Got a problem with what someone says? Try addressing what they say, not where their funding comes from, nor who they are, nor even what their qualifications are.
No problem. Get it through the peer reviewed process then everyone can have a look. But asking to address thousands of opinion pieces on blogs before the science can progress will just hold things up ( which is of course what deniers want) & the same things are asked daily by deniers anyway, so it’s just a delaying tactic.]]>
You are a member of Dr Steven Fityus’s research group at the University of Newcastle, right? He receives funding for his group from the Australian Coal Association Research Program (ACARP). About $500k most recently. Interesting observation in the light of accusations of bias by you aimed at me with respect to my work for Greenpeace in the 1990s.
With respect to your question regarding Rio Tinto – a company that recognizes the challenge of climate change and wants to move rapidly on the solutions (like all responsible businesses) – there is nothing to ponder too deeply about with respect to my groups involvement. In this case, we undertook research on the impacts of ocean acidification on coral reef organisms, and helped run a highly successful employee program. The later was designed to help employees understand the problems of climate change and the urgency of moving toward solutions. A worthy program which had some great outcomes.
As long as the science is evidence-based and is not interfered with (which it hasn’t been – otherwise I would exited the project immediately), I have worked on science based projects with a wide range of organizations (as I have repeatedly stated). We must get the best answers to the important questions that lie at the heart of this massive problem. Involving all players makes perfect sense.
By the way, Marc, I see that you are systematically contacting my research colleagues and students with respect to my professionalism. Could you please tell what your intention or hopes are with respect to this? Is it all for the ABC News Watch cause? I note that you have already slurred me on that site. I am not sure that there is much to be gained from engaging in further discussion with you.
How about since 1994?
If you look at Soon’s papers, he openly points out the sources of his funding (although you pretend that he hides it).
It turns out that Big Oil has actually done orders of magnitude more funding for climate change “science” than against it. Here is just one example: http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/1121-04.htm
Are you sure that none of the tendrils of your funding reach back to ExxonMobil, BP, etc?
Perhaps it is time to stop the hysterical argumentum ad hominem and discuss facts!!]]>
Got a problem with what someone says? Try addressing what they say, not where their funding comes from, nor who they are, nor even what their qualifications are. Those things mean squat in regards to whether or not what they’re presenting is factual.
Anyone (and I mean alarmists and skeptics alike) harping on funding are just making ad hominem attacks.]]>
Mark, are you a denier for hire?]]>
Clearly you are a misguided conspiracy theorist who believes anyone who dares question the great Oz is in someone’s pocket.]]>