Well JP, how about something at least 1/4 as well cited as what was posted instead of your comment "Its also full of random and largely unrelated facts and citations, creating the appearance of reasoned, well researched argument" ? Your obviously facetious rebuttal/example about global warming is a typical tactic to nay-say evidence with non-evidence that is supposed to show how full of fallacy the proposed argument supposedly is. Heh.
For a take on global warming, have you ever seen John Stossel's video on how the supposed people pushing global warming have distorted evidence and down-right lied to try to get their point across?
http://www.disclose.tv/action/viewvideo/34260/John_Stossel_Rips_Apart_Global_Warming/
Talking about global warming here is getting a bit off topic, except for the fact that you brought it up in relation to someone supposedly pulling unrelated statistics out of their arse and showing it as the truth...
If you want, we can debate that one as well. You know "Mann, Et al", the Hockey Stick Hoax, and so on? But that's another thread.
I was recently having a debate at an expat dinner about global warming, last Friday. I was trying to have a calm discussion about whether it's really caused by man or not, whether we've reached the end of a natural warming cycle or not, etc. The person involved in the argument used as his basis "can you really believe that it's not caused by man? Can you really believe that?" No facts or science to back up his argument, but plenty of emotion. At one point he actually called me a creationist with words something along the lines of "it's people like you who get creationism taught in the schools as science."
Funny thing - I'm as completely irreligious as one can possibly be, do not believe in a "higher being" that demands we adore him and obey his laws or we spend the rest of eternity in extreme torture for our "sins."
In fact, I'm a Libertarian who believes very strongly in the rights of individual people and that the government should be as small as possible to maintain law and order EQUALLY for EVERYONE, but not control every aspect of peoples' lives for "their own good," those in power deciding what is "good."
I would like to know what you think, specifically, is wrong with that paper, having, of course, read it through from start to end like I have. Because what I saw was mostly refuting false evidence that people have basically dreamed up to fit the yoke tyranny over everyone else's heads but their own