Exactly that WAS the joke, why do you think I added "trollolol" at the end?

Even when big oil was engaging in a nefarious disinformation campaign, the underlying science they conducted was still more technically sound than what the UN produced. Gnarjay was claiming that studies on environmental impacts by Exxon are not trustworthy at the very moment when the newsstory of the day was that Exxon studies had precisely been predicting global warming all along. I was poking fun this irony, not shilling for Exxon.

if that was "the joke" (which, btw, no one here understood as such, if you look at the subsequent posts), then you clearly replied to the wrong person with your "aCktShuaLLy", because that was exactly gnar's point. he didn't suggest that exxon doesn't have the money to fund a study, or whatever you're trying to twist it as, but that they would definitely not publish findings and results that won't serve their corporate bottom line - which is exactly what happened.

i fully understand that you can't just accept that as is. your political allies here are largely climate change deniers, so you have to try and get a dig in at the UN. red meat for the ignorant GOP base, whatever. the bottom line remains that both (alongside every other serious climate scientist) correctly predicted significant warming due to human activity, but only one of them told the public the truth about it.

your specific line made me curious though, and i couldn't find it on any of the usual sources that you normally get your talking points from: where did you read that? the UN issued so many reports, funded so many studies, consulted so many scientists, so what's that "more technically sound than what the UN produced" claim referring to specifically?
i mean, i also read that one iteration of exxon's prediction model was surprisingly accurate, but is this just an X's best against Y's worst scenario, or what is the deal? did they have access to data that others didn't? did they factor in variables that other scientists simply overlooked? is there anything today's climate scientists can learn from them to improve their models? if you leave dumb partisan gotchas out of this, it becomes a rather interesting angle imo...

This post was edited by fender on Jan 19 2023 03:38am

whats the matter fenderp, was the police not nice to you when they pulled you out of the mud?

take it like a champ buddy

oh look, another empty head that greta thunberg lives in rent free... xD

that was their INTERNAL reporting, which they hid from the public for 40+ years. they were PUBLICLY sowing disinformation and propaganda to purposely mislead people..thus my comment about trusting them. I understand you're trying to be a semantic smartass but clearly, my entire point sailed right over your head.

big oil REEEEEEEEEE, but then you give your money to complete grifters

Carbon millionaire bad... Must be a hoax. Okay ...

Manbearpig is the ultimate hoax

You think he should have wrote a book "the art of the climate deal" or open an university "grore brainstorms university ?
Maybe some charity in Bangladesh or Haiti ?