Do you know who you are quoting? James McBee Taylor is president of the Spark of Freedom foundation, a Senior Fellow with the Heartland Institute. You are quoting a very highly paid member of an organization that is dedicated to promoting the interests of Big Oil. "You should be careful here because the details are important."
Meh, environmental groups get more money from 'big oil' than anyone else. Why no outrage? https://www.google.com/amp/s/nofrak...ey-for-me-but-not-for-thee/amp/?client=safari
If your refutation of science basically boils down to a Science Conspiracy Theory then, you have lost the argument already.
Appeal to Authority is a fallacy when the authority in question are experts of a completely different field, such as politicians who think they know anything about climate change or evolution, however when the authority are the experts in that field, it is not a fallacy. Bandwagon Fallacy is when the fear of rejection by others is substituted for evidence. E.g, "Everyone else is doing it".
When did "natural" equate to "good"? An asteroid hurtling toward the Earth is natural. A plague wiping out the human race is natural. A family of rabbits, trapped on a small island created by the damming of a river by beavers, have a population explosion due to the lack of predators, then eat their entire food supply and all starve to death, is natural. I live in California and we rarely get rain during the summer months with is why we rely on Sierra Nevada snow pack for water in summer. As temperatures climb, our snow pack becomes smaller and smaller which means less and less water during summer. The Maldive islands in the Indian Ocean are only 7'10" above sea level at their highest point. That means that even if the sea level rises only 4 feet due to Antarctic ice melting, it would be devastating to the islands.
Sorry but that doesn't answer the question. If a lot or most peer reviewed paper are wrong you should avtually be able to find some factual support. And that article isn't even close.
It is about the percentage of funding that comes from a special interest group, not the fact that the funding exists.
Not my job to find support for your statements. If you can't actually back up what you say perhaps you should preface your statements as personnal opinions unsuported by actual evidence.
So no problem with environmental groups recieving more funding from big oil? Figures. - - - Updated - - - Your lack of curiosity and knowledge is not my immediate concern.
I made no such assertion. That is merely your conjecture, accusation, or extrapolation about my opinions. More ad hominem? I am on topic. The subject is 'Fake Science' as promoted by much of the status quo, & specifically, those with a progressive bias. The examples, which are debated heatedly, should demonstrate that there is no 'empirical' proof of them being 'settled science' as is claimed by the status quo. This response is more evidence of a logical fallacy being given, with no reason, facts, or argument provided for a counter view. You can believe what you want. If you want to debate the facts, you will have to present them. I don't know if your 'study' is accurate or not, or just cherry picked to try to 'prove' some assertion. My observation, which even your study confirms, is that American institutions are complicit with the Fake Science of indoctrinating AGW & the ToE. Appeal to authority? Bandwagon? That is 'objective'? First, you smear a source that does not fit your narrative, then assume universal agreement & confirmation from 'most scientists!'. This is a typical argument of bandwagon & authority, & confirms the OP.
What exactly does " more" mean. And the fact that you cannot actually support what you claim diminishes your credibility not mine. If you feel the need to attack science because it contradicts your opinions why post " science" that you think disproves AGW.
More means a larger amount. Your using 'big oil' as a bogeyman to dismiss inconvenient science then ignore the fact that environmental organizations receive more only hurts your credibility.
Your link takes us here... BigPicNews is a blog run by: Her article is just a defense of Heartland. She makes statements like... ...but does not link to the actual article. So, you would just have us take the word of a biased blog writer. Here are some more of her blog entries: US Scientific Integrity Rules Repudiate the UN Climate Process Obamas War on the Media Politicizing Science at the US Dept. of Energy Greens & Feminists: Equally Nasty So first you post quotes from a highly paid mouthpiece for the Heartland Institute and then you post a link to a blog maintained by someone with a very obvious political agenda. 0 for 2. As you said... "You should be careful here because the details are important."
I did present them. However... In your responses you did not indicate when real science was replaced by fake science. In your responses you did not comment on my example of Behe being allowed to raise objections to TOE. In your responses you did not provide any examples of scientists who have been shut up. ...you ignored them. If you want to discredit the study I linked, just post a study that refutes it. That's easy. At the heart of your your threads and posts is the underlying theme of INDOCTRINATION. Well, I can now understand your paranoia. You believe that something like two hours a year of being taught about Climate Change is INDOCTRINATION. What I do not understand is that you refuse to accept that years of very early childhood exposure to religion is not INDOCTRINATION.
I did address the topic. The topic was your assertion... To support that assertion, you posted a link to... It was a link to a political blog. You didn't even quote anything from the article that supported your assertion. Pointing out that the support for your assertion comes from an unreliable source, is not killing the messenger; it is showing how weak your argument is. Recognizing that you couldn't even quote from her article shows how little support for your assertion there was in her article. As you said... "You should be careful here because the details are important."
I never claimed everything natural is good. Hell dying is natural my point is you guys act like we are aliens
Your opinion of the author is irrelevant. Just because you don't like the author does not mean what the author writes is untrue.
You still don't want to address this... You made an untrue assertion. You failed to address it. Or this... You made an another untrue assertion. You failed to address it. That's called ducking and dodging.
