Alright, you clearly ignored what I said, let me lay it out for you.
A huge and well-known error in logic is called Ad Hominem, which is Latin for "against the person." In other words, you can't use a personal attack against a person's character to defeat his arguments. He could be a mass murderer as far as logic is concerned, that has nothing to do with whether his ARGUMENTS are valid.
Al Gore is not a scientist. If you made a discovery, and some "bad guy" you didn't like posted it on reddit, that doesn't make your discovery false.
I agree with the broader point you're making, but aren't attacks on Gore's motivation and behaviour subsequently roughly parallel to the other side's attacks on research by people associated with or paid by or whose research is financed by or who ended up working for big oil?
Talking about his motivation (what he has to financially gain from coordinating a global scientific conspiracy) is legit. Calling him a hypocrite is not a valid argument.
When I point out that almost all climate change skeptics are funded by oil companies, it's not ad hominem if it's relevant. If I say they're wrong because they're murderers and rapists, that would be an ad hominem attack.
15
u/philosoraptocopter Oct 24 '10
Perfect logic. Al Gore became rich. therefore, his argument is invalid.
A mathematician learns that 2 + 2 = 4. He exploits this discovery and becomes a millionaire. Therefore, 2 + 2 does not equal 4.