Exxon-mobile buries climate change research

[RandomGuy]

A Missing Report On Exxon Mobil And Climate Change

[documentary] "describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed."

http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/11/02/452917035/a-missing-report-on-exxon-mobil-and-climate-change


Pattern of behavior pretty much like what the tobacco companies did with cancer research. Shocker.

[Wild Cobra]

Are they documenting the same bullshit the liars have been saying? Other things of this nature have been shown as lies.

Did Michael Moore-on do the documentary?

[Nbadan]

Sup RG...

[Wild Cobra]

If I recall correctly, this is the source material used for the story:

https://www.ohio.edu/appliedethics/iape-speakers-and-events.cfm

[boutons_deux]

Exxon Mobil fights claims it hid early climate change science


http://fuelfix.com/blog/2015/10/23/exxon-mobil-fights-claims-it-suppressed-early-climate-change-science/#33445101=0

================

“For nearly 40 years we have supported development of climate science in partnership with governments and academic institutions, and did and continue to do that work in an open and transparent way,” :lol

The allegations were contained in reports distributed by InsideClimate News, an anti-oil and gas activist organization,

“The facts are that we identified the potential risks of climate change and have taken the issue very seriously,” :lol

“We will continue to advocate for policies that reduce emissions while enabling economic growth.” :lol

http://news.exxonmobil.com/press-release/exxonmobil-says-climate-research-stories-inaccurate-and-deliberately-misleading

[boutons_deux]

Exxon's Own Research Confirmed Fossil Fuels' Role in Global Warming Decades Ago

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

[Wild Cobra]

OK, prove it. All you have is allegations.

[boutons_deux]

OK, prove it. All you have is allegations.

no, the reporters have Exxon documents, which Exxon doesn't deny, but says they were cherry picked.

working assumption: BigCorp is ALWAYS lying.

[Wild Cobra]

OK, produce the damning documents.

[boutons_deux]

OK, produce the damning documents.

I don't have them

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC

[Wild Cobra]

I don't have them

"Do Your Own Research" -- WC

I did research this, when it came out on a different forum a few months ago.

There are no documents other than the emails I linked.

The guardian is making up another story.

I understand you wish not to look for imaginary documents. Too bad you never admit you are wrong.

[boutons_deux]

ICN's reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon's innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

[boutons_deux]

http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

[Wild Cobra]

ICN's reporters interviewed former Exxon employees, scientists, and federal officials, and consulted hundreds of pages of internal Exxon documents, many of them written between 1977 and 1986, during the heyday of Exxon's innovative climate research program. ICN combed through thousands of documents from archives including those held at the University of Texas-Austin, the Massachusetts Institute of Technology and the American Association for the Advancement of Science.

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming

What your link isn't telling you is the Exxon scientists didn't research global warming that lead to scary scenarios. Only that of other authors did.

[boutons_deux]

What your link isn't telling you is the Exxon scientists didn't research global warming past reading other authors papers.

ask ICN yourself for the documents and/or links

[Wild Cobra]

ask ICN yourself for the documents and/or links

If they exist, find them. I'm not looking for something that doesn't exist.

I am confident they have no internal documents showing CO2 as a threat. They didn't hide anything. It doesn't exist, so I'm not looking for it.

If you are so confident the documents exist, find them and prove me wrong.

[boutons_deux]

Exxon Predicted Today's Cheap Solar Boom Back in the 1980s

For more than a generation, solar power was a environmentalist fantasy, an expensive and impractical artifact from the Jimmy Carter era. That was true right up until the moment it wasn't. Solar silicon prices dropped 94 percent from early 2008 to the end of 2011. Crystalline silicon has since fallen an additional 47 percent, to $15.20 a kilogram.

Many were caught off guard by the emergence of solar as a competitive power source. The scientist who led Exxon's research arm back in the 1980s wasn't one of them.
http://assets.bwbx.io/images/iy9cdcQH2b.s/v1/488x-1.png

Peter Eisenberger, now an environmental science professor at Columbia's Earth Institute, co-authored an internal report for Exxon projecting that solar wouldn't become viable until 2012 or 2013. The report, written before he left the company in 1989, suggested that Exxon would do best to sell its solar assets; not surprisingly, the company did just that. What is surprising is that Exxon's 25-year-old solar projections nailed the timing for the arrival of affordable solar power.

