Talk:Philip Stott/archive 1

From SourceWatch
Jump to navigation Jump to search

I assume that what Stott disputes is the depletion of the tropical rainforests not their existence - so edited along these lines. I went to the referenced blog page but couldn't easily find the rainforests mention -- perhaps the reference should be expanded to mention the date of the particular posting referred to. Thanks -- bob

No, he actually *does* say that rainforests are an imperialist myth... (reference added) -- Gangle

Problem 1: That link does not point to an article in which Stott says rainforests are an imperialist myth. It points to an abstract of an article in which Stott says the Western idea of rainforests is a myth.
Problem 2: Stott does not say the rainforests are in imperialist myth, Stott says the idea of "virgin" rainforests are a myth. (Interestingly, a virgin myth was also used to hide from Christendom the lineage of Hebrew royalty, and to stop anti-authoritarian work of the royal family)
Problem 3: The MYTH of virgin rainforests was created by mostly academic-based imperialist racists who mascarade under the banner of environmentalism and who want to end an ancient tradition of subsistance agriculture. Why? One can't dominate people who can feed themselves. This is similar to the Sierra Club's racist anti-imigration platform (from which it later repented). The racist imperialist academians of the liberal variety want to enjoy the fruits of cheap third world labor while denying third-world (who said the racists are first anyway) residents the right to control their own destiny. Much as George W. Bush has put an end to several hundred years of international relations based on the concept of national sovereingty, the racist liberals of the Western world found soveriengty a nice idea as long as they and their kind were the sole beneficiaries of the concept.William Balee of Tulane University, New Orleans points out that forests somehow magically became "virgins" when Europeans arrived and began chasing people from the forests, or simply killing them where they were found.
Others who challenge the myth of virgin forests (presumably all active Banana Republican operatives):
  • James Fairhead of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex
  • Melissa Leach of the Institute of Development Studies at the University of Sussex
  • Victor Gornitz of the Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory at Columbia University in New York
  • William Balee of Tulane University, New Orleans
  • Darrell Posey, anthropologist
  • Peter Stahl of the State University, New York
  • Anna Roosevelt of the Field Museum of Natural History in Chicago
  • William Denevan, former professor of geography at the University of Wisconsin
  • Phil Stott, a geographer at the School of Oriental and African Studies in the University of London
  • Stephen Budiansky, science author, wrote "Nature's Keepers"
  • Oliver Rackham,a geographer at the University of Cambridge and author of the classic work, "The History of the Countryside".
  • David Clark, co-director of the remote La Selva forest research station in Costa Rica
  • Deborah Clark, co-director of the remote La Selva forest research station in Costa Rica

"The impact of myths about virgin rain forests can be pernicious,
especially for the people who live in those forests. The myth of the
virgin forest gives rise to the myth of the demon farmer. Traditional
slash-and-burn farmers become defiled as abusers of the forest. They
are excluded from national parks and forest reserves arbitrarily
declared on their land. Thev are cajoled and forced from the forests." :

Wow - thanks for fixing that up --bob

Yeh, right. And thanks for exposing your reckless disinformation, too, I'm so sure.

If, as appears likely, Philip Stott himself is the person who has been editing this article using the IP number of, I hope he will take a moment to register under his own name. He is welcome to contribute to the SourceWatch, but if he is editing an article about himself, I think it would be best to do so openly in a way that preempts any possible questions about transparency and disclosure.

I am also curious to know why Prof. Stott's email address is considered "not public" here. I just did a Google search on it and found dozens of hits, several of them in articles where he gave it out publicly for the purpose of enabling people to contact him. I am inclined to think that we should respect his wishes in this regard, but I don't understand why he would object to having it listed here. In fact, I should think he would want people who have questions about him or his work to have a way of contacting him directly.

