Someone tell me how credible they are as regards the climate science they
present in their reports. I can't work it out.
--
Rob C. Overfield
Hull

In article , pashkin0-
@hotmail.com says...
Someone tell me how credible they are as regards the climate science they
present in their reports. I can't work it out.


The Marshall Institute is one of the main right-wing think tanks in the
US, having received most of their funding from groups that oppose
government regulation of industry, or from oil industry groups (Exxon
Mobil, the Exxon Education Foundation.) Many of the main players in
Marshall are the same people as in Fred Singer's Science and
Enviromental Policy Program, which has minimized the human role in ozone
depletion and global warming over the years, and has been directly or
indirectly funded by the coal, oil, and tobacco industries. Many of
those same players also were involved in denying a relationship between
tobacco and cancer.

In short, the credibility of the Marshall Institute on climate is
essentially the credibility of large industries in the US on climate.
It provides the big business viewpoint an outlet.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks

On a tatty piece of sub-ether Harold Brooks at
said...
In article , pashkin0-
@hotmail.com says...
Someone tell me how credible they are as regards the climate science they
present in their reports. I can't work it out.


The Marshall Institute is one of the main right-wing think tanks in the
US, having received most of their funding from groups that oppose
government regulation of industry, or from oil industry groups (Exxon
Mobil, the Exxon Education Foundation.) Many of the main players in
Marshall are the same people as in Fred Singer's Science and
Enviromental Policy Program, which has minimized the human role in ozone
depletion and global warming over the years, and has been directly or
indirectly funded by the coal, oil, and tobacco industries. Many of
those same players also were involved in denying a relationship between
tobacco and cancer.

In short, the credibility of the Marshall Institute on climate is
essentially the credibility of large industries in the US on climate.
It provides the big business viewpoint an outlet.

Harold

Thank you Harold. i did find their website, but it wasn't that
informative, at least not in ways I was looking for. Much appreciated.

--
Rob C. Overfield
Hull

"Harold Brooks" wrote in message
...
In article , pashkin0-
@hotmail.com says...
Someone tell me how credible they are as regards the climate science they
present in their reports. I can't work it out.


The Marshall Institute is one of the main right-wing think tanks in the
US, having received most of their funding from groups that oppose
government regulation of industry, or from oil industry groups (Exxon
Mobil, the Exxon Education Foundation.) Many of the main players in
Marshall are the same people as in Fred Singer's Science and
Enviromental Policy Program, which has minimized the human role in ozone
depletion and global warming over the years, and has been directly or
indirectly funded by the coal, oil, and tobacco industries. Many of
those same players also were involved in denying a relationship between
tobacco and cancer.

In short, the credibility of the Marshall Institute on climate is
essentially the credibility of large industries in the US on climate.
It provides the big business viewpoint an outlet.

Harold
--
Harold Brooks




Considering the IPCC is lead by opportunist left wingers the Marshall
institute offers a welcolmed balance