Info on the Royal Society:
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Royal_Society
Last year, ahead of the G8 summit, the Royal Society & the science academies of the other G8 nations (plus also those of Brazil, China & India) published a statement saying that the scientific evidence on climate change is clear & that the G8 nations needed to take action.
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/news.asp?id=3226
http://www.royalsoc.ac.uk/document.asp?latest=1&id=3222
In the Royal Society's letter to Exxon, they say that these groups which have received funding from Exxon have "misrepresented the science of climate change by outright denial of the evidence". They also criticise Exxon's own public take on climate science, & say that Exxon's statements about climate science "are not consistent with the scientific literature" & are "misrepresentations".
The following is from an article by George Monbiot. He is, of course, going to be biased, as he is an environmentalist, but it is still interesting reading:
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/cl...875762,00.html
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by George Monbiot
The website www.Exxonsecrets.org, using data found in the company's official documents, lists 124 organisations that have taken money from the company or work closely with those that have. These organisations take a consistent line on climate change: that the science is contradictory, the scientists are split, environmentalists are charlatans, liars or lunatics, and if governments took action to prevent global warming, they would be endangering the global economy for no good reason. The findings these organisations dislike are labelled "junk science". The findings they welcome are labelled "sound science".
(snip)
By funding a large number of organisations, Exxon helps to create the impression that doubt about climate change is widespread. For those who do not understand that scientific findings cannot be trusted if they have not appeared in peer-reviewed journals, the names of these institutes help to suggest that serious researchers are challenging the consensus.
This is not to claim that all the science these groups champion is bogus. On the whole, they use selection, not invention. They will find one contradictory study - such as the discovery of tropospheric cooling, which, in a garbled form, has been used by Peter Hitchens in the Mail on Sunday - and promote it relentlessly. They will continue to do so long after it has been disproved by further work. So, for example, John Christy, the author of the troposphere paper, admitted in August 2005 that his figures were incorrect, yet his initial findings are still being circulated and championed by many of these groups, as a quick internet search will show you.
(snip) |