Why the oil giant now known as ExxonMobil was in the solar photovoltaic business in the 1980s is a longer story. The late 1970s traumatized the energy industry. The year 1979 alone brought the Iranian revolution, a consequent oil shock, and the Three Mile Island nuclear accident. Energy woe was the centerpiece of President Carter's "crisis of confidence (http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/americanexperience/features/primary-resources/carter-crisis/)" speech that July. Two weeks later, in a development remarked upon by virtually no one at the time, a committee of scientists met to produce the U.S.'s first major assessment (http://people.atmos.ucla.edu/brianpm/charneyreport.html) of climate change science.

Energy-sector tumult led Exxon to boost research and development efforts. Eisenberger recalled that the internal thinking went like this: If oil ever runs out, Exxon would have to become an energy company, not just an oil company. Today, a spokesman said, the oil giant thinks of itself as just that—an energy company.

Probing the basic science of energy and materials drove Eisenberger's research in the 1980s. Initiatives included research into climate change, which both the journalism nonprofit InsideClimateNews (http://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken) and the Los Angeles Times (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/) recently chronicled at length. Democratic politicians are piling on (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/04/business/dealbook/gore-calls-for-exxon-mobil-inquiry-on-climate-change.html) to their conclusions. ExxonMobil rejects (http://www.exxonmobilperspectives.com/2015/10/26/more-climate-history-distortion/) the notion that it "knew" about climate change, stopped funding research, and started denying the whole thing. The news media have started refereeing (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/31/science/exxon-mobil-accused-of-misleading-public-on-climate-change-risks.html) the disputed history.

Eisenberger said he helped hire many scientists to investigate energy options and conduct basic research at the company. After oil prices crashed in the mid-1980s, Exxon started looking hard at its assets. That's around the time Eisenberger co-wrote, along with a physicist in strategic planning, Exxon's internal assessment regarding the cost of solar power. The duo concluded that solar wouldn't become worth the investment until about 2012.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-11-04/exxon-predicted-today-s-cheap-solar-boom-back-in-the-1980s

[pgardn]

no, the reporters have Exxon documents, which Exxon doesn't deny, but says they were cherry picked.

working assumption: BigCorp is ALWAYS lying.

So your working assumption will get you zero in court.
Thanks for nothing if this allegation is acted upon by some party of interest.


Do you not see your slanted views are actually counterproductive to your cause? You don't want the truth, you want to screw your perceived enemy by any means possible. The people who wish to illustrate an obvious climate problem truthfully to the people thank you.

This is the worst kind of activism. So utterly counterproductive...

[boutons_deux]

So your working assumption will get you zero in court.
Thanks for nothing if this allegation is acted upon by some party of interest.


Do you not see your slanted views are actually counterproductive to your cause? You don't want the truth, you want to screw your perceived enemy by any means possible. The people who wish to illustrate an obvious climate problem truthfully to the people thank you.

This is the worst kind of activism. So utterly counterproductive...

BigCorp fellator, GFY

[boutons_deux]

Report: New York’s Attorney General Is Investigating Exxon

New York’s attorney general Eric Schneiderman has issued a subpoena to the oil giant, demanding “extensive financial records, emails, and other documents” relating to its climate change research, according to a report in the New York Times (http://www.nytimes.com/2015/11/06/science/exxon-mobil-under-investigation-in-new-york-over-climate-statements.html). The Times cited anonymous “people with knowledge of the investigation” to back up its claim.

If the subpoena was indeed issued, the investigation would seek to answer questions about whether ExxonMobil engaged in a cover-up to mislead the public about the risks of human-caused climate change. Those questions were raised publicly by recent investigations from Inside Climate News (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming) and the Los Angeles Times (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/), which found that the company knew as far back as 1977 that its product was contributing to climate change.

