So it's not okay to question a hit-and-run ad hom on someone if they're connected to biofuels.

This from the master of the hit and run ad hom. Pimentel, Patzek, and the oil industry as a whole have all been targets of your ad homs. But since Gail wishes to keep this from degenerating, I will simply point out what I was talking about. Popular Creationist techniques include framing the arguments of the opposition with overusage of the kinds of negative adjectives the RFA used in the release. Creationists characterize the arguments of evolutionists as the RFA did: "oft-repudiated", "highly speculative", "repeatedly disproven", "disputed science", and "unsubstantiated." They figure the more negative adjectives they throw out, the worse the arguments look. They like to talk about "gaps in scientific knowledge" as if this means we really don't know anything and therefore we really shouldn't take any of this seriously.

But the real kicker is the signed statement. Creationists love to trot out the signed statements of "100 scientists who dispute evolution." Here we have "111 scientists" who wrote to the governor to suggest that the science on land usage was controversial. No actual direct rebuttal from those scientists; just an argument from authority. Like I said, tactics perfected by Creationists. I debated them for years, so I am quite familiar with the techniques.

I thought you at least deserved to know what I was referring to, but that will be all.