The Cato Institute does not deserve respect or credibility

C1: Cato and Big TobaccoPro's first claim is that Cato has received donations from "Big Tobacco" and in return Pro alleges that the Institute tailored its content to reflect the interests of its donors. 1) The first problem with this assumption is that it fails to establish that Cato's content was substantially effected by the donations in question. He says that Cato accepted Big Tobacco donations " and in turn jumping on the Big Tobacco bandwagon." The earliest instance Pro cites of donations to Cato from "Big Tobacco" like donors was in 1991. However, Cato from its inception (in 1974, 17 years before the first donation in question) has been an opponent of government action to curb non-aggressive individual activities. Things like smoking bans and corporate regulation are something Cato has always been opposed to, which would naturally put them somewhat in line with the interest of tobacco corporations. Pro needs to establish that Cato's content was posterior to the various donations and has failed to do so thus far.2) On Pro's examples, he fails to show that the content must be biased. For instance, Pro says Cato "has challenged credible science that links second hand smoke exposure to death and disease and has organized opposition to smoke-free environments." On the first claim, Pro doesn't offer any substantive evidence to back the claim up. On the second claim, opposing "smoke-free environments" is incredibly vague. Is he referring to private residences and properties or is he referring to public places? The former is basic private propertarian ideology, something Cato supported before the 90's. The latter also needs backing up by Pro since he also failed to provide evidence supporting it.3) Pro's claim attempting to link the Cato Institute's opposition to the FDA is also misleading. Since the FDA's main function is to regulate the output of private industry and Cato from its inception has been a predominantly free market thing tank, it's natural that Cato would be opposed to it. Therefore Pro simply saying Cato has spent money writing against the FDA fails to prove anything.C2: Cato and Climate Change1) First, Pro's only claim is that Cato holds to a certain position without actually even attempting to show why it should discredit Cato. Let's go out on a limb and say Cato (as a monolithic entity I suppose) wholesale denies climate change (not just certain aspects or the prospect of government intervention). Why should this wholly discredit the organization? Cato isn't just a scientific institution. It also deals with topics dealing with a large range of policy issues. Let's say Cato is wrong on climate change. That still doesn't fulfill the rather large burden of proof Pro has assumed in attempting to discredit the entire organization.2) Pro has also been incredibly ambiguous on Cato's actual policy in regards to global climate change. He alludes several times to Cato's opposition to various State actions attempting to mitigate climate change but never actually mentions across the board beliefs of Cato scholars and writers. Of course I should repeat that Pro hasn't shown why denying certain aspects of global climate change should necessitate denying credibility to the institute.