Included in their recent increasing attacks are the ACLU, environmentalists, woman’s libbers, Gays, vegetarians, and labor unions. Global Warming has been up front for years, and I begin to wonder whether the Saudis are behind some of these sites, or are they fronts for some psy-ops, COINTEL style operations. In one hand, you have some pretty logical analysis of 9/11, then they go off on every Liberal, Progressive, humanistic, and social advance in the last 60 years. They rag on Al Gore as being a member of “Illuminati”, and actually take the stance of GW Bush, Ann Coulter, and Rush Limbaugh toward Climate Change and Global Warming.

Forgets what he said earlier regarding Exxon’s funding. Fails to understand that Exxon still funds MIT research, including renewable energy:

“LOL!! I was able to find the source for marin hippie’s first point. He’s right about this. However, it’s from 1993!! I would argue that something that’s 14 years old should be considered ‘history’ and not ‘news’.”

Exxon has been funding MIT, Lawrence Livermore and has a Research and Engineering Company that has funded and researched biofuels since the 90’s. Exxon invested heavily in renewables such as solar in the 80’s. Collaborations with companies and universities in recent years is too numerous to list in 30 seconds, but includes biofuel research and developemt. Once again, see MIT.

Greenpeace was still circulating their lies in 2006 with this old report, I didn’t know they were just recycling lies from 2001.

What part of GLOBAL don’t you understand?

Moron.

It’s a free country.

Big oil can do what they want!

This is capitalism.

If you don’tlike it…move!

And take your SUV with you…hypocrites!

http://www.exxposeexxon.com/facts/reports_research.html

The GCEP wasn’t started until December of 2002.

http://gcep.stanford.edu/about/index.html

Thus, you’ll have to provide an example from prior to October of 2002 for your claim to be valid. The report you mention from 1993 is not about renewable energy.

I still think the main premise of the Greenpeach research is valid. Even if that quote is technically incorrect, Exxon is still funding the global warming skeptics to a significant degree. That is hard to deny.

I did look at the GCEP. I was not impressed. One of their main conclusions is to focus on hydrogen. Of course, a hydrogen economy is at least 5-10 years off. So in the meantime we’ll use … oil! For all of the money that was spent on the GCEP, I couldn’t find one result that actually looked decent. Could you show us some of the work this great project has done to advance alternative energy?

Of course, you’re more concerned about one inaccuracy than with the ethical implications of what Exxon is doing. I’d say your priorities are a little messed up.

Now Google Stanford’s GCEP.

http://web.mit.edu/newsoffice/1993/exxon-0428.html

For the second one, the results of the study were critical to ethanol as an alternative fuel source. (How convenient for Exxon.) Also, the study is not primarily about climate science. It’s about energy.

“The project is not intended to further explore climate science, instead focusing on development of new energy technology and carbon sequestration technology.”

http://www.exxonsecrets.org/html/orgfactsheet.php?id=81

http://daily.stanford.edu/article/2007/5/11/jacobsonTiesToEthanolDisputed

Try again hippie!!

Exxon “puts around $8 billion a year into oil and gas exploration and production and not one dollar into renewable forms of energy.”

Not one dollar? That is a flat out lie. Just 2 examples:

1)
The Exxon Corporation has made a $1 million grant to MIT to support a comprehensive study of global climate change and its economic and political ramifications.

The Exxon grant will support the work of the MIT Joint Program on the Science and Policy of Global Change. The joint program was established by MIT Provost Mark S. Wrighton with the goal of providing a more complete and coherent basis for global climate policy development, negotiation and implementation.

“On behalf of MIT, I extend our gratitude to the Exxon Corporation for its very significant contribution to this field of vital importance,” Professor Wrighton said. “There is an urgent need in this area of study for more constructive interaction among its components, including climate science, engineering, economic and social science, and policy studies. Promoting such interactions has been a traditional strength of MIT and the Exxon support will enable us to move more effectively in this area.”

and this was news that Greenpeace chose not to reveal…

2)
Exxon is contributing $100 million to GCEP at Stanford University:

“The Global Climate and Energy Project (GCEP) is an unprecedented research collaboration between the scientific and engineering community and major global companies to develop new energy technologies for the future.”

So it’s Greenpeace that is “not mentioning” these facts to the public. And BTW, all of this information is not a secret, but fully disclosed on-line in Exxon’s annual reports to stockholders…you know, stockholders like those liberal icons John Kerry and Harry Reid you have invested 10’s of thousands of dollars in Exxon.

Of course, Satyam buys into the Greenpeace slur and the TP robots blindly follow.

WTF???!!!

http://money.cnn.com/2006/05/09/news/companies/pluggedin_fortune/

Who says the world is going to end? Climate is going to change. Thats all. Get a grip of reality.

Good analysis, Vinnie. My guess is that “truth” is a paid liar working for one of the think tanks funded by Exxon-Mobil. The libertarian ideology fits in well with most of these propaganda factories, particularly Cato.

These people are like the professional liars who lied on behalf of the tobacco companies. In fact, some of them (Steven Milloy certainly) cut their teeth as tobacco lobbyists. They will lie forever. Nothing will stop them, neither truth nor shame.

Basically we are talking about people who have absolutely no compuction about lying: lying about who they are, what they stand for, and who pays them to lie.

Comment by truth

This is a standard tactic for the skeptic crowd. We’ve seen some trolls use this as well. Here’s my synopsis of the strategy:

1) Present yourself as a nice, folksy guy who is just trying to live a decent life. Don’t be confrontational.

2) Mention all sorts of other world problems and how bad they are. Present global warming as just another headline one sees in the sensationalist news.

3) Throw out other possible reasons for global warming. Introduce as much doubt into the discussion as possible.

4) Sound like a concerned person who is taking action on this. Recommend strong-sounding techniques but nothing that would actually hurt oil company profits. Throw in a tinge of apathy that suggests nothing really can be done and there’s no sense in trying.

This one throws in a marked Libertarian bent. The thing about free market economics and pollution is that polluters such as Exxon will NOT be charged for the long-term damage they cause the planet. The only way to make an economic plan of action work would be to properly charge polluters for the damage they do. Of course, Exxon and others fight a carbon tax with all of their breath since they would have to pay a huge amount if they were actually paying for the damage that they are doing to our planet.

So what? Nothing you say, absolutely nothing, exonerates Exxon-Mobil in the slightest. Please try to stay on topic, although I know your intention is to create diversions and disrupt the thread.

You’re not funny. You’re not serious. You ARE annoying!!

Do you feel proud? Do you brag to your rightie friends about the great work you are doing pulling down the quality of progressive message boards?

It’s ok. We understand that this is all you’re capable in advancing the great Republican cause (which is sinking BTW).