Instead of acknowledging this, however, the investigations found that Exxon gave millions of dollars (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2010/07/20/206453/exxonmobil-funds-global-warming-deniers/) to politicians and groups that deny climate science, and downplayed (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/22102015/Exxon-Sowed-Doubt-about-Climate-Science-for-Decades-by-Stressing-Uncertainty) the scientific certainty. According to the Times, Schneiderman’s investigation began in secret a year ago, but the reporting from Inside Climate and The Los Angeles Times added “impetus” to their effort.

In the last month, all three (http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/10/29/3717602/clinton-investigate-exxon/) of the Democratic presidential candidates have called for an federal investigation of Exxon. And some environmentalists see a state investigation as just one step closer toward that goal.

http://thinkprogress.org/climate/2015/11/05/3719767/investigate-exxon-new-york-attorney-general/

Exxon screwed over Exxon Valdez victims with lawyering for 20 years until 1/3 of them were dead and the award was reduced by 75%, I expect Exxon to lawyer fiendishly against Schneiderman.

[pgardn]

BigCorp fellator, GFY

How could anyone on the fence possibly believe in evidence for climate change due to YOUR posting? Rants...

[Wild Cobra]

Exxon's going spank those losers.

[boutons_deux]

Embarrassed by Climate Investigations, Exxon Accuses Journalists of Ethics Violations

ExxonMobil is hurling ethics accusations against a team of Columbia University journalists whose reporting helped stoke calls for probes into whether the company deliberately misled the public about climate change.

The oil giant went on the offensive in a Nov. 20 letter, a copy of which was obtained by Politico. It comes as investigations by the Columbia journalists in theLos Angeles Times and a separate report by the nonprofit website InsideClimate News continue to stoke Democratic calls for a federal probe into whether the company concealed its internal understanding of the global warming threat posed by burning fossil fuels. Exxon, which through its foundation gave more than $200,000 to the university last year, addressed the letter to Columbia President Lee Bollinger and sent a copy to university trustees.

http://www.greentechmedia.com/articles/read/embarrassed-Exxon-makes-ethics-claims?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+GreentechMedia+%28Greentech+M edia%29

WC, have you noted that Exxon isn't saying that their suppressed, LIED-ABOUT AGW findings by Exxon scientists weren't true?

Only that they attack, "spanking" the messengers for truthful reporting?

[Wild Cobra]

I see you believe what the lying activists say, instead of actually reading the letter yourself.

Typical dumbshit Boutons...

[DarrinS]

So, what is it, exactly, that you guys think they are hiding?

[boutons_deux]

So, what is it, exactly, that you guys think they are hiding?

Do You Own Research -- WC

[Wild Cobra]

So, what is it, exactly, that you guys think they are hiding?

That's just it. They aren't hiding anything.

Boutons has to be the dumbists dumbshit of all time.

[boutons_deux]

That's just it. They aren't hiding anything.

Boutons has to be the dumbists dumbshit of all time.

Exxon hid, 35 years ago, that their scientists' report that AGW was real. They also said AGW was good for Exxon since a melted Arctic would open new oil fields.

Some stockholders are considering suing Exxon for lying-by-omission about Exxon's prospects.

Exxon doesn't deny that they hid their scientists' AGW reports nor the contents of the reports, but they are trying to trash the people who discovered Exxon's hiding game.

[Wild Cobra]

Exxon hid, 35 years ago, that their scientists' report that AGW was real. They also said AGW was good for Exxon since a melted Arctic would open new oil fields.

Some stockholders are considering suing Exxon for lying-by-omission about Exxon's prospects.

Exxon doesn't deny that they hid their scientists' AGW reports nor the contents of the reports, but they are trying to trash the people who discovered Exxon's hiding game.

I understand Shazbot. You are repeating parroting what your master of the liberal faith tell you.

You are so fucking brainwashed, it's pitiful.

[boutons_deux]

Exxon takes aim at Columbia University journalists over climate reports

ExxonMobil is hurling ethics accusations against a team of Columbia University journalists whose reporting helped stoke calls for probes into whether the company deliberately misled the public about climate change.