--Sheldon Rampton 20:52 4 Dec 2003 (EST)

well of course. There is only one person in all of the United Kingdom, and since that IP came from the UK, it appears likely it is being used by Stott. After all, most IP's serve only one user, and it is easy to guess because it is usually whoever one wants to assume it is. And a Banana Republican like Stott (from the UK, no less) couldn't have any friends or colleagues that might defend his image and reputation. And never would it happen that some random Internet surfer might stumble on to the slander and have the means(computer), motive(truth) and opportunity(wiki) to correct it.
Of course, all of those things are possible. However, the reason I think it is likely that Stott himself did some of this editing is the insistence on deleting his email address. I don't think anyone other than Stott himself would know whether he considers his email address public information or not. The repeated deletion of that piece of information leads me to surmise that Stott himself may be doing the editing. Of course, this may not be the case. My main point is that it is generally better to post under your own name if you are going to write about yourself, and moreover it is better to contribute to the SourceWatch as a registered user than through an anonymous IP number. Registration is free, and registrants can remain personally anonymous if they choose, but registering makes it easier to communicate with one another. This would make it easier, for example, for me to point out to the anonymous IP user who posted the paragraph above that most of what he has written above consists of straw man arguments. For example, no one here has said that there is only one person in the UK or that Stott is a Banana Republican. And if any of the editing here is coming from Stott's friends and colleagues, I think they should identify themselves too. Why not do so, if you believe what you're writing? -- Sheldon Rampton 22:52 5 Dec 2003 (EST)
... but anyone with much experience in guerilla mass communication knows that publishing a contact number or e-mail address can be an attack tactic. Are the e-mail addresses of most individuals named on this site posted in their hodge-podge bios? Maybe someone has detected an emerging attack game and intends to nip it in the bud, effectively steering the site toward exposing disinfo and away from nonsense political games.

If his email address is that widespread on the web I'm inclined to include it - he still has the option of not responding to an email. If we opt to leave the email address out of D we should at least explain that non-publication was requested but that a websearch will quickly turn it up. It would be strange indeed if someone was contributing to their own profile but writing it anonymously in the third person.

Some of's latest editing contributions seem to be at variance with material published under Prof. Stott's name but I'll leave Gangle to edit. Gangle could you drop me a line <> - like to make contact directly with you -- bob

Seems like typical paranoic rants to me. Why does it matter if Stott is editing the information or not - the information is either valid or it is not. If an entry seems to advance a bias, writers should challenge the bias, not the person.

I'm not saying that any of the information should be deleted or regarded as invalid simply because Stott has written it (or hasn't, as the case may be). All I'm saying is that it's better to identify the sources of information than to leave them unspecified. I understand that some people may want to contribute anonymously, for a variety of reasons. As for whether information is "valid" or not, its validity can only be judged by its provenance, and the identity of the person who provides that information is part of its provenance. If Stott himself, or one of his friends or colleagues, says that Stott is "mildly left-wing," that statement has the authority of coming from the horse's own mouth. If someone else merely attributes that view to him, it has less authority. Moreover, knowing the source of a statement makes it easier to ask that source for further elaboration or supporting evidence to support their views. I don't see how saying this can be construed as a "typical paranoic rant." --Sheldon Rampton 22:52 5 Dec 2003 (EST)

Given the fact that no one editing the Philip Stott article has indicated that he or she has any sort of personal connection with Stott, I'm going to reverse my opinion and say that we should list his email address for the time being, as we've done with other individuals. Since Stott himself has listed his email address elsewhere on the Internet, I think we should assume that he has no objection to having it listed here. In fact, I think he would want it listed so that people who have any questions about the information listed here can contact him and get his response. If we receive any sort of personal communication showing that he prefers not to have it listed, we can always take it off. I think our policy should be to generally list peoples' email addresses without hesitation if they are publicly and readily available. I think we should generally avoid listing more personal information such as home address or phone number of individuals. Whenever possible, however, we should list the address, phone number and other contact information of organizations. --Sheldon Rampton 00:16 6 Dec 2003 (EST)

OK, as I have been responsible for most of the content on this page, I will discuss it here before editing it further.

Incidentally, I don't think is Stott, as I believe Stott has a good sense of humour, and furthermore accepts the fact that people are critical of him without feeling the need to edit their words. He would certainly, in my opinion, not go as far as to remove links to pages critical of him as has -- Gangle

Taking the changes made by point-by-point:

