|
I've worked as an environmental chemist for years, and I can tell you that there are only two reasons that the scientific data was presented with inadequate time for its review.
1. The science is crap. How good is a science team if they can't put together good evidence until the deadline. The data must've been rushed or they are just incompetent. Either way, there is no way that they performed a thorough study. I'd like to see them admit this.
2. It was a Phillip-Morris-type agenda driven study where facts are cherry picked and opposing data is omitted. They are aware of the subjectivity driving the study and know that it would be easily noticed under adequate review. If this is the case, they ought to be ashamed of calling themselves scientists and an investigation into the cause of their subjectivity is required.
I'm an ass cause I didn't make the meeting, but I would've flipped over a pretentious comment like "You don't need to know about that".
We need publicity... lets call Turko.
|