Kaku's kookoo science

John,
Ad hominem attacks are characterized not just by criticism of the person in question, but by the attack focusing on some characteristic or item about the person in question that is NOT RELEVANT to the issue in question.
For example-Prof. Kaku’s opinion on climate science can’t be trusted because one of his earliest mentors was Ed Teller, a man who loved making nuclear weapons. (ad hominem)
It IS perfectly acceptable to be suspicious about a theoretical scientist being chosen to speak on global warming/climate change instead of an experimental scientist who specializes in climate. Kaku is popular and engaging and easy to understand, and I have no problem with such a person being asked to comment IF they have also displayed an honest and accurate degree of logic and skill in the climate science area.
Anthony posted a summary of an article posted at Climate Depot, and included statements by other climate scientists that indicate that Kaku has NOT displayed an accurate degree of logic or skill in the climate science area. Kaku’s own statements, made in the CBS interview and others PROVES that he’s clearly on the consensus bandwagon and that he likes to spew sound bites about the climate rather than actual scientific evidence. From the CBS interview-
KAKU: “Well, the wacky weather could get even wackier. What we’re seeing is that the jet stream and the polar vortex are becoming unstable. Instability of historic proportions. Now think of the polar vortex as a bucket, a swirling bucket of cold air. However, the walls are weakening. Cold air is spilling out, spilling out over the walls of the bucket. And the question is, why? Why is this polar vortex weakening? We think it’s because of the gradual heating up of the North Pole. The North Pole is melting.”
ROSE: “Global warming.”
KAKU: “That excess heat — that excess heat generated by all this warm water is destabilizing this gigantic bucket of cold air, weakening this low pressure region, causing cold air to spill out over the United States. So that’s the irony, that heating could cause gigantic storms of historic proportions.”
What excess heat generated by all of what warm water??? How can heat “hidden in the deep oceans” be affecting AIR currently in the jet stream? How can a scientist call the STILL incredibly cold water at the North Pole “warm”? The North Pole melts (and refreezes) all the time! And how the world of logic would the “weakening walls” of a “bucket of swirling cold air” cause that cold air to spill out OVER the walls of that bucket? His analogy doesn’t even make sense scientifically.
THAT, and other wacky statements made by the man about CLIMATE science NATURALLY RESULTS in intelligent, logical people questioning the REST of his statements about OTHER science. Here, guest blogger Doriangrey at Blogmocracy already said it better:
“One of if not the primary reason that actual genuine scientists are so careful not to do what Dr. Shockley and now Dr Kaku have done, is that once you step outside your field of expertise and start making pronouncement while clinging to the mantle of your expertise, is that now having proven that you lack a fundamental grasp of the most basic of logic, it cast doubts upon any work that you might have accomplished in your field of expertise. In other words, if this individuals can make this significant and profound of an error in logic how can the veracity of any of his work be considered valid, without it being examined in excruciatingly detail.
Everything Dr Kaku has ever done in the field of physics has basically been cast into doubt. If he lacks the fundamental grasp of logic that should have prevented him from falling into the appeal to authority logic fallacy, then where else has his failure in logic led to his making unfounded and egregious assertions based on similar failures in basic logic.”
http://www.theblogmocracy.com/2014/02/14/you-can-now-add-dr-michio-kaku-to-the-imbecile-list/#sthash.2O8B64ld.dpuf
“After all the attacks made on skeptics by the warmist/alarmist crowd it is sad to see a series of responses that only feeds their claims that skeptics often have nothing positive to add to the debate.”
Logical fallacies-appeal to emotion (sad-disappointed) appeal to consequences/ slippery slope argument- “Come on guys, I think (opinion) that some of you are being “mean” to Prof. Kaku as a person outside of his “scientific” position (no evidence) and because of that, some people might think that one of the alarmists clearly illogical claims about skeptics is really true.”
Since when has it been a rule that in a debate, either side has to “add something positive” to that debate? What does that claim even mean?