The Democratic Senator is now asking the same questions HEATED asked in our investigation last week—and more.
I know it is difficult to avoid sponsoring from the fossil fuel industry ... but I am wondering: What do the members of the AGU themselves think about this?
Maybe this is just me, but I do disagree with the framing at the end of the article.
"AGU is the world’s largest Earth sciences conference, and the organization says it is actively trying to solve the climate crisis. Its acceptance of funding from the fossil fuel industry raises questions of a conflict of interest."
I don't see the purpose of treating what is just a science org as sort of guiltly until proven innocent I guess.
To be clear, I'm not criticizing the desire for more information, or HEATED's reporting, and what happened with Abramoff was obviously wrong and they deserve to be heavily criticized for that.
But I don't know, just the idea of questioning if an org of scientists which produce great scientific work is contaminated (can't think of a better word this late) by fossil fuels, I don't like.
Maybe I'm reading into that paragraph something you didn't imply or I have ideological blindness on this, but I wanted to give my thoughts on that part.
As always though, HEATED does great work and I'm glad you are writing for it.