| |
| |
| |
|
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18
Comments:
<0> at least, it's not documented
<1> so only people who are paid by governments are responsible?
<2> Well, wait a minute
<1> or only people who aren't paid at all?
<2> I don't get how he's funded by Exxon
<2> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134
<0> need to use their dumb*** flash thing for that
<0> the sites pretty crappy
<2> Walk me through it
<0> trying to find it again now
<1> it ***erts that exxon-mobile funds his lab....evidence? or just that website
<2> I mean, vic's point is dead on, it wouldn't undermine his claims in my eyes
<2> Or enhance them
<0> they all fund his lab
<2> But I don't even want to give up that much ground, I don't see where there's any funding to begin with
<0> or their lab
<0> Well, it's a conflict of interest
<0> you can use the search whatsit in the flash thing - "People"
<2> No it isn't
<2> But it doesn't exist anyway
<0> Sure it is. If I worked for microsoft
<0> and I came along, in an article on OSs
<2> His only connection is to Tech Central Station, who published some of his articles or editorials
<2> Right?
<0> and said, without any mention of my employ "Well, Linux is pretty crap. I recommend Windows Vista"
<2> I mean, am I missing something?
<0> That would be a conflict of interest
<2> Where's the Exxon funding to his lab or whatever?
<2> No no, I'm contesting even that
<2> I don't think he gets any Exxon funding
<0> 003
<0> $95,000 ExxonMobil FoundationClimate Change Support
<0> to the lab he works for
<2> Where do you see that
<0> in their flash thingy - I can't paste a link
<0> load their main site
<0> skip the crappy intro
<1> did a whois on exxonsecrets.org : Admin Organization:Greenpeace Ltd
<0> click "find people"
<2> Oh, I got it.
<0> stick a surname in
<2> I'm sorry, Asriel, let me take over a minute
<1> so we should believe Greenpeace, eh?
<2> vic, hold on.
<0> vawAFKhome - I wouldn't listen to their opinion
<2> This will get good fast.
<2> Asriel
<0> but the sponsership funding it a matter of public record
<0> I'm only using it to save trawling the records
<2> ehh, let me get the link
<2> No
<2> Stop
<2> Just wait for me, I'll walk you through this.
<2> Okay
<2> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134
<2> Start there
<2> Click on "Tech Central Science Foundation or Tech Central Station" near the bottom
<2> Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com.
<2> ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."
<2> Etc. etc.
<2> There's your 95k, right?
<0> aye
<2> And whatever else
<2> Okay, now go back to Tech Central Science Foundation was formed in late November 2002 (Form 990). The Foundation appears to be a funding arm of the free-market news site, TechCentralStation.com.
<2> ExxonMobil gave the Foundation $95,000 in 2003 for "Climate Change Support."
<2> bleh
<2> Okay, now go back to:
<2> http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/personfactsheet.php?id=1134
<0> ok
<2> What is Tech Central Station, and how does it relate to our friend Bob?
<2> The answer is here:
<2> 5 May, 2004
<2> "The first thing to be clear about is that carbon dioxide is not a pollutant."
<2> Source: Tech Central Station Article - Carter
<2> 5 May, 2004
<0> he's a contributing writer
<0> i.e. they paid him to write an article, I guess
<2> No
<2> They published articles he wrote
<0> can't prove that, admittely. but most people won't write for free
<2> Maybe they paid him for them
<2> But that's it
<2> In fact
<2> We don't know he was paid for them, you're right
<0> regardless - they paid him with Exxon money for articles that support the Exxon position. We can't show either way if he wrote them before or after they asked for them, I guess
<2> So, at best, his connection to Exxon is that he wrote three articles that a website published, that once received money from Exxon.
<2> Think about that.
<0> but nonetheless, it would seem to be something the original article should quote
<2> You said he works for Exxon.
<0> He recieved Exxon money, so yeah - he does work for them
<2> No, he doesn't.
<0> The fact that it's one chain removed is pretty standard lobbying
<2> No, it isn't.
<2> But let's find out!
<2> Was Clearing the Air only published by TCS?
<0> I'm just trying some of the other names
<0> the fact that 2 of the 3 you chose were listed is suspect, but could be coincidence
<2> That's okay
<0> going to try the others
<2> I like sticking with Carter
<2> Okay, it looks like TCS was the only site to publish that particular article
<2> So presumably he wrote it for them, or to them, or something.
<2> So, what's the problem?>
<2> I mean, earlier you made it seem like his lab was fully funded by Exxon.
<0> the good Dr Ball has also recieved funding from them (possibly indirectly, just checking names)
<0> so thats' 3 from 4
<2> Now it's "he wrote three pages for a website"
<2> We have people in here who've been published more
<2> Are they spokesmen for those sites?
<2> I mean, this isn't a connection at all.
<0> **** morgan didn't though
<0> 3 from 5
<2> I don't care.
<2> This is called linear thought.
<2> One thing at a time.
<0> no, but you see where I'm gonig
<2> First name that came up was Bob Carter.
<2> Yes, you're taking a 0 case and trying to iterate to infinity.
<2> Except that 0 iterated is still 0
<3> JB do you deny that the U.S. goverment has been involved in any conspiracies?
<0> If a high percentage of their "sceptics" had recieved funding from Exxon, that'd be suspect
<2> At no point do you change the value, Asriel.
<0> And as it turns out, 3/5 that I tested have
<2> Bob Carter is not the man you claimed he was.
<0> which is far more than you'd expect
<2> And that undermines your opposition to the article.
<2> No no.
<2> Don't say 3/5
<0> in a random sample of climate change scientists in the US
<2> 0.
<0> No, not 0. They work/have worked for organisations funded by Exxon, that can't be disputed
<2> Of the first 1 refutations you attempted against the article, 0 held water, Asriel.
<0> We don't know the exact details
<2> That can't be disputed.
<2> You are 0 for 1.
<2> Now, you can change the 1 to 2, or to 3, or to 4, but you're still 0.
<0> Er, did he or did he not write for an "institute" funded by Exxon?
<2> You should step back and think "wait a minute, maybe I was hasty".
<0> I think we can accept that he did
<2> That would be what a normal person would do.
<2> But you're not doing that.
<2> You're looking for cover.
<0> No, because I'm right. He, in all probability, recieved money from Exxon
<0> Just via one chain removal
<2> Haha
<2> So do shareholders
<2> And anyone with a mutual fund
<0> Please
<2> No "please".
<2> You tried to castigate a guy for writing three articles to a website.
<0> You don't find it suspect that 3/5 people they "found" are likely funded by one of the biggest opposition to any evidence of climate change?
Return to
#c++
or
Go to some related
logs:
katy25
#AllNiteCafe
#chatzone
#MissKitten
#linuxhelp
#chatzone
gsoap forte compile
che guaveara
who appears on the us 5,000 dollar bill
java StringTokenizer parsing log file
|
|