Politics, Religion & Controversy Politics | Religion | Controversy (Non-Corvette)

Humans Killed Mars?

 
Old 03-15-2019, 07:55 PM
  #161  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,687
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

As I recall, jnb, you claimed to have earned an advanced degree.

Why the vagueness?
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-15-2019, 11:34 PM
  #162  
caskiguy
CF Senior Member
Support Corvetteforum!
 
caskiguy's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2016
Location: Sherman Oaks California
Posts: 2,157
Thanked 296 Times in 275 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
Mars CO2: 953,200 ppm

Earth CO2: 400 ppm (was 15-200 times higher in past)


https://www.sciencealert.com/researc...ndwater-system
Didn't L. Ron Hubbards great, great, great, really great grandfather and mother jettison through Martian atmosphere escaping the martian climate change disaster long ago and crash land on earth to restart the church of Scientology ?
caskiguy is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:35 AM
  #163  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bgad View Post
So, our learned scientists who can’t even seem to figure out what is a healthy diet for human beings, have stumbled upon the ONLY factor that affects the world’s climate (CO2)?
Impressive.
Well, well, well ! A new player !

Nice try at a diversion. Scientists and physicians have proven that a high fat diet drastically raises your chance of CV disease. And that cigarettes aren't a health benefit. And exercise is a benefit.

No, CO2 is NOT the only CC gas. But it IS the one that causes MMCC. And it is a RESULT of fossil fuel consumption.

Tell me what your objections to reducing CO2 emissions are. Be specific.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:38 AM
  #164  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
As I recall, jnb, you claimed to have earned an advanced degree.

Why the vagueness?
Doctor of Dental Surgery from the University of Illinois.

What's yours?
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:45 AM
  #165  
bgad
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2012
Posts: 1,839
Thanked 3 Times in 2 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
Well, well, well ! A new player !

Nice try at a diversion. Scientists and physicians have proven that a high fat diet drastically raises your chance of CV disease. And that cigarettes aren't a health benefit. And exercise is a benefit.

No, CO2 is NOT the only CC gas. But it IS the one that causes MMCC. And it is a RESULT of fossil fuel consumption.

Tell me what your objections to reducing CO2 emissions are. Be specific.
Not worth arguing, neither one of us will be convinced.
I come here basically to see how/what others think.
I am always amazed!
bgad is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:39 AM
  #166  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,687
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
Doctor of Dental Surgery from the University of Illinois.

What's yours?
You’re the one who asks people. What does dental surgery have to do with the topic? That is what you’re doing, right; asking people their expertise in paleoclimatology?

(btw, I have a close friend who’s a periodontist and she knows nothing about Earth’s atmosphere)

Last edited by ifitgoesfast; 03-16-2019 at 10:44 AM.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 10:40 AM
  #167  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,687
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by caskiguy View Post
Didn't L. Ron Hubbards great, great, great, really great grandfather and mother jettison through Martian atmosphere escaping the martian climate change disaster long ago and crash land on earth to restart the church of Scientology ?
Tell me more
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:07 PM
  #168  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by ifitgoesfast View Post
You’re the one who asks people. What does dental surgery have to do with the topic? That is what you’re doing, right; asking people their expertise in paleoclimatology?

(btw, I have a close friend who’s a periodontist and she knows nothing about Earth’s atmosphere)
My DDS in itself does not make me an expert in climate science.

It does though, indicate many years of technical and scientific training.

It does instill in me the ability to read and understand much of what I read.

It does instill in me the ability to recognize fantasy.

Ask your periodontist friend what they think about MMCC. About the role of CO2? About the future of the Earth with a 4* F temperature rise?

