Did you notice the vocabulary you're using? Especially, "attack", and "sides".
Your criticism here sounds like you feel that he didn't "attack ... both sides" fairly enough, so either he should have picked more examples that you already agree with, or consider irrational.
There are some who would say that the 9/11 "truthers" are no more irrational than anthropogenic global warming "skeptics", so why pick one versus the other?
...That said, I agree that 9/11 conspiracy theorists would have been a good example to include, mostly because of the strength of their convictions relative to the really thin evidence available.
Your criticism here sounds like you feel that he didn't "attack ... both sides" fairly enough, so either he should have picked more examples that you already agree with, or consider irrational.
There are some who would say that the 9/11 "truthers" are no more irrational than anthropogenic global warming "skeptics", so why pick one versus the other?
...That said, I agree that 9/11 conspiracy theorists would have been a good example to include, mostly because of the strength of their convictions relative to the really thin evidence available.