Not exact matches
Making the
arguments based on very long periods,
like the Stern Review did for its economic comparisons, is actually an admission that we can not justify our views, but try to
mislead the audience to believe that we can.
These groups gladly accept Exxon's support, which enables them to keep churning out
misleading reports, to flood newspaper op - ed pages with bizarre
arguments against action to curb rampant carbon emissions, and to appear on right - wing TV and radio where they're invited by the
likes of Rush Limbaugh and Glenn Beck to tick off blatant distortions of climate science without challenge by actual climate experts.
These are clearly attempts at «
arguments from authority», and
like most such attempts, are fallacious and, indeed,
misleading.
If you'd
like to read the case for Section 702, the House Intelligence Committee's homepage lays out an
argument from its Republican majority, albeit one that's intentionally
misleading about how Section 702 incidentally sweeps up domestic communications.