[Hat tip to Deltoid, I've been remiss in monitoring Andrew Bolt for a week.]
The denial movement is searching desperately for a way to dismiss the continuing flow of reports that vindicate both Phil Jones and the Climate Recent Unit (CRU) at the University of East Anglia.
Andrew Bolt, our resident climate demagogue resorts to the standard trope of all anti-science movements, the ad hominem attack:
Lord Oxburgh is so concerned at the potential destruction from globalwarming that he wants to devote more of his time to cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the use of fossil fuels…
At home, Oxburgh has persuaded his wife and son to use bicycles and abandon the car ”except for trips to the supermarket”. For those, he uses a diesel capable of 60 miles to the gallon.
“‘Domestically we all ride bicycles and use the car as little as we can,’ he said. The family has also abandoned air travel for holidays – though Oxburgh still regularly has to fly on business matters.
Exactly what do you think he was likely to conclude about Climategate?
The basic form of this argument is this:
Person 1 makes claim X
There is something objectionable about Person 1
Therefore claim X is false
Little more needs to be said other than “playing the man” is well recognised as a logical fallacy.
Now, before anyone accuses of me of tu quoque and attacking Mr. Bolt, let me remind anyone that all I am doing is pointing out an obvious logical fallacy.