  • Change of "appears to make a living" to "writes critically of". I'm not too bothered about this change, but I am trying to get across the point that he is no longer employed as an academic, but is now a journalist. I suggest something like "A retired academic turned media pundit"... how is that?
  • Change of "although he describes himself as mildly left-wing" to "He is mildly left-wing." I think it's important to put "describes himself", because I can see no discernable left-wing opinion in any of his writing beyond a concern for the poor, which is not the sole preserve of the left.
  • removal of "anti-environmentalist" comment. How about "anti-environmentalism"? If not, could you provide some evidence (references) that he is not anti-environmentalism? He's in favour of coal & gas, anti-wind power, thinks that it's OK that bird populations are going down, doesn't believe in "global warming", is highly pro-GM (e.g. his domain name ""), anti-Kyoto, thinks concern about rainforest logging is wrong. Which facets of environmentalism is he in favour of?
  • addition of "fiercely anti-tobacco" point. I don't doubt it, though a reference would be good. I assume you added this as a counter to the fact that he has written for the tobacco front-group ESEF. I suggest that I put the ESEF link back in and retain the anti-tobacco comment, if you can provide a reference. I am not implying anything about his association with the ESEF beyond the fact that it is ironic that someone who is "left-wing" finds himself in bed with them. I can expand on this further to clarify if you think it necessary (see below)
  • Deletion of the fact that his journalism places him in the company of right-wing organisations. I see this as simply a fact. I am not suggesting he is a rabid-rightwinger himself, and I accept that he views himself as left-wing. However, it is a recurrent theme that "left-wingers" find themselves in the company of the extreme right on environmental themes. I find this fascinating. I am not necessarily making a political judgement, but it *is* a common theme, hence my mention of the LM group.
  • Deletion of association with LM group. Hopefully I have outlined my thinking above. I accept that it could be read as implying he is an ex-trotskyist, and I am willing to add a clarification that this is not the case. However, I find the similarities fascinating, so will put them back in.
  • The stuff about rainforests being a myth, which has variously rewritten as being Barthesian or Latournian. I did read Stott's articles on the subject, and realise it is a simplification to say that he thinks "rainforests are a myth", but I think it is an acceptable one. But in particular, I object to social science academese - how many people know who Latour or Barthes were? I included lots of references so people can investigate for themselves. I suggest the original wording that "tropical rain forests...are 'hegemonic myths'", plus the addition of your recommended article as a reference.
  • Addition of the phrase 'sensu latu'. See above about academese. I referenced the article where he said it, and he didn't say 'sensu latu' there. I don't think the addition of that phrase adds anything for anyone other than someone versed in the biological sciences. Furthermore, I don't think it's omissions misrepresents what he actually said.
  • Removal of email address. I must agree with sheldon here. He has repeatedly published his email address in lots of public places online. He will not see any appreciable extra spam as a result of his inclusion here. Again, if he contacts the site personally and asks to have his address removed personally, I think this would be reasonable.
  • Removal of Pants on Fire award page link. I strongly object to the removal of this link, especially given references by to "fair play" and "paternal interjections". OK, so the page is silly, but at least at the start it makes extremely good points, in my opinion - mainly that Stott goes on about "eco-hype" yet much of his rhetoric is "bio-hype" (and yes, I *do* think that is own propaganda is a legitimate technique, but I also think it should be pointed out!)

I regard it as extremely paternalistic to not allow people to read that page themselves and make up their own minds. Bear in mind I provided several links to Stott's own words, too.

All these changes sound good to me.--Sheldon Rampton 11:21 8 Dec 2003 (EST)
It is surely even more paternalistic to remove key words from an entry that you yourself do not appear to understand. Stott *is* an academic; he is *not* a journalist. He does not earn 'a living' by journalism. When he uses words, he tries to use them precisely. You thus cannot remove crucial adjectives like Latourian and Barthesian, because these give the precision required, and thus no dysinfopediac information, about what he is really aiming to say. And if you do not know Roland Barthes' seminal essay, 'Myth Today', or Lyotard's 'The Postmodern Condition', or Bruno Latour's 'We have never been modern' (surely three of the most important works of the latter part of the 20th century?), then, I fear, the problem is your problem, not his. It seems to me that you want to mold people into your own image of them - he, for one, is totally and fiercely independent, an academic who has, he hopes, disinterestedly 'deconstructed' the roots and growth of 'environmentalism' for the last 15-20 years, or more. You are doing him a dis-service by trying to 'staightjacket' his thoughts into simplistic categories. When he uses the term 'myth', or 'grand narrative', he means 'myth' as expounded by Barthes. To put it otherwise is to mislead. Read the 'History Today' piece for a complex example of his historical method of deconstruction. You should try to develop a far more subtle understanding of the individuals you aim to cover. And why is Stott here anyway? He has no links whatsoever with big business or corporations. Above all, you should be critical of your attempts to colour people by mere 'association', which seems to be one of your standard techniques. Stott will write for any decent paper, from the left-wing 'The Guardian' to the right-wing 'The Daily Telegraph' (and he has written for both), if they are interested in (and do not edit!) his views. Thank you.
  • Oh sorry - I meant to add that your discussion of the e-mail address you keep trying to put up is indeed 'academic'. Try it, and you will soon see why. It has been dead for a very long time. And if you look carefully at the Stott blog, you will see no public e-mail there. The statement is thus factually correct. People are now desperate to avoid all the spam that is spoiling the internet. It is such a pity - but there it is. You at this site really should ask permission before you post any person's e-mail address in a 'spiderable' form. Again, you are doing them a dis-service by exposing them to the worst aspects of the internet. You should *always* now write e-mails in the form: 'joe/bloggs at friendly/com, or protect the e-mail address by using advanced java scripting. Sadly, there is no other safe option.

