How the GGWS persuadesWhile true lack of context is a problem as is appeal to authority, mostly the program doesn't do this. In terms of appeal to authority, the program does have scientists on it but it goes on to explain why the things it is claiming to be true are true. Appeal to authority is, "Professor X said this so it is true." The program explained what and why and how. Interviewing scientists is not appeal to authority unless it leaves it at that, which it doesn't.
- Powerful, professional, polemical
- False dichotomy
- Selective (distorted?) data
- Ad hominem attack
- Appeals to authority
- Quoting out of context
As opposed to the global warming proponents who say things like, "All scientists now agree so we don't need to discuss it" which is a form of this fallacy.
Context means everything. And a quote out of context can have a completely different meaning. There have been some concerns raised by Carl Wunsch that what he said was used out of context.
But Merchant has to give examples. Blaming lack of context is a easy way to disparage your opponent. I disregard his comment unless he gives examples so I can assess whether the context was adequately addressed.
People who are quoted in a medium that opposes their overall viewpoint don't like this; but if what they think on a particular issue is used in context, that is, not out of context, they are being used as a hostile witness—this is acceptable.
I do think it is gentlemanly when quoting your opponent to make it clear what their belief is. Creationists quote evolutionists to show up evolution, but they don't (or shouldn't) imply the person is a creationist. But then why would you? an argument appears very persuasive when believed by your opponents!