What is your educational background? How does that prepare you to deny MMCC?
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:08 PM
  #169  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by bgad View Post
Not worth arguing, neither one of us will be convinced.
I come here basically to see how/what others think.
I am always amazed!
What's your objection?
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:09 PM
  #170  
gs568
CF Senior Member
 
gs568's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jun 2001
Location: 24 Willie Mays Plaza S.F. California
Posts: 44,233
Thanked 35 Times in 20 Posts
Default

If I had to guess, I would have guessed proctologist.
gs568 is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 08:10 PM
  #171  
Axelrod
CF Senior Member
 
Axelrod's Avatar
 
Member Since: Aug 2005
Location: North East
Posts: 7,653
Thanks: 0
Thanked 11 Times in 7 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
My DDS in itself does not make me an expert in climate science.

It does though, indicate many years of technical and scientific training.

It does instill in me the ability to read and understand much of what I read.

It does instill in me the ability to recognize fantasy.

Ask your periodontist friend what they think about MMCC. About the role of CO2? About the future of the Earth with a 4* F temperature rise?

What is your educational background? How does that prepare you to deny MMCC?
Stop it with the babblespeak. Speak English. What are you trying to say?
Axelrod is offline  
Old 03-16-2019, 09:59 PM
  #172  
ifitgoesfast
CF Senior Member
Thread Starter
 
Member Since: Apr 2012
Posts: 23,687
Thanked 27 Times in 27 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
My DDS in itself does not make me an expert in climate science.

It does though, indicate many years of technical and scientific training.

It does instill in me the ability to read and understand much of what I read.

It does instill in me the ability to recognize fantasy.

Ask your periodontist friend what they think about MMCC. About the role of CO2? About the future of the Earth with a 4* F temperature rise?

What is your educational background? How does that prepare you to deny MMCC?
That’s the problem. You’ve asked people here if they had a PhD in a field with expertise in climatology, but then you do gum grafts.

And aside makng a point against those who do, I don’t go around preemptively asking people what degrees they have. I give merit to the reasoning, not the person nor their degrees. Doesn’t matter if they’re homeless or intellectual, as either is capable of being honest or deceptive, rationale or partisan.

I value the logic, not the appeal to authority fallacy.
ifitgoesfast is offline  
Old 03-17-2019, 03:19 PM
  #173  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,136
Thanked 397 Times in 256 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
I'll respond to You, Virtue4u and Alelrod with the only link needed.

https://iopscience.iop.org/article/1...326/aa815f/pdf

This paper assesses whether ExxonMobil Corporation has in the past misled the general public about climate change. We present an empirical document-by-document textual content analysis and comparison of 187 climate change communications from ExxonMobil, including peer-reviewed and non-peer-reviewed publications, internal company documents, and paid, editorial-style advertisements (‘advertorials’) in The New York Times. We examine whether these communications sent consistent messages about the state of climate science and its implications—specifically, we compare their positions on climate change as real, human-caused, serious, and solvable. In all four cases, we find that as documents become more publicly accessible, they increasingly communicate doubt. This discrepancy is most pronounced between advertorials and all other documents. For example, accounting for expressions of reasonable doubt, 83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public. Our content analysis also examines ExxonMobil’s discussion of the risks of stranded fossil fuel assets. We find the topic discussed and sometimes quantified in 24 documents of various types, but absent from advertorials. Finally, based on the available documents, we outline ExxonMobil’s strategic approach to climate change research and communication, which helps to contextualize our findings.

What do you believe? That it's a "Chinese Hoax"? Or what the scientists at a major oil and gas company concluded?

Take your pick. Believe a proven liar, or scientists that are NOT paid to fabricate a biased report?

Or believe what you want to, because down deep you just know that you're right, regardless of what knowledgeable experts tell you?


You believe that because EXXON, a corporation, published conflicting reports and op/ed documents, that they were involved in some conspiracy?

EXXON fully embraced investments into renewable energy manufacturing and industries that benefited from carbon trading funds, yet officially maintained an open position on the science as opposed to embracing the isolated theory of CO2 based climate forcing on faith. EXXON is not a government policy maker, and not an appointed or elected government body with the power to recommend and impose taxes (carbon taxes) so what they promote as a corporation has no legislative value.

