He contributed no data to my argument, his opinions did not influence my analysis, my reasoning was not guided by his in any way. Until just a few weeks ago, I had no clue who he was, and until today, I knew little about him. He was simply a distraction, your attempt to divert the dialogue into a direction where you felt more comfortable.
Just because he offends you does not mean I am under any obligation to defend him.

However, I just did look him up, a few minutes ago, and as far as I can tell from a quick scan of his Wiki bio, his scientific credentials are impeccable (he got the atmosphere of Venus issue right, didn't he?), its only his politics that you seem to find objectionable. But TB, you find just about everybody's politics objectionable.

The man is an astronomer. I must grudgingly concede a bit of personal bias there. Astronomers do tend to have a solid grasp on the nature of data, an understanding of the process of observation, and the role the observer plays in it. I must confess I am inclined to weigh their opinions a bit heavier than I would, say, some public relations engineer on the payroll of the American Petroleum Institute.