As I was trying to say, if the Marshall Institute is repeatedly arguing against the facts, how has it retained enough standing to keep doing it? They should have taken a pretty serious reputational hit one would think.

Is it because they act through proxies? I don’t think I’ve ever heard of them before and that would explain the low profile. There have long been stories of mysterious (and even not so mysterious) sources of funding for the cultivated expert witnesses that Oreskes talks about.

Or is it their nuanced argument? “We never said (tobacco/acid rain/whatever) harm wasn’t real, we said it wasn’t proven.”

And yet over that span of years, one would expect some of the mud to stick to them anyways.