>>13023078>Well if Scientists need to interpret data first the same set of data can say many things depending which scientist you ask.So all interpretations are equally rational? Is that really what you want to argue?
>In addition to that you are not forced to consider all existing data when writing a paper so you can cherrypick it to pick your narrativeYes, this is a common tactic among deniers. The only reason you would need to cherrypick is because the evidence isn't on your side in the first place.
>without what you call "denial" you just have a secular religion and no mechanism to determine truthAgain, you're confusing skepticism with denial. Retard.
>because you say trust the evidence but evidence needs to be interpreted so you can disagree on the interpretationYou can disagree, that doesn't mean your disagreement is rational. It's not that hard to understand, yet you seem to be having a very difficult time.
>but when that doesnt suit you Why would something not suit me?
>you say trust the evidenceHuh? That's not my response to misinterpretation of the evidence. You fail.
>a fallacy of equivocation is misusing a word or abusing multiple meanings of that wordThat's one meaning of equivocation. Mote generally, it's calling two different things the same thing or giving them equal weight when they are unequal.
>link one of your papersNo thanks.
