naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: They're not handing the information out to everyone who asks. Why not? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 @smiradenius I don't see an answer to why you trust Exxon. Also, if you trust them so much, what makes you think they have any reason to hide it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Why not? It's not sound business practice. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, smiradenius said: It's not sound business practice. It's standard business practice to intentionally hide the results of studies and knowingly spread the opposite of what was found? ........ Is it? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, naraku360 said: @smiradenius I don't see an answer to why you trust Exxon. Also, if you trust them so much, what makes you think they have any reason to hide it? They're not hiding anything. Look at those "whistle blowers" for who they actually are. Seriously.. my employer was also a big money maker. I can run to the press tomorrow and say all sorts of shit. If the press thinks it's newsworthy or helps their narrative in any way, it gets published even if not one syllable of what I say is real. That would make me one of those "anonymous sources" or whichever. I trust Exxon because windmills aren't providing my electricity or heating my apartment. Fossil fuels are. For every set of windmills you see, there's a running fossil fuel generator running as backup and usually has to kick in as primary until the wind starts blowing again. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, naraku360 said: It's standard business practice to intentionally hide the results of studies and knowingly spread the opposite of what was found? ........ Is it? That's not what's being done. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Oh look here ExxonMobil is more evil than I thought. They didn’t pay for cherry picked studies. They had excellent scientists studying climate change as far back as the 1970s. Models that surpassed those of independent scientists. Did they release their findings that humans were speeding climate change, specifically burning if fossil fuels? Nope. They spend decades spreading misinformation and denying what they knew was true. This is who Packard shills for. Literally evil people https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 (edited) 8 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Oh look here ExxonMobil is more evil than I thought. They didn’t pay for cherry picked studies. They had excellent scientists studying climate change as far back as the 1970s. Models that surpassed those of independent scientists. Did they release their findings that humans were speeding climate change, specifically burning if fossil fuels? Nope. They spend decades spreading misinformation and denying what they knew was true. This is who Packard shills for. Literally evil people https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt Oh, look at this guy, just parroting whatever NPR says. No critical thinking or logic here, folks. Why would anybody whose primary job is acquiring and selling oil pay a bunch of egg heads to sit around and study the impending ice age or whichever? Edited January 15 by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Bitches who don’t know how to read will definitely reply https://news.harvard.edu/gazette/story/2023/01/harvard-led-analysis-finds-exxonmobil-internal-research-accurately-predicted-climate-change/ 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Dumb bitch can’t dispute articles honestly because she can’t read https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, 1pooh4u said: Dumb bitch can’t dispute articles honestly because she can’t read https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ Notice they all have exactly the same tired theme? Why would anybody whose primary job is acquiring and selling fossil fuels pay a bunch of egg heads to sit around and ponder the impending ice age or whichever? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 A critical thinker would realize that a company making money off fossil fuels can get away with a lot of bullshit if they put on a face of environmental responsibility by showing you have scientists studying the impacts of their product. They would also not ask a stupid question like “why would they pay egg heads to study what the shit they work with every fuckin day does?” 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1pooh4u Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Packard, she doesn’t know how to use Google but she’ll create an AI monstrosity and call it “art” in a heartbeat 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, 1pooh4u said: A critical thinker would realize that a company making money off fossil fuels can get away with a lot of bullshit if they put on a face of environmental responsibility by showing you have scientists studying the impacts of their product. They would also not ask a stupid question like “why would they pay egg heads to study what the shit they work with every fuckin day does?” Their motto is, "We dig it up, you burn it." That's as far as they ever wanted to carry it. You're saying the egg heads were part of a failed pr thing? They had more cost effective ways to go about that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasqueradeOverture Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, scoobdog said: And she's proud on it too. Packard has a pussy?? I must be sexist because I always assumed that level of dumbassery to be associated with a fellow penis haver. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MasqueradeOverture Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, scoobdog said: And she's proud on it too. Packard has a pussy?? I must be sexist because I always assumed that level of dumbassery to be associated with a fellow penis haver. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 23 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Oh, look at this guy, just parroting whatever NPR says. No critical thinking or logic here, folks. Why would anybody whose primary job is acquiring and selling oil pay a bunch of egg heads to sit around and study the impending ice age or whichever? Lol. This post is all kinds of hilarious. i can think of quite a few reasons why a heartless corporation would pay for an unfavorable study and then bury it. I guess that’s why you’re a failed janitor and not a CEO. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, scoobdog said: Lol. This post is all kinds of hilarious. i can think of quite a few reasons why a heartless corporation would pay for an unfavorable study and then bury it. I guess that’s why you’re a failed janitor and not a CEO. Scroll up. I addressed that. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 15 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Packard, she doesn’t know how to use Google but she’ll create an AI monstrosity and call it “art” in a heartbeat 52 followers in the Ai forum. There's a difference between here and there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stilgar Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Lol, packard is so dumb he thinks a corporation is going to do the right thing and sacrifice profits. What a fucking dumbass. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 41 minutes ago, smiradenius said: They're not hiding anything. Look at those "whistle blowers" for who they actually are. Seriously.. my employer was also a big money maker. I can run to the press tomorrow and say all sorts of shit. If the press thinks it's newsworthy or helps their narrative in any way, it gets published even if not one syllable of what I say is real. That would make me one of those "anonymous sources" or whichever. I trust Exxon because windmills aren't providing my electricity or heating my apartment. Fossil fuels are. For every set of windmills you see, there's a running fossil fuel generator running as backup and usually has to kick in as primary until the wind starts blowing again. Are they anonymous sources? