According to a recent report, Bin Laden has now blamed the US for global warming. He has called for a boycott of American products. Since Bin Laden believes in global warming, we must now not believe it, because we must do the opposite of everything Bin Laden does. (update to follow)
In other news, so to speak, there's this item:
Department of Homeland Security officials told reporters that it could take months to determine the full extent of the damage from what they are calling the worst-ever ad hominem strike on American soil, even as crews worked around the clock to salvage whatever bits of Harris' self-respect they could from the wreckage.
Ok, that's from the Onion.
UPDATE.
As I imagined, this did not take long.
Greetings,
I don't mean to troll on through here. And I'm a Kantian about trolling, so…
Not sure if the trouble is on my end or not, but the link to the NYT article would not connect. So I was not able to see the argument itself. Was that (your conditional) really the argument? If so – agreed – that's ridiculous. Especially when there is so much room for some good, old-fashioned, virtuous skepticism about GW (ah… that's global warming, not George Will), out of which a much more, um, 'sequetarious' (I'm coining that) argument can be made.
Now if only Bin Laden would endorse supply-side economics…..
. . . Or perhaps if Osama endorsed a theocratic vision of government, or a notion of "traditional marriage"
"Since Bin Laden believes in global warming, we must now not believe it, because we must do the opposite of everything Bin Laden does"
There you have your genuine non sequitur right there! (I know you were being ironical, I'm just playing along)