T1B

JMak wrote:
...but feel to impute to me any old motivation you want...

Coming from you tha's almost funny. Almost.

The question here isn't why some hack scientists would deny the fact of Global Warming as a direct result of the past century's industrialization. No, they're all being handsomely paid by the oil companies. Or they are Christer cult nut jobs with a stake in Armageddon, etc.

What is a real question here is why these knee-jerk O'Reilly/Limpdick clones in this palsied forum are so adamant in their opposition to all things American.

Look: they hate the American government. They hate the working class of America and its unions. They hate the public education system of America. They hate civil rights organizations that work to protect civil liberties. And apparently they hate the earth itself--or at least any attempts to protect it.

What do they love? Well, all things military, regardless of how hapless and ass-backwards the military is deployed. They really love the giant pharmaceutical companies--for reasons which remain a mystery. They basically love international corporations--and support cliches about "free enterprise" when these stateless entities are called to account for massive fraud, etc. And they love Israel, again for reasons never stated (beyond a childish racist attitude towards Arabs), and support the gangster state without hesitation.

So...where is the patriotism of these nervous squirming little punks? Really...how do they look in the mirror?

LTS TRN 2 wrote:The question here isn't why some hack scientists would deny the fact of Global Warming as a direct result of the past century's industrialization. No, they're all being handsomely paid by the oil companies. Or they are Christer cult nut jobs with a stake in Armageddon, etc.

The alarmists have far, far, far, far more money than the skeptics, moron.

What is a real question here is why these knee-jerk O'Reilly/Limpdick clones in this palsied forum are so adamant in their opposition to all things American.

Say "what" again, motherfucker!

Look: they hate the American government. They hate the working class of America and its unions. They hate the public education system of America. They hate civil rights organizations that work to protect civil liberties. And apparently they hate the earth itself--or at least any attempts to protect it.

What do they love? Well, all things military, regardless of how hapless and ass-backwards the military is deployed. They really love the giant pharmaceutical companies--for reasons which remain a mystery. They basically love international corporations--and support cliches about "free enterprise" when these stateless entities are called to account for massive fraud, etc. And they love Israel, again for reasons never stated (beyond a childish racist attitude towards Arabs), and support the gangster state without hesitation.

Look out, tardspasm, tardspasm...

Mikey wrote:

JMak wrote: ...the placement of sensors can be and is abused by scientists/agencies.

It undoubtedly happens. But then people like you automatically assume abuse when the results disagree with their pre-conceived assumption of how the world should work.

Believe it or not there are scientists, some even working for the Government, who don't start out with an agenda or at least don't let their personal views interfere with their responsibility to be unbiased in their work.

Those who do abuse that responsibility shouldn't be allowed to be called scientists.

And I'm not a head in the sky idealist. I review energy efficiency estimates for incentive programs and I can tell you there are plenty of engineers who shouldn't be called engineers.

Jackasses like you run around like chicken little whining that it's getting hot and it's all our fault. Get over your egocentric self and realize that there is no way man, or animal, can change the climate. Not to say that maybe, maybe we are .000000001% of the problem, but there is no valid scientific data that pokes us in the chest. IT'S ALL HYPOTHESIS.

If you want the reason for global warming/cooling, go outside and stare at the sun for a very long time without blinking. That is your answer, dumb ass.


BTW you're part of the club
vvvvvvvvvvvvv

Hey, weasel, I notice you don't actually have a take, a response, or anything. You're just cold-cocked. Typical.

So tell us, why do you hate America? And I mean its government, its workers, its unions, its watch dog agencies, etc. You know, the real America.

As for your inane drivel on global warming--and the whores who claim to "scientifically" dismiss it:

Exxon Keeps Funding Anti-Global Warming Lobbyists
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence

By Tudor Vieru, Science Editor

2nd of July 2009,

Exxon continues to fight against the current. Maybe it's time that money went into renewable projects
It would appear that the big corporations have taken an active interest in fighting for lost causes. In the last such battle, the oil giant Exxon was proven to still be supporting conservatory lobby groups, which advocate that global warming is not real. Or if it is, it's not caused by us. And if it is, it's not that bad. You've all heard the same line of pathetic reasons and excuses over the course of the years, but, alas for them, the scientific community has proven once and for all that climate change is ours to deal with, The Guardian informs.

In an upsetting turn of events (for the fossil fuel industry), Bush and his gang of conservatives were ousted from power by the people, who voted for Obama in part because his agenda included points referring to stem cell research, economic stimulus plans and environmental protection. The latter point gained him a lot of support from the scientific community, and it's now beginning to show that the political will is there. Legislation regulating carbon emissions and classifying carbon dioxide (CO2) as a pollutant is already in the works, and could soon be adopted.