83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents (read and reviewed by EXXON) acknowledge that (the publications conclude) climate change is real and human-caused (because the CO2 based CMMGW cabal controls the publication of nearly all climate change theory documents), yet only 12% of (EXXON's) advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt (about CO2 as the primary climate change driver, and allowing contrary theories to be considered, the UNBIASED POSITION).

We get it, the climate is changing (what that 83% of the "peer-reviewed papers" focus on), but the conclusion that CO2 is the primary climate driver remain inconclusive (where the actual scientific method is lacking).

EXXON is criticized by CO2 Believers for taking an open minded position on causation, while agreeing the climate changes, criticized just like every other entity that expresses an open dialog on climate change CAUSES that is suppressed (with a focus that an agreement that the climate changes, somehow requires a belief that CO2 is the primary cause to avoid criticism).

.

You may want to read about proven liars, the CRU and Hansen's climate team at NASA ( http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...-Inquiries.pdf ).

The Climategate Inquiries
Foreword
When in November 2009 a large archive of emails and fi les from the Climatic Research Unit at the
University of East Anglia appeared on the internet a number of serious allegations were made
including:

• that scientists at the CRU had failed to give a full and fair view to policy makers and the IPCC
of all the evidence available to them;
• that they deliberately obstructed access to data and methods to those taking different
viewpoints from themselves;
• that they failed to comply with Freedom of Information requirements;
• that they sought to infl uence the review panels of journals in order to prevent rival scientifi c
evidence from being published.


Even if only some of these accusations were substantiated the consequences for the credibility
of climate change science would be immense.
This was at a time when the international
negotiations on climate change were foundering (though not to the extent that they have done
subsequently), and when, in the recession, the public and businesses were beginning to question
the costs they were being asked to bear in order to achieve fundamental changes in our society.
One would therefore have expected the relevant “authorities”, Government/Parliament, the University
of East Anglia (UEA) and the Royal Society, to have moved fast and decisively to get to the bottom of
the matter. There was indeed a fl urry of activity and three inquiries were set in train, inlcuding a hearing
by the House of Commons Science and Technology Committee; the Climate Change E-mails Review
(CCE) set up by UEA and chaired by Sir Muir Russell; and the Scientifi c Assessment Panel (SAP) set up
by UEA in consultation with the Royal Society and chaired by Lord Oxburgh.

Sadly, as the report by Andrew Montford clearly demonstrates, all three reports have serious fl aws.
His report shows that:


• these inquiries were hurried
• the terms of reference were unclear
insuffi cient care was taken with the choice of panel members to ensure balance and
independence

• insuffi cient care was taken to ensure the process was independent of those being investigated, eg
the Royal Society allowed CRU to suggest the papers it should read
• Sir Muir Russell failed to attend the session with the CRU’s Director Professor Jones and only four
of fourteen members of the Science and Technology Select Committee attended the crucial
fi nal meeting to sign off their report.
record keeping was poor.

But above all, Andrew Montford’s report brings out the disparity between the treatment of the
“incumbents” and the “critics”. The former appear to have been treated with kid gloves and
their explanations readily accepted without serious challenge. The latter have been disparaged
and denied adequate opportunity to put their case.
The CCE report stated that holding public
hearings “would be unlikely to add signifi cant value”, thereby assuming that critics would not be
able to provide any additional information that would help assess the validity of CRU submissions.

This failure to accord critics rights of audience was despite the fact that Lord Lawson wrote to Sir Muir
Russell when the review was fi rst announced specifi cally urging that his panel should take evidence
from those outside CRU who may have been wronged.


