I'm tempted to not even reply to this, but most of your previous comments aren't so trollish.
Did you completely skip over the first part of my last paragraph? "I am not a fan of arguing by appeal to authority." So, yes, naturally the relative backgrounds of the authors in question should be completely ignored.
In principle, it's wrong to attack a person's reputation in a debate, but I'm not entering the global warming "debate" here. I am instead criticizing the stupid tone of both the article and the headline posted here on News.YC.
Furthermore, even though in principle either ad hominem or appeal to authority fallacies shouldn't be used in debate, there are practical reasons for doing so. For one, I could devote every waking moment of the rest of my life to analyzing global climate patterns and the vast array of variables that influence them, and I still would not understand the field perfectly. Therefore, given two dissenting opinions, I will be more inclined to lend more credence to the opinion coming from the person that has spent that kind of time on analyzing the system.
I'd prefer not to fall into the tarpit of debating Darwinism with a creationist, nor social responsibility (or human rights, or liberty, or ... well, pretty much any sociological subject) with pretty much any current member of the U.S. Congress, nor global warming with Christopher Monckton.
And, finally, in case you missed it the first time: this is coming from someone who takes a stance very far away from what passes for environmentalism in the U.S.
The bulk of your first post still reads like a character attack, regardless of the disclaimers you've put in.
A nazi can do perfectly good rocket science, an oil company researcher can produce perfectly valid climate studies. Discussing character of your opponent in a debate in any form is off topic, unless you are on the Oprah show.
