Getbig.com: American Bodybuilding, Fitness and Figure
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: BRUCE on February 11, 2007, 02:33:43 PM
-
ExxonMobil
"In Editorial and Opinion on Saturday (3 February) we wrote that 'ExxonMobil is attempting to bribe scientists to pick holes in the IPPC's assessment (on climate change). We now recognise that this statement is incorrect and we withdraw it."
Those of you that like to use The Independent as a reliable news source should probably reconsider what you deem to be 'reliable'. I say this in tandem with their inability to correctly spell 'IPCC', as above.
The Independent has since removed this correction from their website, with no explanation forthcoming.
-
*CRICKETS*
-
*CRICKETS*
;D
I was waiting for someone to pitch in, but the silence was deafening!
-
;D
I was waiting for someone to pitch in, but the silence was deafening!
Many of the liberals on this site run like scalded dogs from the facts. :)
-
Many of the liberals on this site run like scalded dogs from the facts. :)
Whoops, don't say that too loudly - Beserker will berate you for having an opinion and then start a thread about your 'identity'!
-
Whoops, don't say that too loudly - Beserker will berate you for having an opinion and then start a thread about your 'identity'!
Uh oh . . . . .
-
Uh oh . . . . .
Sorry, buddy, it's his job as a Moderator to 'call you out' on it.
-
Sorry, buddy, it's his job as a Moderator to 'call you out' on it.
:) But I don't have an identity crisis. I'm an independent. No, wait, I'm a Republican! No, I'm a moderate Republican. Wait, I'm a libertarian. I'm SO confused! Maybe I should ask Allied Powers for help. :D
-
:) But I don't have an identity crisis. I'm an independent. No, wait, I'm a Republican! No, I'm a moderate Republican. Wait, I'm a libertarian. I'm SO confused! Maybe I should ask Allied Powers for help. :D
It all makes sense now, I got called out because I don't flip-flop!
-
Here's the source of this information. By the way there's no link or written proof of this anywhere, just what this guy posted on his website. ::)
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/02/a_day_at_the_in.html (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/02/a_day_at_the_in.html)
This is the guy’s picture. By the way, he’s the one that named the file, apparently he thinks of himself as a devil. Nice job.
-
Here's the source of this information. By the way there's no link or written proof of this anywhere, just what this guy posted on his website. ::)
http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/02/a_day_at_the_in.html (http://dailyablution.blogs.com/the_daily_ablution/2007/02/a_day_at_the_in.html)
This is the guy’s picture. By the way, he’s the one that named the file, apparently he thinks of himself as a devil. Nice job.
Erm, good work Columbo - case closed!
The Independent deleted the correction, as I stated. Do you believe the IPCC was bribed by ExxonMobil? If so, you no doubt have proof.
-
Erm, good work Columbo - case closed!
The Independent deleted the correction, as I stated. Do you believe the IPCC was bribed by ExxonMobil? If so, you no doubt have proof.
LOL, here's your source. He's got no proof of course but we're all supposed to believe him.
He looks nice with the weapon in his hands don't you think? I love that he thinks of himself as "devil".
By the way, do you have any proof of what "devil" said?
-
LOL, here's your source. He's got no proof of course but we're all supposed to believe him.
He looks nice with the weapon in his hands don't you think? I love that he thinks of himself as "devil".
By the way, do you have any proof of what "devil" said?
Good to see you have fine-tuned your sense of humour. I see you managed to avoid my question, though
-
Good to see you have fine-tuned your sense of humour. I see you managed to avoid my question, though
Notice how you skip over the fact that there isn't an ounce of proof of these claims from "devil"?
Bruce, where is the proof? You started a thread, where is the proof of your point?
By the way, this is "devil" for all that want to know.
-
Notice how you skip over the fact that there isn't an ounce of proof of these claims from "devil"?
Bruce, where is the proof? You started a thread, where is the proof of your point?
By the way, this is "devil" for all that want to know.
Posting a bloke's pic that's dressed as an extremist for laughs (while you take it perfectly seriously) makes you look pretty silly, I hope you understand that.
-
Posting a bloke's pic that's dressed as an extremist for laughs (while you take it perfectly seriously) makes you look pretty silly, I hope you understand that.
Nice, again you skip that sticky subject of proof.
Where's your proof?
By the way, have you given "devil" money? Front and to the left on his website is a large "Donate" button. I usually don't get my information from websites asking for money and with pictures of the owner with a weapon in his hand and a towel over his head but to each his own.
-
Many of the liberals on this site run like scalded dogs from the facts. :)
I'm surprised to see you contribute to the childish antics on this board that have become synonymous with "Bruce."
