> You can verify the person if you want, but not by comparing his opinions to yours.
Which isn't what I did. At no point have I given my opinion. My opinion has not changed between my two posts, nor has my point. The last post was an elaboration of the first. If you find no issue with the second, then there is none with the first (other than too brief, apparently).
I do not trust the author of an anti-climate change article because he has a pre-existing opinion against climate change AND doesn't cite any sources. If either would have been the opposite, I would have had a different opinion, because then there would be no motive to fudge the truth. Both parts of the statement are important and relevant.
No, I split the sentence in two and showed one of the two parts is wrong. You should have left it out.
You essentially made an ad hominem argument, and I pointed it out.
I do understand the point that when you can not verify the argument, you verify the person.
Which is what you did, but you did it wrong. You compared his beliefs to yours, and since they didn't match you don't trust him.
You can verify the person if you want, but not by comparing his opinions to yours.