[Copernicus]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Unless you work in pharma as a janitor that is.

[/ QUOTE ]

This reminded me, Copernicus, you said previously that you work for a couple of climate scientists. I don't think I ever caught their names. Which climate scientists are they?

[/ QUOTE ]

Having not seen your prior questions, I had not seen this gem:

[ QUOTE ]
A commion but fallacious argument. Would you say you should not summarily dismiss articles by the scientists hired by tobacco companies to "refute" the link between smoking and lung cancer?


[/ QUOTE ]

You are the one promoting a logical fallacy here, circumstantial ad hominen. You cannot logically dismiss an argument/position based on the prior history of the source. Every argument has to be considered based on its own merits. So no, you cannot summarily dismiss the findings of scientists hired by tobacco companies solely on that basis.

Even worse than the resulting logical fallacy, to do so would present a nearly insurmountable roadblock to science. Every scientist and/or scientific project can be claimed to be biased in the area being studied...all work could be dismissed with a waive of circumstantial ad hominen.

Global warming is the perfect example. Anyone hired by an energy company or the government is dismissed by one side for the bias of their employers, and anyone on the environmental Wacki side of the coin (pun intended) is dismissed as being hoplesessly biased to not report findings that would obviate their training and lifes work.