The oil giant went on the offensive in a Nov. 20 letter (http://www.politico.com/f/?id=00000151-5a8a-d6a2-a155-dbca213c0000), a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. It comes as investigations by the Columbia journalists in the Los Angeles Times (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/) and a separate report by the nonprofit website InsideClimate News (http://insideclimatenews.org/news/15092015/Exxons-own-research-confirmed-fossil-fuels-role-in-global-warming) continue to stoke Democratic calls for a federal probe into whether the company concealed its internal understanding of the global warming threat posed by burning fossil fuels. Exxon, which through its foundation gave more than $200,000 to the university last year, addressed the letter to Columbia President Lee Bollinger and sent a copy to university trustees.

In the letter, Exxon Vice President for Public and Government Affairs Kenneth Cohen accuses a Columbia journalism professor and her team of potentially violating the university's policy on research misconduct by downplaying or ignoring information provided by the company. Cohen asks Bollinger for an opportunity to discuss "the possible remedies available to us" and seems to suggest the episode may damage Exxon's relationship with the university in the future.

"ExxonMobil has had numerous and productive relationships with Columbia University for many years, whether through research programs, interactions with the business school or recruiting of graduates for employment with our company," Cohen writes. "The interactions [between Exxon and the Columbia journalists] detailed above are not typical of the high standards and ethical behavior we have come to expect from your institution."

Bollinger tasked Steve Coll, the dean of the Columbia School of Journalism, with handling the response. Coll, the author of "Private Empire," a 2012 book investigating Exxon, told (http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060027682%20) ClimateWire this month that he orchestrated the project to expand upon questions left unanswered during his own research.

In an interview Monday, Coll said he’s in the final stages of a rigorous review and will soon post a response to Exxon’s letter.

"I’ve reviewed the allegations in the letter, and I am preparing a response which we are preparing to publish on our website in the next couple of days. It would be premature for me to comment on details in their letter,” Coll said.

In the wake of the L.A. Times reports and an earlier series from the nonprofit website InsideClimate News, Green activist groups launched an escalating "Exxon Knew" campaign (http://www.politico.com/story/2015/11/keystone-exxon-climate-change-216222) against the company, sparking an investigation by New York's attorney general as well as endorsements of a Justice Department probe from prominent Democrats, including presidential hopefuls Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders.

Exxon's letter seeks to turn the tables, aiming similar misconduct allegations back on the students involved in the Times story.

"It's ironic — what they're accusing us of is exactly what they're doing themselves, which is trying to manipulate public opinion behind the scenes," Exxon spokesman Alan Jeffers said.
In the letter, Cohen accused the Columbia postgraduate students and their adviser, Susanne Rust, of having "cherry-picked — and distorted — statements attributed to various company employees to wrongly suggest definitive conclusions about the risk of climate change were reached decades ago by company researchers." The reporting was part of an energy and environmental reporting fellowship for recent graduates.


The Times identified its Oct. 9 (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-arctic/) and Oct. 23 (http://graphics.latimes.com/exxon-research/) stories as collaborations with Columbia but did not state that the project was partly supported by a grant from the Rockefeller Brothers Fund. Cohen slammed the fund, which has supported activism against the Keystone XL pipeline and boosted environmentalists by vowing to divest from fossil fuels, as holding "a stated position and bias against the oil and gas industry."

A spokeswoman for the Rockefeller fund was unavailable to comment on Exxon's charges by press time. A Times spokesperson, Hillary Manning, said the Rockefeller fund and other backers did not have any editorial control over the reports.

"The stories clearly indicate the role of Columbia University’s Energy and Environment Reporting Fellowship in the reporting," Manning said in an email. "Its multiple sources of foundation funding have no editorial control over that reporting, and a listing of the funders is readily available on the Columbia Journalism School website."

Jeffers said Monday that Exxon has "not codified any change" to its policy of engagement with the university. He declined to specify how or when the company might consider formally changing the relationship.

Through its foundation, Exxon gave $219,229 to Columbia in 2014 as part of a matching gift program for educational institutions, as well as $9,000 in direct grants. The company also gave $25,000 last year to the markets program at the university's Center on Global Energy Policy.

