Considering Poptech's defense of funding (#3 in comment series)

This is the third Poptech comment, actually two sent minutes apart, it hardly needs introduction except that I hope it will help enlighten some to the tactics and base attitudes of your Republican/libertarian contrarian type.  

Andrew Poptech's comments are in comic sans font, where he quotes me I changed the type to back verdana and my commentary is mostly blue verdana.
Link to see the first comment, second comment.

________________________________________________________

Andrew at 6:44 PM, January 26, 2016

has left a new comment on your post "Poptech's boilerplate response": 

Poptech: 

The first link I actually provided was - Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?

Yes and what kind of refutation is that post supposed to be?

1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?

     "direct" nice touch

2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?

3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?

     And you were expecting them to respond how?  

CC: Besides, we all know (the evidence is pretty clear cut and copious) this is sort of a class war thing.  With the crisp clean-cut right-wing military-industrial-complex types, pissed at the environmental types and long haired scientists with their increasingly strident messaging that humanity was exceeding its limits for a comfortable sustainable life style - and that we needed to think about what we were doing and perhaps trying to change some of our unsustainable habits.

With the Reagan White House at their backs, they created a PR machine that made "sustainability" - "environmentalism" - "stewardship towards our biosphere" - "slowing down our ravenous consumption" into bad words and demonized notions.