Quote:
Originally Posted by foreverwar
"The letter, a copy of which has been obtained by the Guardian, adds: "I would be grateful if you could let me know which organisations in the UK and other European countries have been receiving funding so that I can work out which of these have been similarly providing inaccurate and misleading information to the public.""
and
"The next IPCC report should give people the final push that they need to take action and we can't have people trying to undermine it."
Seems to have made up their mind, before finding out the facts. 
|
the overall tenor is one of scepticism not backed up by evidence but that statement does allow for accurate resarch being funded in that it says "which of these have been..."
Quote:
or might he not - OK, your evidence backed statement has convinced me
|
well i did put one of these ;-) at the end of that statement! :-)
---------- Post added at 15:31 ---------- Previous post was at 15:24 ----------
Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuart C
It does seem as though the Royal Society are attacking the source of the research rather than the research itself.
---------- Post added at 15:14 ---------- Previous post was at 15:12 ----------
How about the fact they are attacking the source of the funding rather than the research itself?
|
granted they may well be allowing past experience to cloud judgement of research which they have yet to evaluate. but equally they are suggesting there is evidence to demonstrate that exxon are deliberately trying to exaggerate the extent of scientific opposition to what it claims is an otherwise consensual scientific approach (withinin which there are differences) to the causes of climate change.
the fact that exxon, unlike the other oil companies, is not keen to invist in bio fuels is interesting too, though it could be read a few ways why that might be (such as there convinced of their own science). i remain, as ever, sceptical ;-)