Having had some experience with think tanks in both the medical field and the natural resource fields I can point out one of the problems with “independent” research institutes.

They have to sell their reports.

As Mr Ritter says, “research projects that we choose to undertake, based on our own best judgment on what makes sense.”

Few think tanks funded by the petroleum industry, even if that funding is wide spread including automakers, producers, industry manufacturers, safety specialist, accounting firms, and environmental remediation, are going to produce studies that say get rid of oil altogether. It just isn’t a question they will look at. The research they do on the questions they do look at may be impeccable… but they have pre limited themselves by only looking at the questions that will produce studies their client base is interested enough in to pay for.

Those clients are not going to pay for a study that says “give it up, it’s all over.” They may very well pay for a study that tells them how to produce oil cheaper and cleaner, or how to maximize their profit during production, or how to get into new markets. Those are not even all bad tings … but they are all very much inside the box.

If you do an analysis of most newspapers you will find that the content is overwhelmingly local, and even international news is slanted to the country in which the paper is published. Why, because a person in Detroit doesn’t want to read about all the stuff going on in Buenos Aires. The paper doesn’t even bother to look because it knows that’s not what it’s customer base wants.

The sins are sins of Omission.

If Mr Ritter could point to a number of studies examining the negative effects of traffic shaping, network throttling and controversial marketing of bandwidth he would have a much greater claim to independence. But it doesn’t matter how honestly you answer the questions, if you only pick certain questions.