[Zuider]

Just like the infamous Smathers campaign speech?

http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...

"Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]."

[cholantesh]

No, because that was actually irrelevant. In this context, Soon's record within the scope of climate research is what's being scrutinized, not his personal life.

If Soon's opponents were attacking his love of Dune or his tendency to eat falafel, there might be an analogue here.

[Zuider]

Irrelevant. The technique you used was the same as Smathers, and your intent was the same - to damage someone's reputation by insinuations and smears. It is low behavior.

[cholantesh]

Smathers' accusations related to issues that had no bearing on Peppers' merit as a political candidate or his ability to carry out his official duties. My 'insinuations' (actually, again, statements of fact) are related to Soon's behaviour within the context of climate science. If you cannot grasp this, you are not qualified to engage in debate. If you do not wish to for whatever reason, it makes it pretty clear that you are not interested in good faith discussion of this issue and are not worth anyone's time in that regard.

[Zuider]

A damaging and false insinuation is a damaging and false insinuation, whatever ground it purports to cover. Smathers chose smears that would do the maximum damage to Pepper as a politician, you did the same for Soon as a scientist.