Settled Science = Obesity Epidemic
Anyone who thinks it’s enough to rest an argument on “settled science” or a “scientific consensus” ought to read about John Yudkin.
Yudkin was a British professor of nutrition who, in 1972, sounded the alarm about sugar in diets, saying that if sugar were treated like any other food additive “that material would be promptly banned.” He said sugar, not fat, was the more likely cause of obesity, heart disease and diabetes.
For his efforts, Yudkin was branded a shill for the meat and dairy industries. His work was dismissed as “emotional assertions,” “science fiction” and “a mountain of nonsense.” Journals refused to publish his papers. He was uninvited from nutrition conferences and was ridiculed by the scientific community.
“Prominent nutritionists combined with the food industry to destroy his reputation, and his career never recovered,” writes Ian Leslie in a lengthy piece titled “The Sugar Conspiracy” that was published recently in The Guardian.
… despite the patina of pure objectivity, “scientific inquiry is prone to the eternal rules of human social life:
deference to the charismatic,
herding toward majority opinion,
punishment for deviance,
and intense discomfort with admitting to error.”
sunshine hours 
LOL. A large corporate interest (sugar) actively used its money and marketing to prop up biased work and shout down real scientists, but you cite this as a reason why we should be “skeptical” of real researchers and trust a large corporate interest (oil). Seriously?
“Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”
Great attempt at deflection there. You know perfectly well that nearly all of that money is for actual infrastructure spending (solar panels, seawalls, etc) rather than the mad scientist labs and extravagant corruption that you like to imagine.
“Great attempt at deflection there….”
WRONG
http://www.gao.gov/key_issues/climate_change_funding_management/issue_summary
Did you even read the page you posted? It clearly shows that actual research spending has been pretty much flat at $2B (in current dollars) for the past 20+ years, while “technology to reduce emissions” (aka manufactured goods) has grown to over $8B. So thanks for supporting MY point.
And in any case, even if you count the entire $11B annual spending, that’s just a couple WEEKS of oil company revenues… in the US alone!