5 thoughts on “Members of Congress call for investigation of Shell over climate change”

  1. It continues to amaze me that congressmen (all Democrats, by the way) with no obvious background or understanding of the basic principles of science can continue to use the term “climate deniers” while the evidence that much of the science is still not resolved and certainly not “Settled”. The entire structure of scientific inquiry is based on the ability to challenge and validate or dismiss the data collected and summarized by researchers. It is time we start using the term “climate liars” to counter the public perception that the science is “settled by consensus”. The scientific process doesn’t work that way.

  2. With a complex, unresolved question, one strategy is to “fund” two teams, one on each side of the question. In a court of law there are two lawyers one on each side of the question. Ben Franklin would draw a line down the middle of a piece of paper and list the +’s and -‘s on each side. It would be imprudent of a large corporation not to look at (fund research) both sides of a question.

  3. http://www.spiegel.de/international/world/wwf-helps-industry-more-than-environment-a-835712-2.html

    From the article
    Then-WWF President Prince Bernhard of the Netherlands was able to recruit oil multinational Shell as his first major sponsor. In 1967, thousands of birds died after a tanker accident off the coast of France, and yet the WWF forbade all criticism. That could “jeopardize” future efforts to secure donations from certain industrial sectors, WWF officials said during a board meeting.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.