> Secondly, you're assuming that those oil company scientists were wrong and academics were right. But that's a product of media-driven loyalty to academia. Dig

> Secondly, you're assuming that those oil company scientists were wrong and academics were right. But that's a product of media-driven loyalty to academia. Dig into the details and you'll see that those oil scientists were saying true things like "the models aren't reliable, we can't predict the impact" and in fact academics agreed There’s a lot to unpack, first is an implicit assumption “media driven loyalty to academics” even exists as a thing to discuss. I’d go as far to say the words are meaningless in this context. I can say the moon is a collection of ghost farts. Just because I can say something does not make it true, or worthy of debate. What you’re saying here is akin to a moon made of ghost farts, it’s just dressed to look and sound less absurd. Next you state that the models were unreliable and that only the “oil scientists” stood up to the grizzly academics. This too is weird. As like, you know, science progresses. Just because they were wrong with a specific model doesn’t mean they were wrong about the overall outcome. I don’t understand how that refutes anything. It feels very black and white, and the world isn’t just shades of gray but color, beeb. > Thirdly, you assert that oil companies must have been selecting such scientists deliberately, but ignore that academia also selects its scientists. You aren't going to get anywhere in academic climatology if you think industrial activity doesn't have much impact on the climate. Not only will you struggle to get funding but you'll also be attacked and driven out by other academics. Any argument that a consistency of views must be driven by selection bias has to be applied fairly. I don’t have much to say here other than, like the obvious difference is one group is paid extremely well and the other group isn’t. The group paid extremely well, oil scientists, are incentivized to fall in line with the needs of whoever writes their paychecks. Finally, you talk about empirical observations but provide a single link to a popular science type article. I’d expect at least a literature review or something meaningful. The mention of Covid also kind of shows your hand, your interest and expression seems to be based on “sides,” breaking it up as an us versus them. Combining issues you find to be related because of your world view. I’d really encourage you to take a step back, and really look at the world. You might just find that color, instead of black and white, makes for a more descriptive and accurate existence.