a) you don&#x27;t win points for using the buzzphrase &quot;ad hominem&quot;. fyi, the capital-L-capital-F as-taught-in-high-school Logical Fallacy &#x27;ad hominem&#x27; refers to insulting a person <i>in lieu of</i> an actual argument. Hopefully we can agree that I&#x27;ve in fact argued my point in detail.<p>b) I argued that:<p>1. he is behaving like a crackpot, for a commonly-accepted understanding of the word &#x27;crackpot&#x27;<p>2. that he has not adequately defended his position against challenges<p>3. that the data does not show what he claims (&#x27;refuting&#x27; and &#x27;denying&#x27; are very different things)<p>Now, I agree that the data he posted &quot; shows clearly that sea level is not rising as significantly in this region as is claimed&quot;. You&#x27;ll hear no objection from me. Fortunately, that is not the claim gd1 made, nor the claim I attempted to refute.<p>And I stand by my (admittedly easier-to-defend) position that: my post was pointing out that he&#x27;s getting harangued for defending his point abysmally. I don&#x27;t really want to take a side in the actual debate, except to say that the position that the sea level HAS changed is very clearly legitimate, and if we&#x27;re going to quibble over changed vs unchanged we have to agree on definitions and methodology.