Substantially expanded profile from primary sources of Stott, incorporated Gangles comments on the problems with the last revision by 81**, added some views critical of Stott's arguments, removed some of the unsubstantiated claims by 81**. There are a couple of references I have missed but its too late at night here to finish now so will return and add those tomorrow -- bob

Bob - Despite your beavering away, there is so much wrong with this new revision that one does not know quite where to begin! I was thus tempted to delete it entirely and to replace it with the last version. You simply cannot grasp the subtleties of Stott's position. At some point, when I have time, your piece will thus have to be thorougly re-edited. Your attemps to smear by association are just, frankly, appalling. Three points, however, must be stressed now. He has never given an interview to Monsanto - that was taken by them from another source completely. Please redit. Secondly, he is absolutely anti-tobacco in all forms, including secondary smoking, and recently said so publically on a major British TV show. Please again remove any assertion that says or hints otherwise. Thirdly, he is not anti-organic - indeed, he is pro organic, pro GM, and pro-many forms of conventional agriculture, believing strongly in the widest possible agricultural 'tool box'.

Frankly, I really do not know what you are about. Stott has never had any funding from any industry or corporation whatsoever and has actually rejected offers on principle. Why is he even on this site? I thought you were against disinformation? Thanks.

Philip Stott himself has commented on his SourceWatch article. To keep his comments distinct from remarks and editorial contributions made by others, I have given his comments their own page, with links pointing to it from both the main article and this talk page. He is of course free to edit it further if he chooses, but I advise other SourceWatchns to refrain from doing so.

Also, I would like to repeat my invitation for Philip Stott to register under his own name if he wishes to contribute to the SourceWatch. It only takes a moment, and we don't ask for any personal information. You have the option of entering an email address if you wish, but we don't display it or give it out publicly. Including it when you register would enable people to contact you through the website without you having to reveal your email address to them.

There are also a couple of advantages to registering. For one thing, registered users get their own user pages, where they can post any information about themselves that they wish, as well as a couple of other features that make it easier to track revisions to articles and communicate with other users.

And welcome to SourceWatch!

--Sheldon Rampton 23:27 11 Dec 2003 (EST)

Philip - I am happy to leave your comments but have deleted them from the article page -- there is no need to have them in both locations. I'll review your comments and re-edit shortly and will post an additional note on the talk page. -- Bob


Since Stott arrived and un-cloaked his intrepid defender, it is probalbly appropriate to add that Stott's colleague is not the only other critical contributor adding to this talk page. And for anyone who cares and doesn't already know, there are more than one regular visitors to this site who contribute sharp-edged, independant minded thoughts, and who seem to recognize that a U.S. Democrat affinity holds together the identifiable core group of site regulars.


I have made a number of amendments to the article based on the comments directly from Philip Stott (some of which were points previously made by an anonymous user that I and others weren't prepared to accept without some evidence). (Stott's original comments are included though some required no response).

(a) I am indeed passionately anti-tobacco, and I have stated this recently on British television. The science on this, in my opinion, has been clear for a long time. I have also personally never smoked since a teenage affectation with a cigar when I was a foolish 18 years old! I believe the export of cigarettes to the developing world to be an evil process;

I'm happy to accept that and have amended the text. I had attempted to check this a few days ago but - as you point out - your publicly listed e-mail address doesn't work.

(b) I have never received funding from any business or corporation. Nor would I! (My wife is somewhat sad about this);

I'm happy to accept that too but - and correct me if I'm wrong - I can't see anywhere in the article where it says you do.

(c) I have never, to my knowledge, given an interview to Monsanto;

The interview in question was posted to the Agriculture Online section of the Monsanto UK website. I mistakenly took this as a dedicated section of Monsanto's site given when it is in fact Monsanto republishing an article from the US magazine, Agriculture Online. The error was mine and has been corrected in the article.

