• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Exxon ordered to turn over 40 years of climate change research (1 Viewer)

Jack Hays said:
[h=1]Heartland Institute Releases Peter Gleick Emails Detailing Fraud, Identity Theft[/h]Correspondence Began Same Day He Rejected Invitation to Debate FEBRUARY 24, 2012 – The Heartland Institute today released all the emails Pacific Institute President Peter Gleick sent to The Heartland Institute for the purpose of fraudulently obtaining internal Heartland documents. The emails can be found at Fakegate.org. The emails reveal how Gleick “phished” the documents…

February 24, 2012 in Fakegate.[h=1]Some notes on the Heartland Leak[/h]Heartland has yet to produce a press release, but I thought in the meantime I’d share some behind the scenes. If/when they do, I’ll add it to this post. UPDATE: 11:45AM -The press release has been added below. One of the key documents is a fabrication UPDATE2: 2:30PM The BBC’s Richard Black slimes me, without…

February 15, 2012 in Announcements.[h=1]The DeSmoggers are crashing and burning[/h]Well, the DeSmog Blog “coup” is going down, oh the humanity. There’s a scathing second writeup at The Atlantic by Megan McArdle (as if the first wasn’t enough) that takes the DeSmoggers to task. Note to Hoggan and crew – when you can’t even get a left leaning news outlet to back you up, even…

February 17, 2012 in Fakegate.
Click to expand...

Your answer to me discrediting your source, is to use your discredited source's attempts to discredit his discreditors? That's weak dude, very weak. I think its time you bowed out with grace.
 
apdst said:
So, you were beside yourself with outrage when Jeffrey Imelt had unfettered access to Obama; ridin'on AF1?
Click to expand...

Who? And if you look back on my other posts in this thread concerning Obama's strawman green efforts you'll see I'm not a fan...
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Your answer to me discrediting your source, is to use your discredited source's attempts to discredit his discreditors? That's weak dude, very weak. I think its time you bowed out with grace.
Click to expand...

I oppose lies with the truth. The only discredited sources in this discussion are yours, as has been demonstrated.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Your answer to me discrediting your source, is to use your discredited source's attempts to discredit his discreditors? That's weak dude, very weak. I think its time you bowed out with grace.
Click to expand...

Another source.

[h=2]Gleick’s ‘integrity’[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on February 21, 2012 | 653 comments
by Judith Curry How can we reconcile Gleick’s possibly criminal behavior with his essays and testimony on scientific integrity?

653 Comments
Posted in Ethics

[/FONT]
[h=2]Breaking News: Gleick Confesses[/h][FONT=&quot]Posted on February 20, 2012 | 438 comments
by Judith Curry Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Files

438 Comments
Posted in Ethics

[/FONT]
 
Jack Hays said:
I oppose lies with the truth. The only discredited sources in this discussion are yours, as has been demonstrated.
Click to expand...

Ya by the discredited source, I at least provided three different sources to discredit yours. You used the source being discredited. So, only thing that has been discredited is your use of accurate and varied sources. Oh and the Watts, can't forget he's full of it.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
Ya by the discredited source, I at least provided three different sources to discredit yours. You used the source being discredited. So, only thing that has been discredited is your use of accurate and varied sources. Oh and the Watts, can't forget he's full of it.
Click to expand...

Please see #130, and actually read what's posted. As for WUWT, it's incomparably superior to its detractors.
 
Jack Hays said:
Another source.

[h=2]Gleick’s ‘integrity’[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/21/gleicks-integrity/"]February 21, 2012[/URL] | 653 comments
by Judith Curry How can we reconcile Gleick’s possibly criminal behavior with his essays and testimony on scientific integrity?

653 Comments
Posted in Ethics

[/FONT]
[h=2]Breaking News: Gleick Confesses[/h][FONT="][FONT=inherit]Posted on[/FONT] [URL="https://judithcurry.com/2012/02/20/breaking-news/"]February 20, 2012[/URL] | 438 comments
by Judith Curry Peter Gleick Admits to Deception in Obtaining Heartland Files

438 Comments
Posted in Ethics

[/FONT]
Click to expand...

Birds of a feather, here let me discredit this source as well...

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Judith_Curry

https://thinkprogress.org/judith-curry-abandons-science-e13059a66c99#.yyo6wl6at

https://climatecrocks.com/2014/01/20/judith-currys-testimony-where-theres-smoke/

http://blog.hotwhopper.com/2014/05/judith-curry-admits-she-gets-her.html

https://www.desmogblog.com/judith-curry
 
Jack Hays said:
Please see #130, and actually read what's posted. As for WUWT, it's incomparably superior to its detractors.
Click to expand...