But, despite all this, and the fact that the science on the issue is clearly against them, oil companies continue to fund lobby groups whose sole purpose is to slow down the decision process in the federal government, and to interfere, essentially, with what the vast majority of the population wants. Among the groups that received funding from Exxon are the National Center for Policy Analysis (NCPA), in Dallas, Texas ($75,000), the Heritage Foundation, in Washington DC ($50,000), as well as the infamous Heartland Institute, a so-called Chicago-based "think-tank," which advocates, alongside the fact that coal and oil are good for the atmosphere, that smoking is good for your health, and so on.


And this doesn't even scratch the surface of the Canadian oil companies and their desperate attempts to start the foul processing of their mountains of oil shale, etc. (psssst...it's the Canadians leading this fatuous pseudo science opposition to the facts of Global Warming)

WW

LTS TRN 2 wrote:facts of Global Warming

There are facts, and then there is fiction based on facts. "man caused" global warming is a twisted story that is only meant to put money in the pockets of elitist who want to destroy your freedom and liberty in the process.

Green, my ass.

Idiot.

VVVVV

Jerkovich wrote:

LTS TRN 2 wrote:facts of Global Warming

There are facts, and then there is fiction based on facts. "man caused" global warming is a twisted story that is only meant to put money in the pockets of elitist who want to destroy your freedom and liberty in the process.

Green, my ass.

Idiot.

VVVVV

I going to assume that this grammatical head on is somehow intentional? You're using "elitist" as an adjective?...and you just forgot to provide its subject? Or you mean it as a noun...and you meant plural... and you don't have any concern with the utter hollowness of such a statement.

As far as making money, obviously the corporate powers are opposed to any and all environmental concerns being girded with actual laws because it threatens their profit margins.

What is this ridiculous bogeyman of elitist environmental fat cats? It's absurd when leveled against Al Gore or Robert Kennedy Jr. as well as the institutions like Sierra Club, etc. The sheer hack factor of the denialists--as reflected in your idiotic blurb--is about as funny as "Funny People" which sucks camel cock.

I think Kevie is just channeling Sarah Limbaugh.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:And this doesn't even scratch the surface of the Canadian oil companies and their desperate attempts to start the foul processing of their mountains of oil shale, etc. (psssst...it's the Canadians leading this fatuous pseudo science opposition to the facts of Global Warming)

Thems fighting words.

~Marty

Seriously dude, have you ever met a conspiracy or black helicopter that you didn't immediately fall head over heels for?

Finkle is Einhorn and Nicky is mJew.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:Hey, weasel, I notice you don't actually have a take, a response, or anything. You're just cold-cocked. Typical.

So tell us, why do you hate America? And I mean its government, its workers, its unions, its watch dog agencies, etc. You know, the real America.

As for your inane drivel on global warming--and the whores who claim to "scientifically" dismiss it:

Exxon Keeps Funding Anti-Global Warming Lobbyists
Despite overwhelming scientific evidence

My take was that the alarmists are far, far more well-funded than the skeptics. Now, you simply ignored that, but that doesn't mean there wasn't a take.

Second, America is simply not the government, its workers and its unions.

Lastly, Exxon is noy only funding scientific research related to climate change but it's also investing in renewable energy. Not sure why you suggest that Exxon ain't investing in renewable energy except that you're a friggin tard thatis yet another know-nothing Jew-hater.

LTS TRN 2 wrote:I going to assume that this grammatical head on is somehow intentional? You're using "elitist" as an adjective?...and you just forgot to provide its subject? Or you mean it as a noun...and you meant plural... and you don't have any concern with the utter hollowness of such a statement.

I understood it...what's your friggin problem? This global warming, climate change charade is great business for people like Al Gore, the hack scientists, well, non-scientists that run the IPCC nonsense...funds their lavish travel, massive homes, etc.

As far as making money, obviously the corporate powers are opposed to any and all environmental concerns being girded with actual laws because it threatens their profit margins.

Not any and all, moron. Opposed to those regulations that seek to fix something that ain't broken, yes.

What is this ridiculous bogeyman of elitist environmental fat cats? It's absurd when leveled against Al Gore or Robert Kennedy Jr. as well as the institutions like Sierra Club, etc. The sheer hack factor of the denialists--as reflected in your idiotic blurb--is about as funny as "Funny People" which sucks camel cock.

Hmmm, Gore is the very defintion of elitist fatcat. He's built his bank and lavish lifestyle on perpetuating this myth of an impending global climate catastrophe. And everytime his nonsense his corrected/contradicted he just makes something else up. And his lappies like you accept it whole cloth like without question.

JMak wrote: Lastly, Exxon is noy only funding scientific research related to climate change but it's also investing in renewable energy. Not sure why you suggest that Exxon ain't investing in renewable energy except that you're a friggin tard thatis yet another know-nothing Jew-hater.

