[joshgel]

Their argument reminds me of climate change “skeptics” arguments that there is some sort of institutional bias towards papers that support climate change as a theory, which therefore is why all the papers and all the evidence support the climate change theory.

Is there a term for this kind of logical fallacy? It’s almost in ad hominem argument against an entire group

[jonahx]

It's not a logical fallacy, though. There is just no evidence for it, and we understand intuitively how far-fetched it is. But it's certainly _possible_ that institutional bias explains those results. It just happens not to be the case.

If we're looking for a general logical fallacy, it might be something like, "Using the mere fact of theoretical possibility as a way to justify unlikely beliefs, or as a counter-argument to strong evidence." I'd love to know if there's a term for that. It comes up everywhere.