[General] That doesn't mean they are anti-science, as an essay suggested. Two meanings?

[cubezero3]

Hi, everyone.

I came across the following sentence just now.

But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest.

I think, without context, the sentence could have two meanings.

#1 The essay seemed to suggest that doesn't mean environmentalists are anti-science.
#2 The essay seemed to suggest that environmentalists are anti-science. Surely, that's not correct.

Am I right in understanding it in this way? Or rather, the sentence only means #2.

I'd like to hear your opinions.

Many thanks

Richard

 

[cubezero3]

The essay seemed to suggest that a certain group of environmentalists (those who are concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth) are anti-science.

Hi, Piscean.

Thank you for your kind reply.

This is how I construed the sentence in the first place. Then it occurred to me there might exist another possibility.

So, I feel I have to ask whether you think there is no circumstance under which the sentence could mean #1.

 

[Matthew Wai]

I think it could not mean #1 because the following clause is closest to the as-clause.

environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science

 

[cubezero3]

I'm still not sure about one thing. Let me re-write my question.

In a nutshell, I think the sentence in question could convey two different meanings.

#1 US News & World Report suggested the said environmentalists were anti-science.
#2 US News & World Report didn't agree the said environmentalists were anti-science.

It seems everyone agrees #1 is the information the sentence tells people.

I still think #2 could also be possible in an appropriate context. For example:

...

But surely that does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to sugest.

I have to give credit to US News & World Report. It's a true maverick. These days it's all too easy for the media to put tags on various people and organizations.

...

Here, the author agreed with US News & World Report that environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth weren't anti-science.

Am I wrong here?

 

[Matthew Wai]

I have something to add, though.

#2 US News & World Report didn't agree the said environmentalists were anti-science.

If the above were the intended meaning, I would write the following:

'However, as an essay in US News & World Report last May seemed to suggest, that surely does not mean environmentalists concerned about uncontrolled industrial growth are anti-science.'