Read more: http://www.politico.com/blogs/on-media/2015/11/exxonmobil-climate-change-ethics-allegations-columbia-university-216287#ixzz3tCPTwfdY

Exxon, which lawyered for 20 years against Exxon Valdez penalties while 1/3 of the plaintiffs DIED, is accusing someone else of bad ethics? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

So bouton's...

Did you read the letter in the link yet?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Are they documenting the same bullshit the liars have been saying? Other things of this nature have been shown as lies.

Did Michael Moore-on do the documentary?

You still very obviously have not read the NPR report. it includes documents, memos, interviews, and statements from Exxon execs including amongst others multiple CEOs. It outlines the shift from open minded research to the sophist piece of shit we enjoy today. It goes so far as to show how the shift in topics and corporate objectives changed with specific examples.

Your response has been to cry about Michael Moore and fumble around like an idiot for literally weeks asking someone to explain what it says. It's nice to see some things never change. Nonetheless, the material in the OP is smoking gun type stuff.

I do think boutox is right to point out your hypocrisy here. I was charitable and explained to you the gist of the article. You're welcome and I am sorry you had to wait so long.

[Wild Cobra]

I see you too, didn't read the letter.

Or are you blind to what Exxon is saying?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I see you too, didn't read the letter.

Or are you blind to what Exxon is saying?

I've read the letter and I've listened to a couple of interviews with the Exxon current CSO. He came across as the same sophist piece of shit as I described. He claims money became the dominating concern amongst other things and all I have to say to that is 'no shit.'

We've talked about this coy Scientology style I know something that you don't routine that you like before. You shouldn't try it because you already poorly understand what you read. It's also not lost on me that you don't deny not having read the OP and the case it makes which basically invalidates the letter and the CIO's platitudes.

Instead of waving your hands at the letter how about you tell us in your own fucking words what you think the letter says and try to make an argument. Should be amusing.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I do like how you've embraced the parts changer monicker. Seems right to me.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

The real tragedy is that Exxon could have been a leader. Most of that work that they tanked was redone over the following years since the obfuscation campaign and that information about ocean conditions from their tanker fleet would have been invaluable.

It's the epitome of where corporate responsibility died in the Age of the Boomers.

[boutons_deux]

So your working assumption will get you zero in court.
Thanks for nothing if this allegation is acted upon by some party of interest.


Do you not see your slanted views are actually counterproductive to your cause? You don't want the truth, you want to screw your perceived enemy by any means possible. The people who wish to illustrate an obvious climate problem truthfully to the people thank you.

This is the worst kind of activism. So utterly counterproductive...

pfarten is so so so butt hurt. Exxon's people observed that carbon energy would cause global warming AND that would melt the Arctic opening up new oil exploration.

Exxon has been paying ALEC, US CoC, other VRWC stink tanks, and whore scientists to spew FUD denying AGW, and that strategy has been wonderfully successful, duping 10Ms of Americans into BigCorp programmed ignorance.

[Wild Cobra]

I've read the letter and I've listened to a couple of interviews with the Exxon current CSO. He came across as the same sophist piece of shit as I described. He claims money became the dominating concern amongst other things and all I have to say to that is 'no shit.'

We've talked about this coy Scientology style I know something that you don't routine that you like before. You shouldn't try it because you already poorly understand what you read. It's also not lost on me that you don't deny not having read the OP and the case it makes which basically invalidates the letter and the CIO's platitudes.

Instead of waving your hands at the letter how about you tell us in your own fucking words what you think the letter says and try to make an argument. Should be amusing.

You lie.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

You lie.

And now you've gone full boutox circle. Good job!

[Wild Cobra]

And now you've gone full boutox circle. Good job!

But you are a bouton sock puppet.

[boutons_deux]

WC is REALLY REALLY butthurt that his adored BigOil has duped him about AGW, and his blind ideology and bogus science totally exposed.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

But you are a bouton sock puppet.


The real tragedy is that Exxon could have been a leader. Most of that work that they tanked was redone over the following years since the obfuscation campaign and that information about ocean conditions from their tanker fleet would have been invaluable.

