Meanwhile, the skeptic organizations -- some of whose personnel used to debunk cancer stats for the tobacco companies -- are presumably working for ExxonMobil pro bono. Good to know.
I hope so; I own a lot of XOM. Fortunately, I never invested in any of those now debunked green weenie stocks that are going down the toilet. Barnum and Fields joined by Madoff to promote carbon footprints. Hooboy!
It was 1964 that warnings were put on cigarette packs. Politicizing everything has people disregarding real threats because of the phony tocsins daily raised.
People are, of course, entitled to their religion of choice, and to that extent I have nothing against 'Warmers'. See? I even capitalized it to show my respect!:-)
I have my own faith system as well, but the difference is that I don't expect the rest of the world to contribute their hard-earned money to support my personal beliefs.
That's my fundamental gripe with liberal-progressives in general. I couldn't care less what they think; I just don't want my money to support their beliefs.
To me, it all boils down to: If the data is so unquestionable and the answer so absolute, why modify and cook the data?
Good question. Go ask Phillip Cooney, the chief of staff for the Bush administration's "Council on Environmental Quality," who altered government climate data to obscure the scientific consensus. He resigned from the White House and immediately joined ExxonMobil in an undisclosed capacity. That's the same ExxonMobil that continues to fund dozens of denial groups after publicly pledging to end such support almost 3 years ago. Those groups have continued to misrepresent the findings of certain scientists even after those scientists have contacted them to repudiate their claims.
Stupid earthers, always modifying their interpretation of new data. It's so much easier to just change the data!
"who altered government climate data to obscure the scientific consensus"
What "scientific consensus" would that be?
Exxon, guilty of trying to save its business from a bunch of lying warmers, so evil.
btw, who is worse? The warmers who are lying, cooking data, and attacking Exxon, or Exxon who responses with every thing they have to defend themselves?
Give up, their the same, and as any RPG player knows, ties go to the defender.
Poor, put-upon underdog Exxon. Light a prayer candle for them tonight!
What "scientific consensus" would that be?
Just every credible science research organization in the world. (Your idea of a consensus may be different. Keep in mind that corporations, call-in shows and blogs don't count as part of the scientific community.)
10 comments:
Meanwhile, the skeptic organizations -- some of whose personnel used to debunk cancer stats for the tobacco companies -- are presumably working for ExxonMobil pro bono. Good to know.
I hope so; I own a lot of XOM. Fortunately, I never invested in any of those now debunked green weenie stocks that are going down the toilet. Barnum and Fields joined by Madoff to promote carbon footprints. Hooboy!
It was 1964 that warnings were put on cigarette packs. Politicizing everything has people disregarding real threats because of the phony tocsins daily raised.
So, the skeptic organizations are evil and corrupt, ergo, its OK for the "good" climate scientists to be evil and corrupt.
To me, it all boils down to:
If the data is so unquestionable and the answer so absolute, why modify and cook the data?
Reminds me of the young earthers who are constantly having "modifiy" their interpretation of every new piece of data to meet a predefined world view.
People are, of course, entitled to their religion of choice, and to that extent I have nothing against 'Warmers'. See? I even capitalized it to show my respect!:-)
I have my own faith system as well, but the difference is that I don't expect the rest of the world to contribute their hard-earned money to support my personal beliefs.
That's my fundamental gripe with liberal-progressives in general. I couldn't care less what they think; I just don't want my money to support their beliefs.
Just leave me alone, asshats.
To me, it all boils down to:
If the data is so unquestionable and the answer so absolute, why modify and cook the data?
Good question. Go ask Phillip Cooney, the chief of staff for the Bush administration's "Council on Environmental Quality," who altered government climate data to obscure the scientific consensus. He resigned from the White House and immediately joined ExxonMobil in an undisclosed capacity. That's the same ExxonMobil that continues to fund dozens of denial groups after publicly pledging to end such support almost 3 years ago. Those groups have continued to misrepresent the findings of certain scientists even after those scientists have contacted them to repudiate their claims.
Stupid earthers, always modifying their interpretation of new data. It's so much easier to just change the data!
Cling to it, Rabb. Cling to your new religion. Defend the indefensible. Keep your head down and keep digging.
(God, I love progressives!)
That's not love you're feeling. It's the glow of admiration, tainted by inferiority.
"who altered government climate data to obscure the scientific consensus"
What "scientific consensus" would that be?
Exxon, guilty of trying to save its business from a bunch of lying warmers, so evil.
btw, who is worse? The warmers who are lying, cooking data, and attacking Exxon, or Exxon who responses with every thing they have to defend themselves?
Give up, their the same, and as any RPG player knows, ties go to the defender.
Poor, put-upon underdog Exxon. Light a prayer candle for them tonight!
What "scientific consensus" would that be?
Just every credible science research organization in the world. (Your idea of a consensus may be different. Keep in mind that corporations, call-in shows and blogs don't count as part of the scientific community.)
"Just every credible science research organization in the world."
BWAAAH!!! Ha! Ha! Ha! Ha!
Post a Comment