(g) My analysis of the construct of 'rain forest' is a classic postmodernist and linguistic deconstruction (you seem to have missed the linguistic point completely);

Fair point but it is one that I was aware of and planned to return to (along with some of the other claims about rainforests that warrant attention).

(i) I will write for any reasonable outlet, left or right, if they do not edit my views and try to mould them to their own beliefs - this does not mean I am a Trotskyist-Socialist-Right Wing-Libertarian-Authoritarian or anything else. I stopped writing for Tech Central Station precisely because I thought it too 'American' for my output. You really must stop trying to 'tar' people by association;

What appears in the article is a factual listing of where your work appears.

(i) Indeed, I have always voted Labour (except when I foolishly voted Liberal on a couple of occasions). I have never voted for a right-wing party, nor am I likely to do so;

I'm happy to accept that and have amended the text slightly to reflect your comments.

There were also two earlier comments from user 81.** worth responding to beyond what is covered above

1. "he is not anti-organic" - Correct me if I'm wrong - but I can't see that Stott is described anywhere in the article as being "anti-organic".

2. "Stott has never had any funding from any industry or corporation whatsoever …Why is he even on this site?". I'm happy to accept Philip's statement that he does not and has not been funded by companies etc. However, the purpose of SourceWatch is broader than only being confined to industry funded groups and individuals.

I also tidied up a few other bits of formatting, reworked the subheads etc --bob

Philip - On thinking about it I'd be interested in tracking down the British TV interview you mentioned that you had done recently where you discussed tobacco -- was it BBC? and if so when? with thanks -- bob

Thanks, Bob. You have done a pretty good job. I have just spent 30 minutes tidying it all up a little and making it reflect just that little bit more fairly what I really believe and argue. I might add many more references when I have a moment - you have only found a very small portion of my output and are missing a lot of what I (rightly or wrongly) regard as my better stuff. Although no fan of NGIN (not because of their attacks on me personally) but because of their essentially ad personam approach in general, I have let that stand.

So let's leave it now. Time for us all to go and do something far more useful - like getting a life!

Cheers and thanks again for all your interest. Philip.


Dear Philip,

While minor editorial changes don't require explanation on a talk page it is better that - especially on controversial pages - reasons for major modifications and deletions are set out. In this way it is more time efficient for everyone so that the reasoning behind a change can be assessed and either accepted or further modified.

Some of the changes you have made are minor editorial changes that improve the article or factual additions. However, others are significant and modify or delete significant information. Others, while accepted, are more appropriate in direct quotes and attributed to you.


1. I have reinstated the original paragraph summarising your views on GE, sustainability and rainforests. Your revision significantly softened the summary of your description to the point where it does not match the unqualified nature of the views you advocate. I have opted for the use of 'rainforests' rather than the less common 'rain forests'. I shifted the deconstruction point to refer to your work on rainforests only. The section in the article on sustainability referred to one opinion column, which I think is less substantial than your IEA paper on rainforests. Maybe you have published other work on sustainability but I don't know of it.

2. I put the reason for no longer writing for Tech Central Station in quotes and attributed the location to SourceWatch - otherwise later readers won't know where to find them.

3. I'll return to the Scientific Alliance section and insert their own self-description in quotes rather than leave the current paraphrased version which makes it sound like 'rational science' is a term adopted by the other contributors to this page.

4. I reinstated the original quotation from the New Statesman article. (And yes I still have to put that reference in). This is only quoting what was written in the original article. Lest readers interpret the 'anti-environmentalist' comment as being criticism of both environmentalism and environmentalists personally I have shifted the 'ad personam' comment after the quote from your letter to the editor.

5. I check BBC TV The Politics Show site and the only reference that comes up on your name is "South: Climate change, what does it mean?" broadcast Wednesday, 10 September, 2003. There is no reference there to your views on tobacco. It is possible it was in the interview but not the broadcast or there might have been another story missing from their archive. Was it the September 10 story you were referring to?

6. I re-instated the reference to your lack of response to the comment in the New Statesman article about lack of climate science qualifications. [1]. This was a substantial and unwarranted deletion. It is a fair and accurate comment since in neither your letter to the editor of the New Statesman or your posting to SourceWatch do you claim to have climate science qualifications. It is reasonable to draw his to the attention of readers so that they can take that point into consideration when evaluating your views on climate change.

