molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday. The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change." ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report. Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants. ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company. Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts. Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_..._global_warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 You mean the American political system is for sale? Wow. I had no idea. [/born yesterday] Is it time for me to link one of the various "Fortune 500" environmental groups and their payola schemes, you know, to prove the point that both sides are crooked and in it for the money? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 You mean the American political system is for sale? Wow. I had no idea. [/born yesterday] Is it time for me to link one of the various "Fortune 500" environmental groups and their payola schemes, you know, to prove the point that both sides are crooked and in it for the money? It might be time! Really, the best arguments that can be made for conservation, energy independence and alternative energy should be made from the point of view that they could profit America Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 WASHINGTON - ExxonMobil Corp. gave $16 million to 43 ideological groups between 1998 and 2005 in a coordinated effort to mislead the public by discrediting the science behind global warming, the Union of Concerned Scientists asserted Wednesday. The report by the science-based nonprofit advocacy group mirrors similar claims by Britain's leading scientific academy. Last September, The Royal Society wrote the oil company asking it to halt support for groups that "misrepresented the science of climate change." ExxonMobil did not immediately respond to requests for comment on the scientific advocacy group's report. Many scientists say accumulating carbon dioxide and other heat-trapping gases from tailpipes and smokestacks are warming the atmosphere like a greenhouse, melting Arctic sea ice, alpine glaciers and disturbing the lives of animals and plants. ExxonMobil lists on its Web site nearly $133 million in 2005 contributions globally, including $6.8 million for "public information and policy research" distributed to more than 140 think-tanks, universities, foundations, associations and other groups. Some of those have publicly disputed the link between greenhouse gas emissions and global warming. But in September, the company said in response to the Royal Society that it funded groups which research "significant policy issues and promote informed discussion on issues of direct relevance to the company." It said the groups do not speak for the company. Alden Meyer, the Union of Concerned Scientists' strategy and policy director, said in a teleconference that ExxonMobil based its tactics on those of tobacco companies, spreading uncertainty by misrepresenting peer-reviewed scientific studies or cherry-picking facts. Dr. James McCarthy, a professor at Harvard University, said the company has sought to "create the illusion of a vigorous debate" about global warming. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070103/ap_on_..._global_warming Everybody knows that both sides of the political arena spin the truth to fit what ever glamours their opinion and trashes the opposition. The fact of the matter is that you need to sort through the layers of bull sh-- and decide for yourself what the truth is, since you will never get anything even close to it out of the mouth of a politician. Why would you even post this? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Alaska Darin Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Everybody knows that both sides of the political arena spin the truth to fit what ever glamours their opinion and trashes the opposition. The fact of the matter is that you need to sort through the layers of bull sh-- and decide for yourself what the truth is, since you will never get anything even close to it out of the mouth of a politician. Why would you even post this? Because he's a parrot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 Because he's a parrot. How does a parrot lick a window? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ieatcrayonz Posted January 4, 2007 Share Posted January 4, 2007 How does a parrot lick a window? I'm not sure, but if there is a mailbox box in the way step one involves some smashin. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 4, 2007 Author Share Posted January 4, 2007 Everybody knows that both sides of the political arena spin the truth to fit what ever glamours their opinion and trashes the opposition. The fact of the matter is that you need to sort through the layers of bull sh-- and decide for yourself what the truth is, since you will never get anything even close to it out of the mouth of a politician. Why would you even post this? Why would I post this? Why don't you read the first paragraph you wrote and then answer your own question. Idiot! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Why would I post this? Why don't you read the first paragraph you wrote and then answer your own question. Idiot! Are you trying to start a debate about about how our government is for sale and that you can never get truth out of a politicians mouth? I would assume that is what you are trying for since my original post has no errors, and the "Idiot!" thing is clearly your idea of a clever stab at humor by feeding off of a bit that has long turned soggy. While we're at it, having this debate that is, why don't we review the electoral college and freedom of speech, since the other things brought up in the original post are as elementary and considered almost as much of common knowledge as the things that i mentioned. Only a first grader would find any kind of shock in the fact that politicians are dirty !@#$ing liars, and that the system is not in fact as pristine as they preach it to be in grammar school. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted January 5, 2007 Author Share Posted January 5, 2007 Are you trying to start a debate about about how our government is for sale and that you can never get truth out of a politicians mouth? I would assume that is what you are trying for since my original post has no errors, and the "Idiot!" thing is clearly your idea of a clever stab at humor by feeding off of a bit that has long turned soggy. While we're at it, having this debate that is, why don't we review the electoral college and freedom of speech, since the other things brought up in the original post are as elementary and considered almost as much of common knowledge as the things that i mentioned. Only a first grader would find any kind of shock in the fact that politicians are dirty !@#$ing liars, and that the system is not in fact as pristine as they preach it to be in grammar school. Right, you wrote that we should all weigh the facts then you turn around and ask why I would post some facts that need to be weighed And furthermore, that the government is screwed up does not mean that it cannot solve major problems we face, and indeed needs to solve them Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BoondckCL Posted January 5, 2007 Share Posted January 5, 2007 Right, you wrote that we should all weigh the facts then you turn around and ask why I would post some facts that need to be weighed And furthermore, that the government is screwed up does not mean that it cannot solve major problems we face, and indeed needs to solve them Who cares, i already murdered your thread because i could. Signed, Boondock Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts