beeps

What more proof do you want? I literally noted one of your articles cited an organisation that has been repeatedly criticised for supporting gutting social welfare and cutting taxes on the wealthy. It's common sense to say that they are going to be biased against higher tax rates for the wealthy.

I changed it because an insurance company does not have an explicit, directly correlated motivation to falsify climate data. I might trust it, but that depends on other factors as well.

You don't even know what my ideology is.

Why would you dismiss something just because of who funded it?

Because the people who fund it very often have some degree of editorial control over what conclusions are drawn or whether those conclusions are published at all. Either directly, or via soft power, such as withholding funding for future work.

This happens all the time. It's not exactly a big secret.

Do you dismiss climate data because a lot of it is funded by insurance companies?

If it was a climate report funded by an oil company, I certainly would. Just as I would dismiss a gender studies report funded by a 'gender critical' organisation or a report on cults funded by Scientologists.

If an organisation's very existence is contingent on opposing a particular conclusion then they're going to have bias against that conclusion.

Are you really foolish enough to think that an organisation founded by billionaires and funded by billionaires is going to willingly publish information saying you should tax billionaires more? The bias is integral to the organisation's existence.

I like how that article concludes that we should be taxing the rich more (albeit through closing loopholes that they use rather than increasing the highest rate).