The result has been that the three investigations have failed to achieve their objective, ie early
and conclusive closure and restoration of confi dence. The reports have been more Widgery than
Saville. Writing in an article The Atlantic, Clive Crook of the Financial Times referred to “an ethos of
suffocating groupthink”. That is exactly what Andrew Montford has uncovered, with the reviewers
as much part of the group as the scientists
.
Your EXXON critique link document is an example of, “an ethos of suffocating groupthink,” as much as any publication can be (proving that little has changed since the "climate scientists" were first caught fabricating and manipulating data to, "hide the decline"). The op/ed messages that were expressed by EXXON are taken as non-groupthink falsehoods rather than contrary opinions, even when the op/ed content was based on valid science. The CO2 based CMMGW cabal was (is) policing the believers and critics, back in 2009, 2015, and today, with an overt conspiracy to silence any and all critical inspection and analysis of the various theories to keep the unproved CO2 theory in the spotlight (to keep the money rolling in, and the carbon trading revenue stream flowing). The EXXON critique is a clear example of the CO2 based cabal shooting the messenger based on tortured statistics rather than on a serious discussion about the various climate driver theory's scientific merit.

Considerable more recent information on the potential CAUSES for climate change has emerged since the CO2 based cause cabal has lost total control of climate change publications. These contrary voices and theories have introduced the theories of PDO and AMO (ocean cycle capacitance) climate change influences that are now accepted as valid (influences that were suppressed and opposed by the CO2 based cabal until it was impossible to ignore). Ocean heat cycle influence acceptance is part of the reason that the postulated range of CO2 based climate driving influences has been driven down from 3.0-5.5dC, to 0.75-4.5dC (with an agreed upon 1.5dC margin of error, meaning the influence of CO2 could be as wide as -0.75dC to 6dC for every doubling of atmospheric concentration).

The science concluding that the primary cause for climate change is CO2 remains unsettled.

,,,

I read your DDS makes you an expert in the energy and climate science world, so you should easily pass this practice test (prove to yourself and us, that you understand physics, and how climate change policy impacts energy use and carbon trading):
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/cer...practice-test/

(yes, I am a CEM, in addition to other advanced technical certifications)
63 340HP is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 07:27 PM
  #174  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post
You believe that because EXXON, a corporation, published conflicting reports and op/ed documents, that they were involved in some conspiracy?

EXXON fully embraced investments into renewable energy manufacturing and industries that benefited from carbon trading funds, yet officially maintained an open position on the science as opposed to embracing the isolated theory of CO2 based climate forcing on faith. EXXON is not a government policy maker, and not an appointed or elected government body with the power to recommend and impose taxes (carbon taxes) so what they promote as a corporation has no legislative value.

83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents (read and reviewed by EXXON) acknowledge that (the publications conclude) climate change is real and human-caused (because the CO2 based CMMGW cabal controls the publication of nearly all climate change theory documents), yet only 12% of (EXXON's) advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt (about CO2 as the primary climate change driver, and allowing contrary theories to be considered, the UNBIASED POSITION).

We get it, the climate is changing (what that 83% of the "peer-reviewed papers" focus on), but the conclusion that CO2 is the primary climate driver remain inconclusive (where the actual scientific method is lacking).

EXXON is criticized by CO2 Believers for taking an open minded position on causation, while agreeing the climate changes, criticized just like every other entity that expresses an open dialog on climate change CAUSES that is suppressed (with a focus that an agreement that the climate changes, somehow requires a belief that CO2 is the primary cause to avoid criticism).

.

You may want to read about proven liars, the CRU and Hansen's climate team at NASA ( http://www.thegwpf.org/images/storie...-Inquiries.pdf ).



Your EXXON critique link document is an example of, “an ethos of suffocating groupthink,” as much as any publication can be (proving that little has changed since the "climate scientists" were first caught fabricating and manipulating data to, "hide the decline"). The op/ed messages that were expressed by EXXON are taken as non-groupthink falsehoods rather than contrary opinions, even when the op/ed content was based on valid science. The CO2 based CMMGW cabal was (is) policing the believers and critics, back in 2009, 2015, and today, with an overt conspiracy to silence any and all critical inspection and analysis of the various theories to keep the unproved CO2 theory in the spotlight (to keep the money rolling in, and the carbon trading revenue stream flowing). The EXXON critique is a clear example of the CO2 based cabal shooting the messenger based on tortured statistics rather than on a serious discussion about the various climate driver theory's scientific merit.

