  ::I do not object to a reference and relevant quotes being made from the Washington Post piece.  In fact the article is still prominently referenced where it was at the start.  What I do object to is presenting the information in a biased and misleading way.  From the quote above it is clear that the total funding support for NSTA which comes from energy companies is only 3.77% of their FY06 budget, and ExxonMobil would only represent a portion of that.  I don't believe that it is fair to claim that one company making donations totaling less that 3.77% of the NSTA budget is somehow running roughshod over the organization or that the organization is bending over backwards to protect that minuscule amount of funding.  What is also clear from the NSTA response is that ExxonMobil has been a no strings attached contributor for many years since the NSTA makes it quite clear that ExxonMobil has NOT in fact tried to influence NSTA members via the parent organization in a manner similar to what the AIT producers HAVE done.  ::What is obvious from ExxonMobil's website is that in addition to the science related donations that you HAVE mentioned, there are numerous worthy environmental causes which they regularly support to a far greater extent that you HAVE NOT mentioned.  Ergo, your selectivity provides a misleading representation of ExxonMobil's contributions to the environment.  I simply object to trying to paint the picture that a corporation which contributes to many worthwhile environmental causes is being nefarious and inherently anti-environment out of self-interest.  If we want to paint the ExxonMobil picture that is fine, I only want to make sure that it is an accurate and balanced picture.  ::With regard to the RealClimate position on this issue, and giving all due respect to the climate scientists running that site and I believe some of whom contribute here, they are hardly an unbiased reference.  As climate scientists their personal livelihoods are to some extent dependent upon and to a larger extent enhanced by their promoting a pro-AGW message.  A pro-AGW perspective generates increased levels of climate related funding which, in turn, facilitates and enhances their livelihoods.  You are asking me to believe that NSTA has been influenced because less that 3.77% of their funds come from ExxonMobil yet you want me to ignore that fact that a far larger percentage of these people's entire livelihoods are dependent upon AGW related grants.  This does not seem reasonable to me.  I have no axe to grind with the scientists who run RealClimate, nor am I suggesting that they are anything other than honest and forthright individuals, but if we are going to consider the potential influences of funding streams on the results being reported I have to legitmately question their objectivity.  :: 