You make it sound like we engage in ad hominem personal attacks. What we've ranted about is the errors these men have made in defending the theory of man-made global warming.
If there were an "overpopulation" section on Y/A, we'd "rant" about Malthus - not his wig, but the holes in his theory. We'd probably "rant" about Ehrlich too - not his penchant for drama so much as the wager he lost to Julian Simon.
If there were a "communism" section on Y/A, we'd "rant" about Marx - not about his beard but about the holes in his theory.
We're debating a theory. The theory is that human-generated CO2 emissions will cause a certain amount of rapid warming, which in turn will cause positive feedback mechanisms to kick in, which will in turn cause further warming, which will cause devastating damage.
The theory was popularized by Al Gore and serves as a rationale for policy recommendations - initially his - involving taxes and limits on activities central to Americans' daily lives.
The theory's proponents attempt to substantiate the first part of the theory - their predicted rapid CO2-based warming - on the basis of predictive climate models. The primary predictive models are Hansen's. And to date they have been off-base.
The theory's proponents attempt to substantiate the "runaway warming" part of the theory based on a revision of the climate history to eliminate past periods during which the temperature was comparably warm but which did not give way to any "positive feedback loops." (Even if you accept the revision, the periods were hundreds of years in duration and almost as warm - if over two centuries passed at temps 1/5th degree C lower than where the temps have been for 20 years, and no runaway warming occurred, that would be a strong indication that we're safe).
We address the issues. We don't engage in ad hominem personal attacks. That we leave to the huddler crowd.
