they're 'confusing' you for the parent poster of the comment chain you directly replied to in the discussion that you inserted yourself into, something understandable from anyone who spends time on sites that have parent/child discussion chains.
the confusion is solely yours alone, but for any other new users to the site you're taking up the role of continuing the discussion by commenting on reply chains inside that discussion, so having a reply to your comment that mistakenly mentions "your" previous post can be immediately understood in this context as the parents post and not as a misdirected attack that needs to be personally identified before continuing casual discussion.
do you need any more context to respond with honest intentions?
FCOL, I didn't even make a point/take a side, I genuinely want to know what the difference is between "shutdown a conversation" and "dismiss opposing argument without consideration".
That post was the first post I made on this story, and I'm supposed to accept that prior to posting that I was shutting down discussion?
> it's palpable to the rest of us to see how quick the discussion jumps to feigned confusion, a lack of charity to understand what others are saying and to immediate dishonesty
With all respect to you, that's rich.
It seems like your "simple observation" is referring to the false dichotomy of stating that there are only money from Exxon, Phillip Morris and Pfizer (and the likes?) as an alternative to governmental money?
There is a plethora of way to finance any projects besides either be financed by the government or large corporations – and luckily much research is funded in other ways.
I am sure one can easily think up more ways to figure financing of (scientific) projects.
When financing come from an independent fond, the board of that fond according to the purpose.
Either you need to need to be indipendently wealthy or follow the desires of who or whatever gave the funds to the foundation.
Do you believe this money doesn't carry any obligations?
2. All science that does not internally generate revenues must rely on a patron, be that a person, corporation, or government. Funds from these orgs is limited, so scientists must justify why they should get money. This introduces a huge bug in science as a truth cremation mechanism because seeking truth may not be in a patron’s best interest. As the sums of money get larger, this effect becomes more intense.
love that typo
Actually Exxon just bought the $5B Denbury CO2 pipeline. While I am on the fence about CO2 actually being a problem, we need to recognize that companies that may be viewed as opposed to something may be part of the solution.
If someone works out a super-efficient algael biofuel that is commercially viable at a national scale, I fully expect the oil multinationals will move to growing it everywhere.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/who-we-are/technology-and-c...
> In addition, we are building a portfolio of properties for carbon sequestration, in close proximity to our CO2 pipelines
There isn't enough information available to understand if this is permanent sequestration, or a longterm reserve to supply their oil uses.
However, moving CO2 from plants to oilfields does seem to be better than just venting it into the atmosphere.
The cost of the CO2 injection system is thus offset by the profits from the oil recovered; if this were to go to zero then the corporation would abandon it as an unprofitable exercise.
And there is always the possibility of a different answer. But there's also the vast majority of evidence (with some political motivation) vs a striking lack of evidence (also with some political motivation). I'm going to err on the side of -- most people who dedicate their life to study something are honest about their study of that something.