It's the epitome of where corporate responsibility died in the Age of the Boomers.

The OP is pretty damning in this regard. I know you would like to deflect but no, I'm not letting your dumbass do that.

What I find interesting is how only one asshole's directive up at the top can change an entire billion dollar multinational corporation from responsible to fraudulent. People such as yourself that follow blindly are a big reason why such things are possible.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Let's also rejoin the OP since what you are doing is obvious.


A Missing Report On Exxon Mobil And Climate Change

[documentary] "describes how Exxon conducted cutting-edge climate research decades ago and then, without revealing all that it had learned, worked at the forefront of climate denial, manufacturing doubt about the scientific consensus that its own scientists had confirmed."

http://www.npr.org/sections/ombudsman/2015/11/02/452917035/a-missing-report-on-exxon-mobil-and-climate-change


Pattern of behavior pretty much like what the tobacco companies did with cancer research. Shocker.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Darrin abandoned arguing on merit the moment he was challenged. He's a real big coward.

Took you a few years but you don't even try anymore either WC.

[Wild Cobra]

Darrin abandoned arguing on merit the moment he was challenged. He's a real big coward.

Took you a few years but you don't even try anymore either WC.
I'm just sick of trying to convince hard headed jackasses like you, who with your enlightened combination of arrogance and ignorance, never sees the truth.

Yes. I have given up of trying to convince pieces of shit like you.

[DarrinS]

Darrin abandoned arguing on merit the moment he was challenged. He's a real big coward.

Took you a few years but you don't even try anymore either WC.

Meh, it's a religion, tbh. If you're not a true believer, i.e. catastrophist, you're a "denier".

[Wild Cobra]

Meh, it's a religion, tbh. If you're not a true believer, i.e. catastrophist, you're a "denier".

That's the problem with trying to deal with religious zealots like Fuzzy. No matter what proof is offered, they will deny it, and say we are the deniers.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Meh, it's a religion, tbh. If you're not a true believer, i.e. catastrophist, you're a "denier".

Meh, you mitigate and obfuscate as you parrot dumbass. You keep bleating Al Gore and Hansen while the major players in this thread over the years, Manny, RG, and myself, have never espoused to any of that shit. You don't get to use that shitty copout here coward.

I've been rubbing your face in the risk evaluations of the US actuarial societies since I started. That is 100% quantified and tied to real assets with real dollar amounts. You do know what real means right?

Religion? You are a duplicitous, disingenuous asshole.

[DarrinS]

Meh, you mitigate and obfuscate as you parrot dumbass. You keep bleating Al Gore and Hansen while the major players in this thread over the years, Manny, RG, and myself, have never espoused to any of that shit. You don't get to use that shitty copout here coward.

I've been rubbing your face in the risk evaluations of the US actuarial societies since I started. That is 100% quantified and tied to real assets with real dollar amounts. You do know what real means right?

Religion? You are a duplicitous, disingenuous asshole.


:cry

Also, this thread is only 4 weeks old.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

:cry

Also, this thread is only 4 weeks old.

I am pointing out your methodology for others. If you want to use smilies while I paint a narrative of you being untrustworthy with specific examples then have at it. I like that trade and I can still rejoin the OP through your deflection.

Note how I addressed your assertion that it was religion and then gave the specific example of empirical quantification you have been shown since the beginning? That wasn't for your sake, dumbass. Call it crying if it makes you feel better.

[DarrinS]

I am pointing out your methodology for others. If you want to use smilies while I paint a narrative of you being untrustworthy with specific examples then have at it. I like that trade and I can still rejoin the OP through your deflection.

Note how I addressed your assertion that it was religion and then gave the specific example of empirical quantification you have been shown since the beginning? That wasn't for your sake, dumbass. Call it crying if it makes you feel better.

Frankly, my dear, no one gives a shit.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Frankly, my dear, no one gives a shit.

If you say so.

I actually read the forum Darrin and it's obvious from your perpetual fuckups posting articles without reading them that I read better than you. I don't need you to tell me what the sentiment is around here.

