: : : With backers like those, is it any wonder that Fumento and fellow Hudson-wonk Dennis Avery publish "studies" doubting global warming and in favor of frankenfoods? As usual, all one need do is follow the money.
: : As usual, all one need do to understand and debate the left is to have a good understanding of fallacies. This one is called a circumstantial ad hominem and you can learn more about it here.
: Nonsense. It's not fallacious to say that a person's interests have a bearing on their views; it's a matter of taking the weight of circumstantial evidence and applying it to the instant case. In the above example, we have chemicals manufacturers funding a think tank which produces position papers refuting the correlation between industrial and agricultural chemicals, and global warming, suspicious enough in itself, but even moreso when coupled with the the fact that the vast majority of climatologists support the correlation between industry and global warming.
I'll grant you that it's not fallacious to suspect that a person's interests have a bearing on their views, but it is fallacious to present it as evidence in any kind of debate. If Fumento's science is wrong, you have to show why it is wrong, not merely point out his financial backers.
Anyway, it's simply not true that the vast majority of climatologists support the correlation between industry and global warming. Given your argument so far, I suspect that you prefer to simply extract any climatologists who happen to disagree with you, and are funded by institutions which disagree with you, from the equation (no doubt, saying that they're not REALLY climatologists or that their science is junk because, well just look who's funding it!)
: Could it be that Fumento is indifferent to his paymasters and truly believes global warming is a hoax? I suppose it could be -- but if you're that trusting, Loudon Head, I'd love to play poker with you.
: Is it circumstantial ad hominem to say that libertarians oppose environmental regulations even while their environment degrades around them because they have an unreasonable, even irrational, opposition to government?
No, that's just a non-sequiter. Or, perhaps, begging the question. You assume that environmental regulations, imposed by government, are the only way to improve the environment. There are plenty of libertarians who are very concerned about the environment, (while they may or may not "buy" global warming,) but are knowledgeable enough to know that government regulations are NOT the answer. See The Heartland Institute.