> which ever of those is the case it is not going to hurt us one bit to know.
This seems to be the major contention being brought up in the letter. Not that GW is completely and purely a scam or should be completely written off (as you imply he is suggesting), but that the process for understanding and studying it has been corrupted by money and that attempts to put together a "topical group" to study it have been ignored for political reasons.
Yes, but that might easily be a case of sour grapes because it is not his proposal that got accepted.
I really got that vibe from the article, that this was as much about him not being part of the 'in' group as it was about a suddenly found set of principles over which to resign from this body.
You could characterize it that way, but realize also that if the set of the "in group" is people whose livelihoods are based on finding evidence for AGW theory and those in the "out" group are those who don't, then the set of people is the same as the set of theories.
This seems to be the major contention being brought up in the letter. Not that GW is completely and purely a scam or should be completely written off (as you imply he is suggesting), but that the process for understanding and studying it has been corrupted by money and that attempts to put together a "topical group" to study it have been ignored for political reasons.