It would also behoove some people to stop, or at least slow down on the constant passing off of blogs and other assorted opinion-editorial pieces as the fact-based sources for their threads. It demeans the intelligence of people and clogs up the board with often unsubstantiated claims. If people want to read the opinions of other bloggers they're more than free to do so outside of Getbig. Most people come here because they want to read the thoughts of other Getbiggers.
-
ExxonMobil
"In Editorial and Opinion on Saturday (3 February) we wrote that 'ExxonMobil is attempting to bribe scientists to pick holes in the IPPC's assessment (on climate change). We now recognise that this statement is incorrect and we withdraw it."
Those of you that like to use The Independent as a reliable news source should probably reconsider what you deem to be 'reliable'. I say this in tandem with their inability to correctly spell 'IPCC', as above.
The Independent has since removed this correction from their website, with no explanation forthcoming.
So a blog is supposed to be a credible source of information? ???
btw now whenever I think of Bruce, I imagine some Steve Irwin look a like with a towel over his head and ak in his hand. ;D
-
Notice how the two people that were initially posting in this abomination of a thread haven't commented since the source of the information was outed?
They were ranting on Liberals before yet nothing now. ::)
How's that credibility thing working out for you?
What is it they always say?
CRICKETS...
Here's "devil".
-
I'm surprised to see you contribute to the childish antics on this board that have become synonymous with "Bruce."
Deedee this is a lighthearted thread. At least that's the way I viewed it. And I like Bruce. He has been a good addition to the board and I hope continues to post here. But then again we disagree on whether this board tilts to the left or right. :)
I'm also glad you started posting here. Another great addition.
-
Here's the actual article as published in the Guardian, which at least is an acredited news source, not someone's basement blog.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
Erm, I found this in the regular pages of the online Guardian.
Here's CNN's unretracted take on it...
http://money.cnn.com/2007/02/02/news/companies/exxon_science/index.htm?cnn=yes
-
Here's the actual article as published in the Guardian, which at least is an acredited news source, not someone's basement blog.
Scientists and economists have been offered $10,000 each by a lobby group funded by one of the world's largest oil companies to undermine a major climate change report due to be published today.
Letters sent by the American Enterprise Institute (AEI), an ExxonMobil-funded thinktank with close links to the Bush administration, offered the payments for articles that emphasise the shortcomings of a report from the UN's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
http://environment.guardian.co.uk/climatechange/story/0,,2004397,00.html
So this is the third time that Bruce has shot himself in the foot? Polar Bears, Greenland and now this.. ;D
and man, that devil picture is cracking me up. ;D
-
I'm also glad you started posting here. Another great addition.
Thanks Beach. I think though, if this was meant to be a light-hearted, or humor piece, it should have said so in the title, instead of implying that the attempted bribery of scientists by Exxonn associates and buddies of the Bush administration was false. Or at least a HAHAHAHAHA in ( ) would have been an improvement. We leftist, liberal, commie pinkos are a slow bunch and don't always get the subtle goofing of our conservative brothers.
So this is the third time that Bruce has shot himself in the foot? Polar Bears, Greenland and now this..
Yes... :'(
-
BUMP for proof. Where's all the Liberal bashing on this now?
Crickets
-
Thanks Beach. I think though, if this was meant to be a light-hearted, or humor piece, it should have said so in the title, instead of implying that the attempted bribery of scientists by Exxonn associates and buddies of the Bush administration was false. Or at least a HAHAHAHAHA in ( ) would have been an improvement. We leftist, liberal, commie pinkos are a slow bunch and don't always get the subtle goofing of our conservative brothers.
Yes... :'(
Deedee, you're becoming quite the spiteful Leftist here. If I have been wrong on anything I have said on Greenland, Polar Bears or indeed this very thread, use posts and prove why. So far you have proved me wrong on nothing, and you have accused me of being 'Right-Wing', yet refused to debate me on it.
-
Deedee, you're becoming quite the spiteful Leftist here. If I have been wrong on anything I have said on Greenland, Polar Bears or indeed this very thread, use posts and prove why. So far you have proved me wrong on nothing, and you have accused me of being 'Right-Wing', yet refused to debate me on it.
Am not interested in cultivating bad feelings of any kind but will quickly respond here. I'm not a Leftist. Don't have a single radical bone in my body. I'm also not a spiteful person.
