Says The Onion.
And its right, even if the original is damaged (I’ve not done it, of course)). But that’s not quite what I wanted to write about…
I wanted to talk about The war against Exxon Mobil (WaPo) and the contrast between reactions to that and In re Smith v Karl (and several reprints).
mt’s article is easy for all right-thinking people to agree with. So much so that mt even found one wrong-thinking person who also agreed with it (that’s a joke; don’t get all huffy).
But what about the obvious obverse, which is the witch hunt against Exxon? I asked mt about that and that, oooh, it turned out to be a tricky question for mt (though not for TF, obviously, who easily maintains the same stance as he managed to apply to irSvK). Definitely no condemnation forthcoming; the closest was “I don’t understand anyone claiming that what Exxon was doing, flirting with the edge of fraud on their communication on climate, wasn’t transparently obvious all along”. And some assertions that its all pretty well similar to the fag companies, and everyone hates them, don’t they? Well, everyone right thinking of course. And the people collecting taxes from the products they sell, of course.
The “investigation” of Exxon looks very much politically motivated to me. We don’t know what you’ve done wrong but we’d like to see an enormous pile of internal emails please. Remind you of anything? Of course: in re Smith vs Karl. But if you’ve got nothing to hide, surely you’d be happy to turn over your emails? Well, no, that’s not true, as we can all immeadiately see when applied to anything on “our side”. But you must turn over your emails, because we think if we look though them all we might find something wrong. Well no, see irSvK. But Exxon were being naughty and funding disinformation. Yes and anyone who cared knew about that ages ago when they were actually doing it. And people pointed out, in public, that they were doing it. It was not a secret.
Refs
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1lgU6cS
Says The Onion.
And its right, even if the original is damaged (I’ve not done it, of course)). But that’s not quite what I wanted to write about…
I wanted to talk about The war against Exxon Mobil (WaPo) and the contrast between reactions to that and In re Smith v Karl (and several reprints).
mt’s article is easy for all right-thinking people to agree with. So much so that mt even found one wrong-thinking person who also agreed with it (that’s a joke; don’t get all huffy).
But what about the obvious obverse, which is the witch hunt against Exxon? I asked mt about that and that, oooh, it turned out to be a tricky question for mt (though not for TF, obviously, who easily maintains the same stance as he managed to apply to irSvK). Definitely no condemnation forthcoming; the closest was “I don’t understand anyone claiming that what Exxon was doing, flirting with the edge of fraud on their communication on climate, wasn’t transparently obvious all along”. And some assertions that its all pretty well similar to the fag companies, and everyone hates them, don’t they? Well, everyone right thinking of course. And the people collecting taxes from the products they sell, of course.
The “investigation” of Exxon looks very much politically motivated to me. We don’t know what you’ve done wrong but we’d like to see an enormous pile of internal emails please. Remind you of anything? Of course: in re Smith vs Karl. But if you’ve got nothing to hide, surely you’d be happy to turn over your emails? Well, no, that’s not true, as we can all immeadiately see when applied to anything on “our side”. But you must turn over your emails, because we think if we look though them all we might find something wrong. Well no, see irSvK. But Exxon were being naughty and funding disinformation. Yes and anyone who cared knew about that ages ago when they were actually doing it. And people pointed out, in public, that they were doing it. It was not a secret.
Refs
from ScienceBlogs http://ift.tt/1lgU6cS
Aucun commentaire:
Enregistrer un commentaire