Reply With Quote
That's just it. They aren't hiding anything.
Boutons has to be the dumbists dumb of all time.
Do You Own Research -- WC
That's just it. They aren't hiding anything.
Boutons has to be the dumbists dumb 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.
I understand Shazbot. You are repeating parroting what your master of the liberal faith tell you.
You are so ing brainwashed, it's pitiful.
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, a copy of which was obtained by POLITICO. It comes as investigations by the Columbia journalists in the Los 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.
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 ins ution."
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 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 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 and Oct. 23 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 ins utions, 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-med...#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?
Last edited by boutons_deux; 12-03-2015 at 06:16 AM.
So bouton's...
Did you read the letter in the link yet?
You still very obviously have not read the NPR report. it includes do ents, 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 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.
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 as I described. He claims money became the dominating concern amongst other things and all I have to say to that is 'no .'
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 pla udes.
Instead of waving your hands at the letter how about you tell us in your own ing words what you think the letter says and try to make an argument. Should be amusing.
I do like how you've embraced the parts changer monicker. Seems right to me.
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.
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 scientists to spew FUD denying AGW, and that strategy has been wonderfully successful, duping 10Ms of Americans into BigCorp programmed ignorance.
You lie.
And now you've gone full boutox circle. Good job!
But you are a bouton sock puppet.
WC is REALLY REALLY butthurt that his adored BigOil has duped him about AGW, and his blind ideology and bogus science totally exposed.
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.
Let's also rejoin the OP since what you are doing is obvious.
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 like you.
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.
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 . You don't get to use that ty 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.
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.
Also, this thread is only 4 weeks old.
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.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
