Comment Re:Britain/Northern Europe is Ocean regulated. (Score 1) 571
I'll try to be more clear and complete in presenting my point, because once again you didn't get it, or you ignored it.
Knowing who funds the site is useful and important information for the readers of Slashdot. It helps them understand that they will only get a very limited, and highly selective subset of the research there.
There are valid peer reviews papers at the website you refer to, but the web site only includes the bits and pieces of the research that support it's very specific Exxon friendly point of view. It tends to exclude peer reviewed papers that provide evidence that is not in Exxon's financial interests.
It wraps all of this in highly prejudicial language, branding all those who oppose the website's point of view as 'extremist' and 'alarmist'. The co2science website does this while pretending to be objective and attempting to hide the fact that it's funded by Exxon and the Mellon-Scaife fortunes.
I'm not attempting to address the validity of individual papers at the site. I have no doubt that some of them are good and contribute in part to the larger body of knowledge. Again, it's the context that slashdot readers need to be aware of, or they may be misled into believing that the website presents a balanced picture.
The SkepticalScience.com is a better source because it's honest about it's purpose, takes a broader view, and does not exclude references to valid peer reviewed studies based on the outcomes of the studies.