I didn’t say they were entirely different, I said that an argument against a conclusion based on the genesis of that conclusion is a genetic fallacy, not an ad hominem. Ad hominems include an element of attack (see Bowell & Kemp 2010, p 210). Also, you should note that, even allowing that it is an ad hom, not all ad hominems are fallacious (in Walton 2008, p 190-4). Especially those that reveal bias.
I wanted people to be aware that the author is both philosophically and economically biased against climate change. Which is entirely relevant to his credibility as a source on the topic of climate change. I did not want people to infer anything about his arguments because of these things, that would be silly. Only the latter is an argument, and I neither said nor implied the latter, so it was not an argument explicitly or implicitly.
One might wonder why you chose to omit the information. Either you were aware of this bias and decided to not mention it, which would be dishonest, or you weren’t aware because you declined to do the relevant due diligence before posting. Much like Koonin, one might note.
I’ve read enough of it to confirm that he is either dishonest or incompetent.
Almost true. You haven’t actually purchased the book yet, so it is still a bit early to say you’ve been conned. But once the charlatan has your money, it’s fair to say they have conned you. So let me know when you buy a copy…
“Unsettled: What Climate Science Tells Us, What It Doesn’t, and Why It Matters”
The argument is that a significant portion of climate science is unsettled, is presented as settled, and this unduly impacts people’s appraisal of climate change. Which specific bits he might claim to be settled or unsettled is irrelevant to the argument itself, which is about the impact of the presentation of the field as settled.
This interpretation of his argument is supported by the Amazon blurb, every review I’ve seen, and the introduction of the book.
This argument is wrong.
Many people manage to match both the calm presentation of Koonin’s introduction. Some also match his complete disregard for facts, evidence, and reason. Sometimes in the same posts!
Also, the fact that you’ve read his introduction and concluded that
I revise my assessment of
You’ve absolutely been conned by the author.
Take this as an example (emphasis in the original):
For example, both the research literature and government reports that summarize and assess the state of climate science say clearly that heat waves in the US are now no more common than they were in 1900, and that the warmest temperatures in the US have not risen in the past fifty years.
I’m betting if I could find a map of municipal divisions color coded by the date of their record high, we’d see a strong bias towards the past 20 years as well.
Greenland’s ice sheet isn’t shrinking any more rapidly today than it was eighty years ago.
Why 80, not 90 or 70? Because there was a short period of rapid melting in the 1930s. But this did not result in mass loss by the ice sheet, since it was internal melting, unlike the current day. So saying it isn’t ‘shrinking more rapidly’ is both intentionally misleading and factually wrong.
His claims about the climate and climate science are like this throughout his introduction. Wrong, and in such a way that it can really only be intentionally dishonesty.
But hey, he was calm when he lied, so he’s got that going for him right?