Oh, really?
Do you ever get tired of lying through your teeth?

In contrast, Tillerson (ExxonMobil CEO) told reporters in January that Exxon isn't investing in existing alternative energy technology because "we think these technologies are old. If there is going to be a fundamental shift" away from fossil fuels, the technology "hasn't been discovered."

The company is financing basic research, he said. It will spend $125 million over 10 years at the Global Climate & Energy Project, a Stanford University facility also funded by General Electric (GE, news, msgs), Toyota Motor (TM, news, msgs) and oil-field services provider Schlumberger (SLB, news, msgs)Schlumberger (SLB).

Apart from that, Exxon is not a recognized player among the alternative-energy labs in and around Silicon Valley. Vinod Khosla, one of the world's most aggressive investors in alternative fuels, says he regularly meets representatives of Big Oil, though not Exxon, which "still lives in a different world."

Jay D. Keasling, a professor at the University of California at Berkeley whose alternative-energy ideas have attracted about $1 billion in private investment, including $500 million from BP, says he has spoken to Exxon, but that "I think they are going to play a waiting game to see what the other companies do."

$125 million over 10 years? That's less than Tillerson's annual bonus, tard. Prolly less than his annual travel expenses.

http://articles.moneycentral.msn.com/In ... spx?page=4

Maybe I am lying, but then how do we square that with...

Is Big Oil warming at last to the notion of an alternative-energy future?

So say some analysts who are pondering Exxon Mobil Corp.'s recent moves. Breaking from years of steadfast commitment to fossil fuels, the behemoth has announced big investments in electric cars, unconventional natural gas and algae-based biofuels.

~snip~

But in recent weeks, Exxon has tossed about $500,000 into an electric car-sharing program in Baltimore and participated in development of unconventional natural gas plays in Canada. On Tuesday, it announced a $600 million partnership to develop next-generation biofuels from algae.

Exxon Mobil spokesman Rob Young said the timing of the announcements is circumstantial. Each comes, he said, after significant internal research. "This is not something that happened overnight," he said. "The announcement and collaboration come after a number of years of work."

So say some analysts who are pondering Exxon Mobil Corp.'s recent moves. Breaking from years of steadfast commitment to fossil fuels, the behemoth has announced big investments in electric cars, unconventional natural gas and algae-based biofuels.[/quote]

I don't know...maybe this all untrue...

More? You mean, other companies than just Exxon are also investing in renewables?

To be sure, Exxon Mobil is not the first oil company to invest in algae-based biofuels, but its investment is significant because of the size and the company's historical opposition to biofuels like ethanol. Royal Dutch Shell PLC, Chevron Corp. and BP have all recently announced algae biofuels partnerships or research ventures. And Dow Chemical Co. last month launched a pilot project with Algenol to produce ethanol from algae/

of course they are...dumbshits.

Well, I guess somebody must be lying, or maybe there are two ExxonMobils?

:?

Mikey wrote:Well, I guess somebody must be lying, or maybe there are two ExxonMobils?

:?

No one is lying, dumbshit. You simply looked for a single source that said Exxon wasn't investing in alternatives because it confirms your own perception of things.

Your article was from February. Mine was from June. It could be that in February, Exxon was not investing, though I find that hard to believe. ThinkProgress, hardly a conservative outlet, cited a 2008 ABC report indicating Exxon invested less than 1% on alternative energy.

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:Well, I guess somebody must be lying, or maybe there are two ExxonMobils?

:?

No one is lying, dumbshit. You simply looked for a single source that said Exxon wasn't investing in alternatives because it confirms your own perception of things.

Your article was from February. Mine was from June. It could be that in February, Exxon was not investing, though I find that hard to believe. ThinkProgress, hardly a conservative outlet, cited a 2008 ABC report indicating Exxon invested less than 1% on alternative energy.

Yeah, I only used a quote from the CEO - generally a dependable source for company policy. So I guess he must have been lying. How many sources did you look through, dumbshit?

You haven't exactly demonstrated that they are making any major investments. Maybe enough to keep their finger in the pot in case something happens that they would want to know about. Nothing more than that.

At least I admitted that there may be conflicting information out there.

Mikey wrote:Yeah, I only used a quote from the CEO - generally a dependable source for company policy. So I guess he must have been lying. How many sources did you look through, dumbshit?

Like I said, dummy, no one is lying...contrary to your continued assertions.

Second, I looked at exactly one. I used Google...ever heard of it. Searched Exxon investment renewable energy. First hit - June 2009 NY Times article discussing what??? Exxon's investment into renewables.

You haven't exactly demonstrated that they are making any major investments.

Exactly, shift the fucking goalposts now...after I proved my point and destroyed your nonsensical assertion that I was "lying through my teeth."

