Quote:
Originally Posted by hatedbythemail
well actually it was the royal society which im sure you agree is a most learned body. it is they that are pointing out the highly dubious tactics being employed by exxon and co discredit the overwhelming body of peer reviewed evidence.
|
There it is again. Look up the definition of stereotyping.
Quote:
|
this issue is far too important to be left to people with commercial interests. why would a leftist organisation wish to promote climate change. what really is in it for them? why would you be 'pro-global warming'? whats their agenda? i dont see the payback for them but i do for exxon in discrediting legitimate scientific enquiry with pseudo scientific enquiry, as the royal society, not me, alleges.
|
If they have an agenda, they want people who'll enforce it on other people. Often, but not exclusively small ideological organisations are fronts, or coordinating with much bigger ones. Donations don't always end up where you send them.
If someone paid you for a report, would you report be any different if it was funded by the Lib Dems or Tories? If you aren't suceptible to such corruption, then why are you assuming everyone else is? Point of fact one of Noam Chomsky's early works was funded by the US military. Does that mean his work is compromised?
Basically...
Discredit the work, not the author based on where the funding comes from.