Yes, that is what I had gained from reading his interviews and that makes sense that 97% of just the scientist that believe climate change true and not all scientist. I have never had a single disagreement to such.

The specific and credible evidence I am looking for is that in which shows WHY there is this huge lie about climate change. I am not saying your wrong at all. I am just surprised that your argument could be easily validated as credible with you providing the links to where you retained this information yet you neglect to do so. Anything with credibility like government documents, recordings, video, whistle blowers with no motives behind it.

You didn’t just make this all up. You couldn’t have just read some person’s bias filled pages of assumption then take it as fact. You’ve been educated better than to be that sloppy in your logical conclusions, so you have to have proof from reliable sources.

As a scientist you should know that is absolutely needed and it will show everyone that they need to be more skeptical. The whole reason I was intrigued to respond was because you said you were a scientist and I knew you would know the provisions of proper logical reasoning. I really thought I had found someone who could provide such evidence because everyone else claiming this had very weak logic in their reasoning.

You have made several claims that seem bias, such as discrediting Schneider to being pressured with no evidence of such. You said because if possible defunding as motive for lying. Why care about being defunded from what he believes is a lie and not just quit and work for all the big money that opposes ICPP? He would actually make more money and would not have to lie about his work if that were the case.

I can show you where Ted Cruz received money from oil and gas companies, which gives motive and why I think there is reason to believe oil companies are trying to discredit facts. I could easily think the other way if shown evidence of motive for claiming Schneider was pressured to lie and why are they being forced to lie.

All I have seen from other deniers are links to people that make assumptions because of correlation, but do not show causation. They are not very credible people either. I figured you would be logical enough to have credible evidence. I have been very disappointed in that expectation so far.

I am giving great doubt to your claims at this point and do not understand the difficulty in you providing merit to your claims. It is not bias at all if I have not been presented any credible evidence. It’s absolutely illogical for denying evidence that you can’t give any reasonable proof to deny.

Accusing, what you agreed to be, a credible source of lying, without any logical basis for reason is bias. All that it shows is deniability just to give stronger support to your claim which not only is bias it is also using fallacious logic. That shouldn’t becoming from someone with a PhD let alone a scientist. If you feel it is exhausted then so be it, but it would have been long over with just simply providing actual evidence as to why it is all a lie. Not just saying so because you say so.

I even gave the links to the exact pages that show Ted Cruz receiving contributions from oil and gas companies. There are over 900 pages of official documentation and I can allow you to see for yourself. This in no way proves Ted Cruz is only denying climate change because he was paid, but it hurts his credibility to such claims and arouses suspicion.

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do

http://www.fec.gov/fecviewer/CandCmteTransaction.do