While he is very good at false accusations and name-calling, Jack DeBaun is not at all good at logic or sound reasoning. Perhaps he feels intimidated by such things, as most liberals do.

In his letter of November 22, he once again attacks the character of certain authors instead of dealing with their arguments.

DeBaun says, “The affiliation of these authors with a fossil-fuel funded think tank is reason enough to question the reliability of their opinions on the subject.”

That is as blatant as a fallacy can get. Specifically, it is called “poisoning the wells.” It doesn’t deal with the argument at all and is nothing more than an attack on someone’s credibility simply because of their association with someone or something. DeBaun is saying that we should not trust these authors because their character is flawed due to their supposed association with the oil industry.

However, to use DeBaun’s own faulty logic against him, here is a counter-argument: He recommends the website SkepticalScience.com, which was developed by John Cook, a former cartoonist who has no degree in climate science. (Yes, a cartoonist.) That is reason enough, using Jack’s logic, to question the reliability of that website. After all, Mr. Cook’s character is flawed from pretending to be something he’s not. He’s neither a climate scientist nor a weather expert, but merely a cartoonist. Therefore, we must question his reliability. Right, Jack?

You can lead a liberal to logic but you can’t make him think.

MONTE HEIL

Sagle