You can’t trust it enough to rebut it? That doesn’t make sense. If his results are biased due to funding sources then it should be even easier to call bullshit

You can’t trust it enough to rebut it? That doesn’t make sense. If his results are biased due to funding sources then it should be even easier to call bullshit on his science. Reminds me of people who don’t want public debates on controversial topics because “we don’t want to platform our opponents bad ideas.” Their point is weak so they refuse to engage. Same with Greenpeace: can’t argue the science? Just use an ad hominem!