Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill.sloman@xxxxxxxx
- Date: Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:27:59 -0700
On Sep 15, 10:26 am, Simon S Aysdie <gwh...@xxxxxx> wrote:
On Sep 14, 12:21 pm, Benj <bjac...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Not that Exxon is particularly trustworthy when it comes to energy
issues, ...
When I go to their stations to buy gas, I get exactly the good they
promised me for the price agreed upon.
That is as much trustworthyness I can reasonably expect. This is
unlike politicians, policy makers, and bureaucrats. If politicians
and bureaucrats actually do deliver goods, it always something they've
seized at the end of a gun barrel from some unlucky sap. It wasn't
their's to deliver.
Exxon can be trusted to sell petrol at the advertised price, from gas
stations carrying the Exxon-Moboil label.
When they sell anti-global warming propaganda, they do it through
front organisations. Check out
www.exxonsecrets.org
Initially Shell and BP were also sceptical about global warming, and
their staff scientists were up front about it, but when the scientific
evidence became unambiguous the Shell and BP scientists accepted it
and the company managements didn't go over to subsidising the denial
industry.
--
Bill Sloman, Nijmegen
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: JosephKK
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- References:
- OT: getting rid of the medieval warm period
- From: Eeyore
- Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: PeteS
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard Henry
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Richard The Dreaded Libertarian
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: z
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: John Larkin
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: James Arthur
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Eeyore
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: bill . sloman
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Benj
- Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- From: Simon S Aysdie
- OT: getting rid of the medieval warm period
- Prev by Date: Re: How to develop a random number generation device
- Next by Date: Re: Productivity - Norway leads the table.
- Previous by thread: Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- Next by thread: Re: Global Warming: Junk science at it's [best] worst
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|