7. ESEF: There are a few points here; I have deleted the original addition about you not authoring the release and made clear in a later paragraph that the release was issued by ESEF not you. This improves readability and keeps it accurate. While I'm happy to accept you didn't "write" the release I'm sure you would have checked it before allowing it to be issued in your name.

The deletion on the ESEF self-description I consider unwarranted. It is important that readers get a brief snapshot of what ESEF did without having to go to the ESEF page unless they really want more detailed information. Equally the comments in the release on your views of the UK situation are accurate and pertinent.

The deletion of the brief par explaining the origins of ESEF is also fair and accurate contextual information. It is in brackets which makes clear that it is considered an aside but still useful information for those readers reading the page as a stand alone article.

There may be other points but I'll have to return to them at another time.

Philip, I appreciate that there are probably many other papers/articles you have authored many probably in hard copy rather than on-line. Perhaps you could post a listing at some point to your own site.

Cheers -- bob


Thanks Bob. I have accepted many of your changes, but I have: (a) reinstated my original opening paragraph which encapsulates my beliefs exactly (your change does not) and (b) I will never in a hundred years accept your attempt to link me in any way whatsoever with smoking and tobacco (even in parentheses), which I loathe and oppose 100%. This is one of my deep, gut core positions, along with anti-racism! The tobacco lobbyists make me sick. I am sorry to have to say that this is the one part of your approach at Dysinfopedia that I find unacceptable! In the main what you do is moderately fair - this is not. Please think again - you must not try to smear people by long-distance association (and, I might add, in this case by totally unknown association). It is *morally* unacceptable, and I take this site to be primarily about morality. Thanks. (By the way, you have the correct 'The Politics Show' and it was indeed in the interview and discussion, where one of my protagonists also tried hard to link critical views on climate change with tobacco. I jumped, as here, immediately to my (and others) defence.)

I do appreciate your efforts (though I am not sure it is worth it! I am neither that interesting nor important) But I am insistent that this page will reflect my genuine views (or, at the least, not distort them too much). I am perhaps a difficult animal for you to deal with here at Dysinfopedia - a left wing, totally non-corporate, and, I hope, totally independent academic doesn't quite fit your sets of pre-determined moulds, does it?

Cheers, and have a good weekend. Philip.

I've made a few edits here but have avoided trying resolve the question of how to deal with ESEF's tobacco industry origins. I'll leave that to be worked out between Philip and Bob and whoever else wants to contribute. My opinion on the matter is that some mention of ESEF's tobacco origins would be appropriate in the context of making it clear that ESEF is a corporate-backed organization with a history of criticizing health and environmental measures that its sponsors opposed. However, any such mention should also make it clear that Stott has not been involved with the tobacco industry and does not support its positions.

By way of analogy, the American Council on Science and Health is also strongly critical of tobacco, even though it has consorted with tobacco apologists such as Jacob Sullum and Steven J. Milloy. It is possible for people to agree on some things and disagree on others. On the other hand, ESEF shouldn't be allowed to get away with presenting itself as simply an organization that "challenges the misuse of science," when its own history of allegiance to the tobacco industry is itself an abuse of science.

One possible formulation might be to simply a clause characterizing ESEF as "an industry-backed organization" without specifying the tobacco industry in particular. ESEF's tobacco background is described in the ESEF article, so people can presumably find it there. If so, however, some of ESEF's description of itself as an organization that "challenges the misuse of science" should probably also be removed from the Stott article. This isn't an article about ESEF, it's an article about Philip Stott.

--Sheldon Rampton 22:11 14 Dec 2003 (EST)

_________________________ Hi Sheldon, You make the crucial point. This is an article about poor old me and not about ESEF. You also wrote: "On the other hand, ESEF shouldn't be allowed to get away with presenting itself as simply an organization that "challenges the misuse of science," when its own history of allegiance to the tobacco industry is itself an abuse of science." But that is surely for your separate ESEF entry and for them to challenge, not me - it should *not* appear on a page about yours truly. I would, of course, accept a simple link to your totally separate ESEF entry to facilitate readers moving about your site. That's just normal web site practice. Cheers, Philip.

The edits by were Philip Stott himself - he posted a note on the user page to that effect. I'll also add a (pers comm) into the text of the article at the appropriate locations so the source of the statements is clear. --Bob Burton 15:45, 4 Oct 2005 (EDT)