Other Answers (27)

• It%26#039;s never okay to lie about this sort of thing. However, be careful about what you label as lies. As someone else has already said, it%26#039;s easy to confuse ignorance for malice.
  
  In matters where facts are important, I%26#039;m extremely careful to look at and evaluate lots of sources. I tend to trust most those who have the least to gain from saying what they%26#039;re saying, and who have proven track records of consistent objectivity and genuine scientific curiosity.
  
  For the same reasons - I was getting tired of several deniers outright lying. In this case, specifically about James Hansen. And in this very question, they continue to lie about Hansen. I guess some things never change.
  
  Trevor (climate scientist and probably the best answerer in YA global warming history), gave a great answer, as usual.
  
  In my opinion, lying is absolutely inacceptable for either side of this issue. If a proponent is caught lying, it undermines the credibility of our arguments and thus our ability to take steps to mitigate global warming. If a denier is caught lying - well, let%26#039;s just say it wouldn%26#039;t exactly be the first time, nor would it be the last bit surprising, but that doesn%26#039;t make it acceptable.
  
  Other than scientific evidence, the main thing seperating the proponents from the deniers is honesty. You may disagree with our scientific evidence, you may think our conclusions are %26#039;alarmist%26#039;, but proponents usually make honest claims supported by scientific evidence. More often than not, deniers make dishonest and unsubstantiated claims. Stooping to their level would do our efforts far more harm than good.
• Excellent question - wonder what the response would be like if you reposted (edited to be more general) in philosophy.
  
  Personally, I think not. I do, however, sometimes truncate quotes as space here is limited. If I do, I do my best to ensure that the original meaning remains.
  
  But the tactic is short-term and self-defeating (kind of like being against steps to alleviate GW or its effects!):
  If someone makes a statement that is obviously false I%26#039;m going to have serious doubts about anything else they say, even if true or they make a valid point. I try to judge each response on its own merits but find myself looking at the authors more and more and going, %26quot;oh, it%26#039;s him/her again%26quot;... but then, we do that in real life as well.
  
  I think Bob%26#039;s response was superb and almost stopped reading right there!
• Lying, whether because of ignorance, stupidity or malevolence, is plainly demagogic. Ad hominem arguments are not the way to make your case no matter what your position is on the issue. The people who keep citing the person rather than arguing objectively for or against their ideas or other people%26#039;s ideas is an anti-intellectual who may have a financial interest or emotional agenda. Science issues that have been politicized to the degree GW has been by Bush43 and his myrmidons is not the science I learned at MIT. All we can do is report them to YAT until they are banned because the lying and sometime rude behaviors by those bad-intentioned individuals in the GW category undermine the value of YA as a reliable source of information! Keep the faith. And Dr Hansen, as he is slandered here, is not the person I heard delivering a summary of his findings to a packed 7-9pm lecture hall at the James Baker III Institute of Public Policy at Rice 8 years ago!