> (If ACC exists, the energy industry will fight because it ultimately harms their profits. If ACC doesn't exist, the academic lobby will fight for their presti

> (If ACC exists, the energy industry will fight because it ultimately harms their profits. If ACC doesn't exist, the academic lobby will fight for their prestige and grants) Why climate scientists won't have grants if there is no climate change? Climate doesn't need to be studied? > Both sides are, ultimately, dirty, due to politicization if nothing else Please, give me examples of climate scientists dirty by politization. > For bonus points, do any of the answers to those questions not boil down to the genetic or appeal to authority fallacies? Well, if you think that Theory of Evolution is appeal to authority, yes. When the big majority of a field have consensus, you have to look at the motives and arguments of the minority dissenting, not saying that the majority appeals to authority