Xongsmith writes:
On the other hand, it also can be construed as a sort of Gish Gallop, I suppose.
I don't think you understand how gish gallop works. It's more than just throwing a bunch of facts out there. In fact, there's nothing wrong with throwing a bunch of facts out there.
In a formal face to face debate, gish gallop works by giving a bunch of inaccurate and complicated facts over a wide variety of topics knowing the opponent won't have enough time to debunk them all.
In an online debate setting, gish gallop works by jumping from one topic to the next without addressing the criticisms of the previous topic. For example, the following conversation is an outline of what a gish gallop debate style looks like. I've seen quite a few of these on this forum alone.
Person A: X is true because of Y.
Person B: But Y has been proven to be false. Here is the evidence...
A: Z is false because of X.
B: Hang on a second. I just proved to you that Y is proven false, thus X is meaningless. How could you claim Z?
A: Never mind that. Q is false because R was a hoax.
B: Q never depended on R to be true. In fact, the people who supported Q proved that R was a hoax. It was never widely accepted anyway.
A: R was the biggest hoax in history and scientists continue to use it to prove M.
B: Damn it, I just proved to you that R was never big. It was a hoax and it was exposed right away by scientists.
A: X is true because R is a hoax.
B: What the hell?
A: N is false therefore Y is true.
B's head explodes.
The reason that blog isn't a gish gallop is because the author provided a link to news articles that prove every point he made. They're not just random facts. They're compiled in a coherent manner that anyone can understand. Furthermore, his sources are reputable news sources, not some wacko's website.