This is the impasse we always reach Jack, you use debunked denialist and refuse to see them as anything but legite. At some point we should agree that we will never agree and part ways.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
This is the impasse we always reach Jack, you use debunked denialist and refuse to see them as anything but legite. At some point we should agree that we will never agree and part ways.
Click to expand...

I agree. Your denialism prevents discussion.
 
apdst said:
Who? :lamo
Click to expand...

OK, I googled the guy, and it is a bit suspicious he got unfettered access to Obama. I'm no Obama apologist, nor do I think his half assed attempts at promoting alternative energy were at all sincere. So laugh all you want, I'm no corporate groupy trading CEO stat cards. Memorizing the names of the fatcats screwing us over.
 
ThoughtEx. said:
"A Massachusetts judge ordered Exxon (XOM) on Wednesday to hand over more than four decades of the company's climate change research.

The court rejected Exxon's emergency motion to kill the demand from Massachusetts Attorney General Maura Healey, who is investigating allegations the company ignored internal scientific research going back to the 1970s.

The ruling came on the same day that longtime Exxon boss Rex Tillerson was being grilled by Congress about the company's climate change tactics at his secretary of state hearing. Tillerson, who stepped down last month as CEO after a decade in charge, repeatedly ducked questions about the issue from U.S. Senators."

Exxon ordered to turn over 40 years of climate change research - Jan. 12, 2017

Reminds me of when we figured out smoking causes lung cancer, up til then tobacco companies had been advertising as a healthy product recommended by doctors. Not only was that not true, but the tobacco companies new it, and covered it up. Spread propaganda and doubt of science, really they fought to the bitter end to try and convince the people smoking was healthy.

Now it seems our Oil Companies are doing the same. It turns out Exxon did a lot to prove Co2 buildup will have negative consequence, before business interests forced their scientists to find business friendly results. They could have pioneered alternative energy, but for the small minded men at the top.
Click to expand...

Good luck!

Hope they have better success than getting Criminal Hillary's emails.
 
Renae said:
The witch hunt to destroy opposition to the AGW foolishness, continues unabated.
Click to expand...

Reading reports is now a witch hunt. Go figure.
 
prometeus said:
Can you quote a single instance in which I said anything in support of Kerry? Of course not, then why make up such moronic drivel?
Click to expand...

:thumbs:
 
ThoughtEx. said:
In terms of political donations... They have the right to lobby. They don't have all the other ones.

Which they really shouldn't have the right to lobby.

But please, convince me that the founding fathers considered company's like the East India Company to be people in and of themselves.
Click to expand...
I have no interest in that, because this is one of a ton of places where the court has failed. It has failed in every way, to include in protecting my rights. I piss on the Supreme Court. But the law is the law and this government keeps on coming for more power, taking more power from me, and the law is the main tool. So long as they are seen as people I will reject most every claim the government makes to take power from say EXXON, because I have seen this scam of creeping up my ass dishonest government power many times before.

Exxon and me must both be free because I am looking out for #1 .

ME!
 
Chomsky said:
This will be killed 20 Jan.

Sadly.

Elections have consequences ...
Click to expand...

Exxon paid for the research and the t is their private data

This is liberal judge overreach
 
Harshaw said:
On what legal grounds should public access to their private research be granted?
Click to expand...

On the grounds that they defrauded their shareholders with false information. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to use false information to sell that opinion to shareholders.
 
Mac77 said:
Exxon paid for the research and the t is their private data

This is liberal judge overreach
Click to expand...

Exxon lied and misled their shareholders about their research.

The liberal judges were just following the law against false advertising, which is not a protected right.


I for one would love to see Exxon's research...on Wikileaks.
 
Porkuloss said:
I don't disagree with what you posted, but I'd add that there are very powerful vested interests in keeping the carbon bubble going as long and hard long as possible. It's their profit engine. Some entire nation-states have nothing else.
Click to expand...
I agree that, that is true for some nation states, but disagree for the big oil companies.
I am sure there are sides of the oil industry, on the exploration and extraction side that have interests,
but the refiners and distributors, likely don't care about the source of the profits.
 
This would be more akin to Big Sugar knowing that too much sugar makes you fat, and not publicizing it. No crime here, and thus no reason for a court to be harassing a company.
 
Moot said:
On the grounds that they defrauded their shareholders with false information. It's one thing to have an opinion, it's another to use false information to sell that opinion to shareholders.
Click to expand...

State the elements of "defrauding shareholders," and show how anything they did regarding this research fulfills them.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top Bottom