Is there anyone here that takes you or your partner in stupidity seriously? About all you have going for you are the CN/nazi spambots. Everyone here condescends when they talk to you on these subjects or just distances themselves from you. That includes the two of you towards each other btw.

Now you only speak for yourself and it is very obvious that you don't give a shit. You seem to pride yourself on that and if you will recall in our talks in the past I have talked about nihilist dimwits and cowards. I don't believe you don't care because you post on this subject in the same way with minor variations over and over again actually like you were reading dogmatic scripture in the face of rebuttals. Calling us a religion first is your way around that? It's like unethical salesman slimy shill.

Disingenuous and duplicitous.

[DarrinS]

If you say so.

I actually read the forum Darrin and it's obvious from your perpetual fuckups posting articles without reading them that I read better than you. I don't need you to tell me what the sentiment is around here.

Is there anyone here that takes you or your partner in stupidity seriously? About all you have going for you are the CN/nazi spambots. Everyone here condescends when they talk to you on these subjects or just distances themselves from you. That includes the two of you towards each other btw.

Now you only speak for yourself and it is very obvious that you don't give a shit. You seem to pride yourself on that and if you will recall in our talks in the past I have talked about nihilist dimwits and cowards. I don't believe you don't care because you post on this subject in the same way with minor variations over and over again actually like you were reading dogmatic scripture in the face of rebuttals. Calling us a religion first is your way around that? It's like unethical salesman slimy shill.

Disingenuous and duplicitous.


Feel better?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Feel better?

Sure. You going to stop?

[DarrinS]

Sure. You going to stop?

Stop what? Having my own opinion on a message board?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Stop what? Having my own opinion on a message board?

Well for starters are you going to say anything in regards to the actuarial valuations that you've been shown repeatedly in the context of calling me and others religious zealots?

[FuzzyLumpkins]

http://www.casact.org/research/ClimateChangeRpt_Final.pdf

Here it is again in it's most recent iteration.

$150b annually and rising. this also doesn't cover the people without coverage who of course are just fucked. Darrin says being concerned about that is just alarmism

[boutons_deux]

Much Of The World Perplexed That Climate Debate Continues In U.S.

At the U.N. climate summit in Paris, the U.S. has a big footprint. Cabinet officials scurry from meeting to meeting, trying to get a binding deal that would help some 200 countries slow the planet's warming. Yet in some ways, the United States is an outlier.

"Everybody else is taking climate change really seriously," President Obama said during his visit to Paris at the start of the summit. "They think it's a really big problem."

As the president acknowledged, he leads one of the few advanced democracies in the world where climate change is still the subject of political debate.

"You travel around Europe, and you talk to leaders of governments and the opposition, and they're arguing about a whole bunch of things. One thing they're not arguing about is whether the science of climate change is real and whether we have to do something about it," he said.

As the summit began, House Republicans in Washington were debating a bill to gut the Obama administration's clean energy plan.

"These EPA rules affect jobs, and they affect the amount of money in the pockets of moms and dads all across this great country," said South Carolina :lol Republican Jeff Duncan.


Changing Perceptions Of U.S.

Outside of the main complex where negotiations are taking place, an area called "Climate Generations" provides a gathering place for environmental groups, civil society organizations, activists and others from around the world.

There are indigenous tribes and bicycle-powered computer chargers, groups singing hymns and people waving placards. French interpreter Claudine Pierson says she was "surprised to see how many Americans are around."

And how are they perceived?

"Like polluters, I guess," she says.

Everyone is aware that Congress is fighting Obama on carbon emissions, Pierson says, "because it was all over the newspapers."

Many people share her view of the U.S.

Yet as Republicans threaten to shut down the federal government if the U.S. delegation in Paris commits to paying too much money to developing countries to deal with the impacts of climate change, Moniz acknowledges that "certainly, certain issues require congressional action."

http://www.npr.org/2015/12/09/458930580/rest-of-the-world-perplexed-that-climate-debate-continues-in-u-s?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=202709

BigCarbon, BigCorp pay legislative whores to protect their profits, plus Repugs must deny their hated n!gg@, and America, any progress, any solutions.