denier anything that affects their twisted view of the science then it becomes an "Ad hominem" so pointing out that the 'expert' they list is actually not even a scientist becomes an Ad hominem attack.

As does pointing out that of the few scientists they can reference a number are not even qualified in the field of climate research, this also becomes an "Ad hominem"

To be honest I find such responses quite funny as the same deniers have usually also just posted some actual direct Ad hominem on someone like Al Gore making sad comments about him or even the state of his marriage or that often repeated fake denier talking point, about his beach side house (the one that simply doesn't exist), these have nothing at all to do with AGW, and frankly shows the utterly childish and troll like natural that denial seems to have sunk to. I don't even like Al Gore but he has done nothing that warrants these sorts of attacks, he has put forward to a wide public audience the basics of AGW that scientists have been talking about for many years. The one dimensional nature of denial is also seen in the continued attacks on individual scientists like like Mann or Hansen, yet Hansen actually retired years ago and still deniers try to attack him, even though he has long since been replaced by another scientist as the head of GISS.

This sadly shows the difference between the science and denial, science moved on and replaced Hansen when he retired with no change in the science, because the science is based on data and facts. Denial on the other hand is based on personal attacks and creating strings of conspiracy theories, which is where they are left floundering when someone like Hansen simply retires it's to hard to try and switch those conspiracies that deniers have locked themselves to, on a new person, so they have to keep attacking Hansen.

In fact if you look at the general comment on both sides deniers Ad hominem attacks are on a small set of scientists and pretty much ignore the thousands of others who have actually published most of the AGW research.

Where the comment against the qualifications and lack of publications leveled against the few denier scientists is because they are about all the 'experts' denier have, names like Lindzen, Soon etc repeat and repeat because deniers quite literally have only a handful of scientists they can call on and even then, Soon is actually an Astro-Physicist not a climate scientist.

"Ad hominem is not by definition a logical fallacy. "

That is one worth keeping. Who changed that rule, then?

I think you will find that attacking the person and not the argument is indeed an ad hominem logical fallacy.

A good description of the logical fallacy of argumentum ad hominem follows. See if you have spotted any of those approaches used here:

=========================================================

Attack the person in some way. For example:

Attack their expertise, questioning their qualifications or experience

Criticize their physical appearance or dress

Comment on their inability to make a good argument

Point out their junior status

Attack their values as being contrary to social norms

Interpret a minor error as major

Attach them to discredited others

==========================================================

Looking at answers here, I concluded that people on all sides of the discussion have been guilty of ad hom arguments at one time or another.

Oddly, I thought this question was from Raisin Caine before I actually clicked on your avatar to check.

I tend to use the definition of ad hominem as meaning insulting but I think to be more precise, it means at a person (e.g. at a hominid) which I take to mean instead of arguing with the idea, you tell them something about themselves such as their breath smells, or whatever. I suppose you could say their breath smells like roses but it would seem odd to call that an ad hominem attack.

I definitely don't agree with you being blocked from answering any question, particularly when it concerns you.

I agree that the specific charge made against you was not an ad hominem attack.

You said something along the lines of 'This logic is beyond you.'

That is not the same as 'This person is bad because of X, therefore their argument is wrong.'

It is possible you could label as ad-hominem the argument that the arguer is funded by the fossil-fuel industry, but that COULD be a legitimate argument depending on the circumstances.

the obsession with politics is clearly much higher among the "skeptics" than "warmers"... anyone who doesn't hitch themselves to the simple-minded view that agw is totally benign is automatically accused of being a "liberal" at proper, and often a full-fledged communist... i just don't see that level of obsession with politics from those who are concerned about agw...

site:answers...yahoo...com agw liberals

site:answers...yahoo...com agw conservatives

note that that shall include results from the politics section as well... i suspect if someone could narrow the results further to only the global warming section, the distinction would be much awesomeer...

Somebody's feelings got hurt and they are reacting with anger and emotion. That is the logical breakdown issue. Others who might not be as emotional might be less subjective and not single out warmers since ad hominem attacks by either side of the argument are so prevalent here that they seem to pretty much dominate he entire discussion, interrupted only occasionally by an actual question about Climate Change that...sometimes...and only rarely...gets actual answers.

Since warmers were singled out in general, you were in particular, and then you were blocked from answering, I would speculate that is additional evidence that emotion-in this case primarily anger-undermined logic, but the primary issue is one of ad hominem attacks. One possible scenario that might help this forum return to its intended function could be for the practitioners of the tactic to turn it down a notch or two.

1

shhh

Gary F, you you simply insult anyone who disagrees with you. That's called ad hominem. It means attack the person rather than the opinion they are presenting.

It's an old technique used by people who are out of intellectual ammunition.

graph --

>>i think you shall find that attacking the person and not the argument is indeed an ad hominem logical fallacy... <<

no true...

an example:

saying that sagebrush is a liar when he refers to himself as a “true scientist” 'cause he quotes nazis is a logical fallacy...

saying that he is a liar when he refers to himself a “true scientist” based on his demonstrated ignorance of science is not a logical fallacy...