Considerable more recent information on the potential CAUSES for climate change has emerged since the CO2 based cause cabal has lost total control of climate change publications. These contrary voices and theories have introduced the theories of PDO and AMO (ocean cycle capacitance) climate change influences that are now accepted as valid (influences that were suppressed and opposed by the CO2 based cabal until it was impossible to ignore). Ocean heat cycle influence acceptance is part of the reason that the postulated range of CO2 based climate driving influences has been driven down from 3.0-5.5dC, to 0.75-4.5dC (with an agreed upon 1.5dC margin of error, meaning the influence of CO2 could be as wide as -0.75dC to 6dC for every doubling of atmospheric concentration).

The science concluding that the primary cause for climate change is CO2 remains unsettled.

,,,

I read your DDS makes you an expert in the energy and climate science world, so you should easily pass this practice test (prove to yourself and us, that you understand physics, and how climate change policy impacts energy use and carbon trading):
https://www.mometrix.com/academy/cer...practice-test/

(yes, I am a CEM, in addition to other advanced technical certifications)
published conflicting reports and op/ed documents, that they were involved in some conspiracy

Off hand, I would say that's a fair definition of a conspiracy. Privately knowing the truth, and publicly claiming the opposite.

Moron.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old 03-18-2019, 09:31 PM
  #175  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,136
Thanked 397 Times in 256 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
published conflicting reports and op/ed documents, that they were involved in some conspiracy

Off hand, I would say that's a fair definition of a conspiracy. Privately knowing the truth, and publicly claiming the opposite.

Moron.


No comment on the proven overt deception of the CRU & Hansen?

No comment on your feeble ability to understand climate change science and how it shapes government energy policy?

You are reduced to name calling, to refute history and logic, and your personal ignorance (that, also, tells us a lot about you).

.

So, by your appraisal CNN and the BBC are a "fair definition of a conspiracy, Privately knowing the truth, and publicly claiming the opposite," or do you contend they do not always know the truth, but publish anyway (careful, to what you admit to, being the faithful CNN, CO2 and Russia conspiracy believer that you are)?
63 340HP is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:16 AM
  #176  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 63 340HP View Post


No comment on the proven overt deception of the CRU & Hansen?

No comment on your feeble ability to understand climate change science and how it shapes government energy policy?

You are reduced to name calling, to refute history and logic, and your personal ignorance (that, also, tells us a lot about you).

.

So, by your appraisal CNN and the BBC are a "fair definition of a conspiracy, Privately knowing the truth, and publicly claiming the opposite," or do you contend they do not always know the truth, but publish anyway (careful, to what you admit to, being the faithful CNN, CO2 and Russia conspiracy believer that you are)?
Here's a real gem from the moron:

understand climate change science and how it shapes government energy policy

Of course science affects government policy. What else should? Lies? Lobbyists? Paranoia? Deep State Conspiracies? Russians? Santa Claus?

One more time, stupid. Here's the bold-face from your quote with your ridiculous insertions highlighted:

83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents (read and reviewed by EXXON) acknowledge that (the publications conclude) climate change is real and human-caused (because the CO2 based CMMGW cabal controls the publication of nearly all climate change theory documents), yet only 12% of (EXXON's) advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt (about CO2 as the primary climate change driver, and allowing contrary theories to be considered, the UNBIASED POSITION)

Here is the original text from the report without your moronic, paranoid and pontificating editorial additions:

83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.