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 (edited) 42 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Oh look here ExxonMobil is more evil than I thought. They didn’t pay for cherry picked studies. They had excellent scientists studying climate change as far back as the 1970s. Models that surpassed those of independent scientists. Did they release their findings that humans were speeding climate change, specifically burning if fossil fuels? Nope. They spend decades spreading misinformation and denying what they knew was true. This is who Packard shills for. Literally evil people https://www.npr.org/2023/01/12/1148376084/exxon-climate-predictions-were-accurate-decades-ago-still-it-sowed-doubt Also, for him to shill for them, they'd actually be paying. He does this for free, like a retard. Edited January 15 by naraku360 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 (edited) 5 minutes ago, stilgar said: Lol, packard is so dumb he thinks a corporation is going to do the right thing and sacrifice profits. What a fucking dumbass. Where did that come from? I just said they had more cost effective pr moves than paying some tree huggers to write stories. Edited January 15 by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 35 minutes ago, 1pooh4u said: Dumb bitch can’t dispute articles honestly because she can’t read https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/exxon-knew-about-climate-change-almost-40-years-ago/ She's such a caricature. 2 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 13 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Scroll up. I addressed that. No, you didn’t. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Are they anonymous sources? How about, "Documents obtained by Packard show that Hillary Rodham Clinton has a group of archeologists lost in her left ear and has failed to notify a rescue squad." It makes as much sense as as NPR or WST having copies of Exxon's Documents. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, smiradenius said: How about, "Documents obtained by Packard show that Hillary Rodham Clinton has a group of archeologists lost in her left ear and has failed to notify a rescue squad." It makes as much sense as as NPR or WST having copies of Exxon's Documents. Are they anonymous? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, naraku360 said: Are they anonymous? Does that even matter? Here's the part where you start naming a few, right? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Does that even matter? Here's the part where you start naming a few, right? I'm asking because literally all I did was a Google search for you. That is to say I don't know if they are or aren't. I want you to tell me amd you can't because you're too retarded to look at the links yourself. I'm not your mom, I'm not going to coddle you. I've been aware of these scandals for a very long time, well before those pieces were written, so it's up to you to disprove it. Quit whining like a retarded bitch about not liking the source. What does it say? Is it wrong? How do you know? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 5 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Does that even matter? Here's the part where you start naming a few, right? Not yet. He’s not convinced yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 12 minutes ago, scoobdog said: No, you didn’t. I said that Exxon had more cost effective pr moves than paying tree huggers to write stories. My guess is that the "studies" had never taken place at all and so there's nothing to bury. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: I said that Exxon had more cost effective pr moves than paying tree huggers to write stories. My guess is that the "studies" had never taken place at all and so there's nothing to bury. Prove it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, smiradenius said: I said that Exxon had more cost effective pr moves than paying tree huggers to write stories. My guess is that the "studies" had never taken place at all and so there's nothing to bury. It’s no less nonsensical the second time. Try again. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, naraku360 said: Prove it. The proof is that Exxon isn't in the business of fiction. That's Hollywood's department. Their motto is, "We dig it up, you burn it." That's as far as they ever wanted to carry it and it's been that way ever since Standard Oil was a thing. It will never change. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, smiradenius said: The proof is that Exxon isn't in the business of fiction. That's Hollywood's department. Their motto is, "We dig it up, you burn it." That's as far as they ever wanted to carry it and it's been that way ever since Standard Oil was a thing. It will never change. Prove it. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 (edited) 5 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Prove it. Look at what Exxon is doing right now. Are they paying fiction writers or digging up fossil fuels? Now, look up Standard Oil... and Esso. Were they involved in this conspiracy to destroy the global atmosphere? You keep asking me for "proof", but all I'm getting from you is one solitary article that has been regurgitated by a hundred media outlets and it's all based on here say from some disgruntled former employees with an axe to grind. Edited January 15 by smiradenius Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Look at what Exxon is doing right now. Are they paying fiction writers or digging up fossil fuels? Yes. 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 3 minutes ago, smiradenius said: Look at what Exxon is doing right now. Are they paying fiction writers or digging up fossil fuels? Now, look up Standard Oil... and Esso. Were they involved in this conspiracy to destroy the global atmosphere? Well they’re not paying me so neither. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, naraku360 said: Yes. They can only be doing one or the other. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: They can only be doing one or the other. Why? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, naraku360 said: Why? Because only one is their business. The other is Hollywood's job. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 minute ago, smiradenius said: Because only one is their business. The other is Hollywood's job. It's physically impossible for them to oay for PR? 1 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 38 minutes ago, naraku360 said: It's physically impossible for them to oay for PR? They have pr moves that are much more cost effective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 2 minutes ago, smiradenius said: They have pr moves that are much more cost effective. What is a cost effective PR move? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 4 minutes ago, scoobdog said: What is a cost effective PR move? Something that actually raises the bottom line by a significant amount. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 Just now, smiradenius said: Something that actually raises the bottom line by a significant amount. Not an answer. What is a cost effective PR move? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
smiradenius Posted January 15 Author Share Posted January 15 Just now, scoobdog said: Not an answer. What is a cost effective PR move? Do I look like I'm in their board room? Whatever they're doing is making money for them, not dumping money down an empty hole. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Insipid Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 41 minutes ago, smiradenius said: dumping money down an empty hole. 3 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
naraku360 Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: They have pr moves that are much more cost effective. What would those be? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scoobdog Posted January 15 Share Posted January 15 1 hour ago, smiradenius said: Do I look like I'm in their board room? Whatever they're doing is making money for them, not dumping money down an empty hole. You look like you got kicked out of someone’s tent. What does cost effective PR look like? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.