SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.
Politics : Formerly About Advanced Micro Devices -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?


To: Brumar89 who wrote (889354)9/21/2015 3:53:42 PM
From: Wharf Rat  Read Replies (2) | Respond to of 1575608
 
If we had free speech, people could get away with yelling "fire" in a movie theater, when there is no fire.

What Exxon Knew and When
UPDATE: Part 2 is now available

A few days ago Eli pointed out that the damaging "Secret Science" was what commercial research had uncovered and then covered up. Obvious examples were tobacco and pharma, and the Rabett speculated what the fossil fuel industry had done. At about the same time MT, in a guest post at ATTP (whatsamatter Mike, Eli not good enough for you?) concluded that it was not possible to construct a climate model that did not lead to significant global warming from increased greenhouse gas emissions, because if it was, the Exxon's of the world would have done so and shouted the results from the tree tops.

Today, Neela Banerjee, Lisa Song and David Hasemyer at Inside Climate News, lift the veil and detail exactly what Exxon knew (a lot), when they knew it, (by 1980 or so) and when they started the cover-up funding climate change denial (late 1980s).

The interesting question that remains is that since they did not disclose their knowledge to shareholders, will some lawyers get rich?

Posted by EliRabett at 8:57 AM

rabett.blogspot.com



To: Brumar89 who wrote (889354)9/21/2015 3:58:31 PM
From: jlallen1 Recommendation

Recommended By
Brumar89

  Respond to of 1575608
 
Yep. Fits him like a glove...



To: Brumar89 who wrote (889354)9/21/2015 5:49:54 PM
From: Land Shark  Read Replies (4) | Respond to of 1575608
 
And you want to suppress anything that supports the thesis of climate change despite the fact overwhelming scientific evidence supports it. You use the same schlock sources such as Watts, Goddard and whatever garbage you can dig up. Your fascist anti-science bias (driven by your extreme religious fundamentalism) rings loud and clear.