It apparently is beyond imagining that we actually believe in what we do, just as the left believes in what they do (or that we may be right, which is a whole other question).

Actually, my first reaction when I see someone saying something I don’t agree with is to believe that they believe it. I usually always assume people are doing what they believe is right, even if it is different from what I believe. As I mentioned in my post, I have no problem with them arguing the legality of making CO2 a pollutant – whether it is because they truly believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing, or even if it is just because they are lawyers who may not believe, but are doing their job to uphold the rule of law – a very noble thing indeed…. And I can’t even argue because I am not a legal expert.

When I wonder out loud how much it costs to make an already rich man lie, I am referring not to promoting their beliefe that CO2 increase is good, rather, I am referring to their deliberate misquoting and mis citing of studies that, in fact, disagree with their belief.

The only other conclusion I was able to come up with, besides that they are deliberately misleading (which I refer to as a “lie”), is that did not even read the reports they cited in the ads, which is completely incompetent from a professional standpoint (not to mention irresponsible). I am not sure which is worse.

Granted, I sometimes work for a “liberal” company, working closely with big business to help them figure out how to comply with new regulations, and how to change their processes to fit what we consider, based on the vast majority of scientific evidence, to be physical limitations of our global eco-system. We do it so they these big companies can make a lot more money too. But one thing we wont do is to deliberately leave out or misrepresent reputable information that contradicts what we are telling our client. Indeed, clients often get annoyed when I wont give a definite “yes” or “no” answer – opting to show them valid arguments on both sides instead.

Sure, sometimes mistakes happen and we obviously can’t read every single report and study before consulting with the client, but another thing we won’t do is to base an argument on the just the title of a report, or one line taken out of context without even having read it – something that, if discovered, could very well lead to our loosing the clients trust and, ultimately, the account.

It apparently is beyond imagining that we actually believe in what we do, just as the left believes in what they do (or that we may be right, which is a whole other question).

Actually, my first reaction when I see someone saying something I don’t agree with is to believe that they believe it. I usually always assume people are doing what they believe is right, even if it is different from what I believe. As I mentioned in my post, I have no problem with them arguing the legality of making CO2 a pollutant – whether it is because they truly believe that increasing CO2 in the atmosphere is a good thing, or even if it is just because they are lawyers who may not believe, but are doing their job to uphold the rule of law – a very noble thing indeed…. And I can’t even argue because I am not a legal expert.

When I wonder out loud how much it costs to make an already rich man lie, I am referring not to promoting their beliefe that CO2 increase is good, rather, I am referring to their deliberate misquoting and mis citing of studies that, in fact, disagree with their belief.

The only other conclusion I was able to come up with, besides that they are deliberately misleading (which I refer to as a “lie”), is that did not even read the reports they cited in the ads, which is completely incompetent from a professional standpoint (not to mention irresponsible). I am not sure which is worse.

Granted, I sometimes work for a “liberal” company, working closely with big business to help them figure out how to comply with new regulations, and how to change their processes to fit what we consider, based on the vast majority of scientific evidence, to be physical limitations of our global eco-system. We do it so they these big companies can make a lot more money too. But one thing we wont do is to deliberately leave out or misrepresent reputable information that contradicts what we are telling our client. Indeed, clients often get annoyed when I wont give a definite “yes” or “no” answer – opting to show them valid arguments on both sides instead.

Sure, sometimes mistakes happen and we obviously can’t read every single report and study before consulting with the client, but another thing we won’t do is to base an argument on the just the title of a report, or one line taken out of context without even having read it – something that, if discovered, could very well lead to our loosing the clients trust and, ultimately, the account.

No his attack is not really ad hominem, as he appears to be saying that the source of your funding has had an influence on your conclusions.

That is clear appeal to cause and effect relationship.

Why not address this criticism instead of mis-stating the arguments of your critics?