JMak - Exxon is investing in renewables.
Mikey - No they're not, liar.
JMak - NY Times says they are.
Mikey, ~sniffling~ Well, it's not enough.

Fuck yourself, clown.

Maybe enough to keep their finger in the pot in case something happens that they would want to know about. Nothing more than that.

Yeah, $600,000,000 is chump change.

Mikey's response - ~screaming~ "But, but, but, they're the most profitable company in the world, they can afford to do more."
JMak - Shut the fuck up and it's not of your business.

At least I admitted that there may be conflicting information out there.

Courage.

Sincerely,
Dan Rather

Dumbass, thanks for the Marcus Allen reset.

It's obvious there's conflicting information. I just demonstrated there was. The point is that Exxon is investing in renewables just as I said there were and contrary to your nonsensical assertion that I was "lying through my teeth."

You could at least man up and acknoweldge I was right.

JMak wrote:You could at least man up and acknoweldge I was right.

First time on this board?

People don't ever admit they are wrong here.

JMak wrote:

Mikey wrote:Yeah, I only used a quote from the CEO - generally a dependable source for company policy. So I guess he must have been lying. How many sources did you look through, dumbshit?

Like I said, dummy, no one is lying...contrary to your continued assertions.

Second, I looked at exactly one. I used Google...ever heard of it. Searched Exxon investment renewable energy. First hit - June 2009 NY Times article discussing what??? Exxon's investment into renewables.

You haven't exactly demonstrated that they are making any major investments.

Exactly, shift the fucking goalposts now...after I proved my point and destroyed your nonsensical assertion that I was "lying through my teeth."

JMak - Exxon is investing in renewables.
Mikey - No they're not, liar.
JMak - NY Times says they are.
Mikey, ~sniffling~ Well, it's not enough.

Fuck yourself, clown.

Maybe enough to keep their finger in the pot in case something happens that they would want to know about. Nothing more than that.

Yeah, $600,000,000 is chump change.

Mikey's response - ~screaming~ "But, but, but, they're the most profitable company in the world, they can afford to do more."
JMak - Shut the fuck up and it's not of your business.

At least I admitted that there may be conflicting information out there.

Courage.

Sincerely,
Dan Rather

Dumbass, thanks for the Marcus Allen reset.

It's obvious there's conflicting information. I just demonstrated there was. The point is that Exxon is investing in renewables just as I said there were and contrary to your nonsensical assertion that I was "lying through my teeth."

You could at least man up and acknoweldge I was right.

Nice fictional dialog you've put together, asshole. You really should be writing for TV. You're about as "factual" as Faux News.

Yeah you were right. So was I, according to their CEO. But then I don't expect you to admit that.

I think I'll go buy one share of ExxonMobil. Then I'll be "investing" in big oil.

Go fuck yourself.

Mikey wrote:Nice fictional dialog you've put together, asshole. You really should be writing for TV. You're about as "factual" as Faux News.

And yet another dimbulb goes for the Fox News slam. That's about all you have to go on here. I don't watch Fox News.

Yeah you were right. So was I, according to their CEO. But then I don't expect you to admit that.

WTF am I supposed to admit? You called me a liar and said, contrary to my statement, that Exxon was not investing in renewables. I demonstrated that my statement was accurate. I also then posted info from 2008 that Exxon was investing in renewables.

Your link said that Exxon was not investing in "existing alternative energy technology". Get it? Existing alt energy tech. I guess your tiny little brain couldn't fathom that Exxon may have investing in new alt energy tech like algae, right? Moron.

Secondly, your link stated, "Exxon is not a recognized player among the alternative-energy labs in and around Silicon Valley." You bolded "Exxon is not a recognized player among the alternative-energy labs". Of course, again, your little brain couldn't grasp that perhaps Exxon was investing in alt energy tech outside of...wait for it...Silicon Valley, the location the statement you quoted and bolded was actually referring to and you attempted to pass off as representative of Exxon's investment strategy generally.

You weren't right about shit...at least in any way relating to my initial statement.

I think I'll go buy one share of ExxonMobil. Then I'll be "investing" in big oil.

Keep trying to shift the goal posts dipshit. You ain't got nothing in this conversation except a cherry-picked link speaking to a very narrow aspect of Exxon's alt energy tech investments.

You may go now.

JMak, why are arguing with idiots?

Weasel,the fact that Exxon has reluctantly started to appear interested in alternative energy is supposed to mean what? That Global Warming is a clever ruse to line the pockets of fat cat elitists like Al Gore?

Seriously, are you such a wind-up little robot that you just keep spouting this idiotic nonsense? Did you vote for Palin? C'mon--be honest for once in your fake life.

Again, why do you hate America? And if you think the government and the working people--and their unions--somehow do not constitute America, well then who does?

How do you look in the mirror? :wink:

every time I see mvscal's avatar, I fucking laugh like a motherfucker