I think that if you go back to the beginning of the argument (and I suggest the same exercise for other parties), quite a good case can be made that you’ve managed (or tried, at least) to change what was an argument about whether statements made by someone in the employ of one side in a controversy are of use in revealing the truth of matters into an argument about whether it’s useful to listen to the arguments made (and the facts cited) by known liars.

I call that a dishonest argument, in and of itself.

And, to put it bluntly, you gave the game away straight away by simply dismissing someone (I’ve got no idea who) with a few pejoratives instead of laying out even a single instance illustrative of why the guy’s statements or arguments were incorrect. Further, in the case that you’d want your opponents in the argument to assent in dismissing some (self-proclaimed or actual) expert’s statements, I’d think it incumbent to lay out some detectable pattern of error conducive to said expert’s “side.”

Entities of all sorts (not just business entities)
employ propagandists to “get their message out.”
But propaganda need not consist solely (or even primarily) of untruth; truth is frequently more powerful. I could make the point also that those trying to suppress truth (including those who resort immediately to the demonization and dismissal of their opponents arguments without direct consderation and refutation of any of them) are, themselves, perhaps secretly, convinced of a general weakness or of their own.

It is all very well to make allusions to “interests” of one or another sort. But, wherever there are interests “pro,” one can safely assume the existence of directly oppositional interests, albeit some of those are likely disguised in some “public-spiritedness” costume.

Ad, lastly, I’d remind you that your own general side (the left) has a frank committment to the justification of malefaction of many sorts–hardly confined to the telling of lies–in the interest of various ideas of social progress.
A sucker is born every minute, said Barnum–but that’s no reason why those of us who “weren’t born yesterday” shouldn’t always be suspicious of those who’ve expressed themselves so clearly on the subject.

Rubbish. If someone’s a known liar, it’s generally worth ignoring them; if someone’s a known truth-teller and expert in a particular area, it’s generally worth listening to them. Not universally the case, but a far better rule of thumb and way of avoiding wasting your time than following the ‘well, they may not be lying this time’ rule.

Indeed, assuming that a liar is lying isn’t really ad-hominem in the sense that philosophers use the phrase. The classic kind of example is:
A: “I have an excellent new theory about physics”
B: “But you’re a convicted paedophile, so we should ignore your theory”
In this context, B is a moron.

However, if the conversation runs:
A: “I have an excellent new theory about how it’s wrong to repress adolescent sexuality”
B: “But you’re a convicted paedophile, so we should ignore your theory”
then B probably has a point.

“In some kind of idealised Platonic world where all discussion is based on syllogisms and indisputable facts, ad-hominem would be a fallacy. In a world where people actually lie about the facts all of the time, knowing whether a person is credible is just as important as the logical consistency of what they say.”

No. In a world where people lie about the facts it is even more important to focus on the validity of the argument and not on who is making it. Otherwise all you are left with are ad hominems with no discussion at all as everybody can be found to be a part of some special interest. Your statement is like saying that in a world of imperfect information we should not try to improve on the information itself and focus on convenient name calling instead. Indeed, a good way to avoid being an ignorant moron.

“And if someone is a paid shill for a particular viewpoint, you’d be a blithering idiot to *not* let that affect your view of the credibility of their evidence.”

No, to the contrary. If you want to find good criticism of something, go to the very people who are paid for criticizing it. Markets in criticism work like markets in other things.

No, the use of the term ‘ad hominem’ is a good sign that your interlocutor is an ignorant moron.

In some kind of idealised Platonic world where all discussion is based on syllogisms and indisputable facts, ad-hominem would be a fallacy. In a world where people actually lie about the facts all of the time, knowing whether a person is credible is just as important as the logical consistency of what they say.

And if someone is a paid shill for a particular viewpoint, you’d be a blithering idiot to *not* let that affect your view of the credibility of their evidence.

Seems to make sense, however all that demand buffering will have a real and massive cost.

Better to have Nuclear -> [Power|Transport|Heating|Hydrogen!]

They end up there primarily because that’s where they start: from the premise that their opposition must be corrupt, evil, ooposed to progress, racist, imperialist, etc., you name it.

Even when the facts are on the side of their opponent (essentially, rendering him more “expert” than a body on their side who happened to get the facts wrong on the same subject), venom is summoned; it’s all in a day’s work.

Ad hominem: the last refuge of the fact-challenged.

That doesn’t necessarily mean it’s wrong, but it’s ropey of the article to quote Constable as if he were a renewables expert rather than an axe-grinding crank…

“Hazel Thornton, from the climate change adaptation team, said observational evidence has shown a fall in wind over the last 30 years – although further research is needed.”