It's clear from the title of this thread as well as the early responses, that you were trying to bash a left-leaning newspaper by implying that they lied in their pages about bush buddies in the oil industry trying to bribe scientists into falsifying research data for a major project concerning global warming. You got from a blog that they disappeared the retraction of this "lie," further implying that the Independent was soooo embarrassed by their faux pas, that they just wanted the whole thing to disappear. Either that, or the Independent is such an evil, dishonest paper, which cares so little for journalistic integrity, that they just sweep whatever shoddy, discredited stories under the rug. In fact, the story does appear to be true and stands by its merit in several other papers. No doubt the Independent pulled the retraction because the story is, in fact, true. All you've done, is educate people about the bad behavior of oil executives. That's why I and other people feel you've shot yourself in the foot on this one, knowing that exposing oil executive treachery was not your intention whatsoever. It's a similar explanation for the polar bear, greenland isn't melting threads.
-
Am not interested in cultivating bad feelings of any kind but will quickly respond here. I'm not a Leftist. Don't have a single radical bone in my body. I'm also not a spiteful person.
It's clear from the title of this thread as well as the early responses, that you were trying to bash a left-leaning newspaper by implying that they lied in their pages about bush buddies in the oil industry trying to bribe scientists into falsifying research data for a major project concerning global warming. You got from a blog that they disappeared the retraction of this "lie," further implying that the Independent was soooo embarrassed by their faux pas, that they just wanted the whole thing to disappear. Either that, or the Independent is such an evil, dishonest paper, which cares so little for journalistic integrity, that they just sweep whatever shoddy, discredited stories under the rug. In fact, the story does appear to be true and stands by its merit in several other papers. No doubt the Independent pulled the retraction because the story is, in fact, true. All you've done, is educate people about the bad behavior of oil executives. That's why I and other people feel you've shot yourself in the foot on this one, knowing that exposing oil executive treachery was not your intention whatsoever. It's a similar explanation for the polar bear, greenland isn't melting threads.
No, Deedee. We had discussions in those threads and you failed to prove me wrong on a single post. If you can drag out a passage where you did I'll frame it and start a new topic apologising for my inaccuracy, but you can't - so you won't. I've given others on this board this exact opportunity also.
The Independent did correct this story, then withdrew it - you can't prove that wrong by any means. I, at least, have a reliable and respected blogger (cue the troll's picture) who testifies to this effect. You have your faith and that is all.
-
No, Deedee. We had discussions in those threads and you failed to prove me wrong on a single post. If you can drag out a passage where you did I'll frame it and start a new topic apologising for my inaccuracy, but you can't - so you won't. I've given others on this board this exact opportunity also.
The Independent did correct this story, then withdrew it - you can't prove that wrong by any means. I, at least, have a reliable and respected blogger (cue the troll's picture) who testifies to this effect. You have your faith and that is all.
Good lord, you're tenacious about this. If you look at the post where I responded with a :'( emoticon, I was replying to someone who said you "shoot yourself in the foot." I was agreeing with that. Technically, are you "wrong" when you post that polar bears have quintupled since the 60's. No, but your implication was that global warming doesn't exist and here was the proof. It was subsequently posted that polar bears only flourished due to human intervention, perhaps reinforcing the views of some that intervention is what's needed when it comes to climate control as well. I would call that shooting yourself in the foot.
As for this thread, no one but your blogger seems to have knowledge of this retraction, but we don't even have to go there. Let's say for a moment, they did retract the story for about 5 minutes. It seems clear the retraction disappeared because the story is in fact true, and not false. Your hope was to bash liberals and debase a left-leaning publication. All you did was call attention to the fact that people associated with Bush and oil industry are dishonest at the very least, perhaps even criminal. I would call that shooting yourself in the foot.
As I said above, were you "wrong" when you entitled your threads. No. Polar bears did flourish within a 40 year period. Perhaps (we'll give you the benefit of the doubt) the Independent did retract a story for a day or five minutes or whatever. But what you "intend" by these threads, is wrong. You knowingly mislead... and that's what people don't respect.
Were you wrong when you entitled "Relax - Greenland isn't melting"? Yes. completely. It is melting and there was nothing in the article you posted that refuted this fact in any way.
Perhaps you may respect your blogger, but I have to say, I scrolled down and read his holding forth on the lit review from the Saturday Independent, and my reaction was... ::) what an a**hole. That's another reason why quoting bloggers isn't a great idea. Aside from the unsubstantiated content, it's a matter of personal opinion as to whether or not the blogger deserves respect.
-
Technically, are you "wrong" when you post that polar bears have quintupled since the 60's. No
Glad we cleared that up, then. You’ll no doubt apologise for claiming I was in previous threads. Or not.
your implication was that global warming doesn't exist
I’ve never said Global Warming doesn’t exist; I’ve been cynical about those who claim the debate is over. Stop imagining contentions that aren’t there.
It was subsequently posted that polar bears only flourished due to human intervention, perhaps reinforcing the views of some that intervention is what's needed when it comes to climate control as well. I would call that shooting yourself in the foot.
