: 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.
Fair enough. However, in the absence of a specific scientific critique of Fumento (which I may or may not bother to hunt down, depending on my mood), I stand by my assertion that his findings are suspect given the circumstantial evidence, as I presented earlier.
: 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!)
Don't assume things. I won't ignore/extract opposing viewpoints simply because I disagree with them. I've followed the global warming issue for years, and my conclusion is that the overwhelming scientific consensus supports GW. Now, that's just a conclusion based on my experience as a non-scientist who reads/follows the news. If that's not good enough for you, then check out http://www.globalwarming.net/
: : 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.
No, it's my opinion of libertarians. You may be likeable as a person -- the few libertarians I've gotten to know are agreeable people -- but I really can't stand libertarianism. I find it selfish.
:Or, perhaps, begging the question. You assume that environmental regulations, imposed by government, are the only way to improve the environment.
No, I never said they are the only way, just a good way.
: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.
Ahem...while libertarians may not support governmental regulations based on their ideology, this is their OPINION -- it is not the same thing as their KNOWING that regs are not the answer. I trust you grok that.
:See The Heartland Institute.
I went, I saw, and I've concluded that any website which includes approving quotes of Senator Larry Craig (Mr. Mining Industry/Mr. Cattle Industry) is not a website I'll put any faith in. That, plus it's a libertarian website, and you already know what I think of libertarianism.