In his letter of September 15, Jack DeBaun falsely accused me of defending Roger Roots’ evidence and research. In fact, I was merely exposing DeBaun’s logical fallacy in attacking Mr. Roots as a person instead of dealing with his claims. You cannot prove that someone is wrong about something by slamming their character.
Another fallacy often committed by DeBaun is known as appeal to authority. This fallacy occurs when stating that something must be true because the person making the claim is considered an authority on that subject. The biggest problem with this fallacy is that when two equally intelligent or reputable persons present opposing views, we are unable to determine which view is the correct one based on their authority alone.
Being a “qualified expert” does not necessarily make one right, nor does having one’s work reviewed by their peers. Truth stands on its own and needs no credentials. Besides, being considered an expert is a largely subjective notion as Mr. DeBaun has proven by rejecting those experts who do not agree with him.
Roy Spencer is one example of DeBaun’s inconsistency. Mr. Spencer holds a PhD in meteorology, was Senior Scientist for Climate Studies at NASA, and was Principal Research Scientist at the University of Alabama. Yet, in spite of these impressive credentials, DeBaun rejects Spencer as “anti-science” because Spencer does not agree with DeBaun’s preconceived notions of climate change.
Sometimes inconsistency speaks louder than words.