Would you? If you remember that thread, I never said it was a set in stone certainty that positive human intervention was not helping the Polar Bear numbers. I did, however, post that a warmer climate could, in fact, help the population grow. To date you have not used any evidence to prove this wrong – perhaps you have the poor aim?
It seems clear the retraction disappeared because the story is in fact true, and not false. Your hope was to bash liberals and debase a left-leaning publication. All you did was call attention to the fact that people associated with Bush and oil industry are dishonest at the very least, perhaps even criminal. I would call that shooting yourself in the foot.
Uh huh, or have you considered they realised just how grave an error it was? Besides, if I post a correction on my website, then remove it, I’m going to say why I stand by my story – I correct my correction. You believe media consensus is a veritable trial by media for the Bush Administration which you love to assume the worst of.
As I said above, were you "wrong" when you entitled your threads. No. Polar bears did flourish within a 40 year period.
Correct, I am right. Thank you for conceding that.
Perhaps (we'll give you the benefit of the doubt) the Independent did retract a story for a day or five minutes or whatever. But what you "intend" by these threads, is wrong. You knowingly mislead... and that's what people don't respect.
Again, you ponder my intentions instead of dealing with (and refuting) the facts I provide. Your ability to debate is atrocious.
Were you wrong when you entitled "Relax - Greenland isn't melting"? Yes. completely. It is melting and there was nothing in the article you posted that refuted this fact in any way.
Deedee, if it’s ice is thicker now than it was in the 1930’s, how can you claim this? Surely it hasn’t meted since this date, and this damages your faith in Global Warming – no wonder you’re upset.
Perhaps you may respect your blogger, but I have to say, I scrolled down and read his holding forth on the lit review from the Saturday Independent, and my reaction was... what an a**hole.
Yes, abuse is what you have been reduced to, a true Leftist indeed.
That's another reason why quoting bloggers isn't a great idea. Aside from the unsubstantiated content, it's a matter of personal opinion as to whether or not the blogger deserves respect.
This is about the most sensible thing you have said, but let’s take it on a blogger by blogger basis, okay?
-
Okay pretzel logic man, this is getting ridiculous. Lol.
Would you? If you remember that thread, I never said it was a set in stone certainty that positive human intervention was not helping the Polar Bear numbers. I did, however, post that a warmer climate could, in fact, help the population grow. To date you have not used any evidence to prove this wrong – perhaps you have the poor aim?
If you're making this claim, isn't it up to you to provide evidence that warmer climates could help the population grow? I can make dozens of claims... I wouldn't expect other people to dig out information for me.
Further, you seemed completely unaware that there had been any conservation effort on behalf of the polar bear until I pointed it out to you. Ergo, I presumed, and still do, that you were in agreement with the article you posted which concluded that global warming/climate change doesn't adversely affect arctic animal life.
Deedee, if it’s ice is thicker now than it was in the 1930’s, how can you claim this? Surely it hasn’t meted since this date, and this damages your faith in Global Warming – no wonder you’re upset.
I keep telling you this sort of thing doesn't upset or irritate me in the least. I don't know why you don't believe me. Perhaps you should take another look at the article you posted. The first line states that Greenland is melting. Or try google... you'll find plenty of info on the topic of melting ice.
Yes, abuse is what you have been reduced to, a true Leftist indeed.
How is it abuse when I give my opinion of a writer's content, and/or writing style? Most newspapers have a weekly book review and often these are unfavorable. Does that make every book reviewer abusive? If you insist, then I would have to say that critiquing copy is my profession, and since I share space with republicans who also share my job title and function, it would follow that abusiveness apparently knows no boundaries across party lines. I could also say that you calling me a communist (and a spiteful one at that) is "abusive," but since I don't take any of this seriously, I don't find it so, and you may feel free to call me what you like.
Uh huh, or have you considered they realised just how grave an error it was? Besides, if I post a correction on my website, then remove it, I’m going to say why I stand by my story – I correct my correction. You believe media consensus is a veritable trial by media for the Bush Administration which you love to assume the worst of.
Honestly, I'm being a little thick again, as I don't completely understand what you are trying to say here, particularly in your last sentence. Perhaps you don't quite understand how newspapers work. There's a difference between the way a news source conducts its business versus the way an individual might run his/her website. There's nothing unusual or out of the ordinary in their pulling something off the website without further explanation, if in fact that happened. Again, there's only your blogger's say so. I don't understand what you mean by grave error. Are you saying it was an error to pull the retraction, or that they erred in reporting a story that the Guardian and CNN also covered?
I also can't recall a single post where I have made any direct reference to the Bush administration in a derogatory way. Why do you conclude that I assume the worst of the Bush administration? I'm curious. And finally, in making that pronouncement without evidence, aren't you guilty of exactly what you accuse me of?