If a business pollutes the air that I breath and helps change the climate, costs them nothing.

What are your KPIs?  Is it hosing down counter argument, so many posts?

How does it work?   

That's seriously a tired response.  Weak as piss really.

The old corr ... is not ...causation line.   How many fukking times has that one been rolled out.  Tobacco anyone?

But tell me, how the foorking hell can you keep this up?  I mean it must be wearing on the soul, the lying and playing dumb?

...
However, many of these purveyors of  misinformation are not merely exhibiting a genuine disbelief in the science of climate change.  Rather, they intentionally deceive the public.  The evidence of intent? There is no reasonable basis for the assertions they make.  Additionally, many of these professional climate deniers are in positions that give them greater access to the facts and science of climate change. Exxon and Shell’s own scientists were among the first to sound the alarm about climate change, as detailed in Rich’s ‘Lost Decade’ article.  Only later did Exxon begin its cover up, as detailed in the 2015 InsideClimate News series. Now, when professional deniers make assertions contrary to the conclusions of well over 95% of the scientific community, it’s not reasonable.  Nor is it genuine.

The intentional deceit is not limited to the message.  It also applies to the sources.  In a misinformation feedback loop, certain media outlets owned and programmed by billionaire partisans regularly publish articles and op-eds from  fossil fuel  industry funded “think tanks.” These foundations operate essentially as public relations firms for fossil fuel and billionaires’ interests.  They exhibit little tolerance for little intellectual independence.  Yet they are intentionally disguised as independent “think tanks” in order to create the appearance of having a factual basis to dispute scientific studies and university scholarship.  George Monbiot of the Guardian has written extensively on the topic.

This behavior and its consequences satisfies the fundamental elements of the type of conduct to which most societies attach criminal liability.  For example criminal fraud is generally defined as intentional deceit in order to secure an unlawful gain or to cause a detrimental reliance.  Here, the deceit is present, the knowledge of falsity is present, the securing of a financial advantage is present, and the detriment to life and property is present.

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2019 at 11:52am:



you've never had trouble with repeating yourself, post after post, thread after thread, before .... is it only when someone else does it that it's an issue?

John Smith wrote on Dec 25^th, 2019 at 12:04pm:


That's because lee has one set of standards for himself and another set of standards for other people
Its like when he criticises other people for posting from Wikipedia or the Guardian and then he posts from Whatsupwiththat.
lee is nothing but a troll

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2019 at 12:15pm:




hilarious

lee wrote on Dec 25^th, 2019 at 12:18pm:


Remember how I debunked that as cherry picking data?
You do realize that 2010 was the year the drought broke and the year after the bushfires. All that (temporary) regrowth does wonders.
Now have you got anything for any year other than 2010? Any year at all