So, if I get this right:
- FoS (which I always mentally change to "Full of Shit") puts up billboards which are clearly meant to downplay the effects of man-made factors in climate change. They do this by stating that the sun is the main driver of climate change, "Not you, Not CO2"
- Greenpeace then goes on to show that any changes in the suns output over the last century would have minimal affect on climate change, and that man-made factors have been driving the change over the last century.
- FoS then challenges Greenpeace's assertion that the billboards are "misleading" by saying "hey - we never said that man-made factors aren't important. We said "since the sun is the main influence on climate, large changes in the sun's output over time will drive climate change more than man-made factors ever could." I imagine them thinking "hey, if the sun turned off, then the climate would change much more than any man-made factors could compensate for"
- So, by being perhaps technically correct in one (extreme) sense, they are (somewhat smugly) trying to wiggle out of the fact that they were clearly trying to put in the minds of drivers that man-made factors are not important in the climate change observed over the last century.
- And so their defence to Greenpeace's assertion that they were trying to mislead the public is "hey, we were just stating facts - we just let other people come up with their own conclusions. We can't help it if they take the facts in the wrong way."
If I were Greenpeace I'd let FoS take them to court so that their whole reasoning process is laid out for all to see, and to let the court determine whether FoS was trying to mislead drivers. If I was the judge I think I know which way I'd be ruling.