You truly are one dumb troll.
jnb5101 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 09:35 AM
  #177  
694speed350
CF Senior Member
 
694speed350's Avatar
 
Member Since: Sep 2005
Location: vonore Tn
Posts: 16,827
Thanked 30 Times in 25 Posts
Default

Hired any illegals lately? you stated in one your posts a 4* F think you meant C.
694speed350 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 10:30 AM
  #178  
jnb5101
CF Senior Member
 
jnb5101's Avatar
 
Member Since: Jul 2006
Location: charlotte north carolina
Posts: 7,961
Thanks: 0
Thanked 94 Times in 88 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by 694speed350 View Post
Hired any illegals lately? you stated in one your posts a 4* F think you meant C.
No, and no.

Any other comments?
jnb5101 is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:24 AM
  #179  
TCracingCA
CF Senior Member
 
Member Since: Sep 2002
Location: Hacienda Heights CA
Posts: 19,915
Thanked 295 Times in 262 Posts
Default

I think they took away the Martians Constitutional Rights and look what happened next!!!!!
TCracingCA is offline  
Old Yesterday, 11:58 AM
  #180  
63 340HP
CF Senior Member
 
63 340HP's Avatar
 
Member Since: Nov 2005
Location: Beach & High Desert Southern California
Posts: 15,136
Thanked 397 Times in 256 Posts
Default

Originally Posted by jnb5101 View Post
Here's a real gem from the moron:

understand climate change science and how it shapes government energy policy

Of course science affects government policy. What else should? Lies? Lobbyists? Paranoia? Deep State Conspiracies? Russians? Santa Claus?

One more time, stupid. Here's the bold-face from your quote with your ridiculous insertions highlighted:

83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents (read and reviewed by EXXON) acknowledge that (the publications conclude) climate change is real and human-caused (because the CO2 based CMMGW cabal controls the publication of nearly all climate change theory documents), yet only 12% of (EXXON's) advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt (about CO2 as the primary climate change driver, and allowing contrary theories to be considered, the UNBIASED POSITION)

Here is the original text from the report without your moronic, paranoid and pontificating editorial additions:

83% of peer-reviewed papers and 80% of internal documents acknowledge that climate change is real and human-caused, yet only 12% of advertorials do so, with 81% instead expressing doubt. We conclude that ExxonMobil contributed to advancing climate science—by way of its scientists’ academic publications—but promoted doubt about it in advertorials. Given this discrepancy, we conclude that ExxonMobil misled the public.

You truly are one dumb troll.


More name calling (exposing the quality of your character, or is this behavior not your usual manner)?

jnb5101, you really believe the CO2 based Lies, Carbon Trade Lobbyists, Catastrophic Paranoia, and everything CNN and the Democrat Party feeds you.

Any comment by you on the CO2 activists failures to be honest and employ real scientific method and open consideration of opposing theories (the concerns in bold below)?

From the link I provided that you ignored to read:
"• that scientists at the CRU had failed to give a full and fair view to policy makers and the IPCC
of all the evidence available to them;
• that they deliberately obstructed access to data and methods to those taking different
viewpoints from themselves;
• that they failed to comply with Freedom of Information requirements;
• that they sought to infl uence the review panels of journals in order to prevent rival scientifi c
evidence from being published.

Even if only some of these accusations were substantiated the consequences for the credibility
of climate change science would be immense."


EXXON was only being honest with open consideration of opposing theories, something the CO2 activist side has failed to do over an over (and you still blindly support them).
63 340HP is offline  

Thread Tools
Search this Thread
Quick Reply: Humans Killed Mars?


Sponsored Ads
Vendor Directory

Contact Us - About Us - Archive - Advertising - Cookie Policy - Privacy Statement - Terms of Service

© 2019 MH Sub I, LLC dba Internet Brands

We are a participant in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program, an affiliate advertising program designed to provide a means for us to earn fees by linking to Amazon.com and affiliated sites.
 
  • Ask a Question
    Get answers from community experts
Question Title:
Description:
Your question will be posted in: