Re: Ilmastoa

[TJT2]

Otto J. Makela wrote:
> Tomppa <Spa...@Kiusa.invalid> wrote:
>
>> Ryhmän ilmastomuutosskeptikoille.
>> Nii ja sivuaahan tämä vähän muutakin.
>> http://www.tiedetuubi.fi/tiede/kosmiset-sateet-paransivat-ilmastomalleja-roimasti
>
> http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/jul/08/exxon-climate-change-1981-climate-denier-funding

Ottomoottorin päästöjen vastapainoksi faktaa
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/exxonomics/
x x x clip x x x
Finally, both the Guardian article and the email strongly imply that Exxon
decided not to develop Natuna because of Exxon's concerns about climate
change. However, to the contrary, Exxon did try to develop Natuna, starting
in 1980.
x x
Of course, the Guardian carefully avoided giving either a quote of this
interesting section, or for that matter even a link to the location of the
original publication of the email .
x x
However, with the Guardian, truth is always stranger than fiction, and
rarely found within its pages. The "newly unearthed missive" was not from
1981, nor from 1989, nor 1999. It was not an Exxon document at all.
x x x clop x x x
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/exxonomics/
Koska ottomoottori ei uskalla vastata kysymyksiini, voisiko joku (esim
JiiPee) jolle Otto M. uskaltaa vasta, kysyä OJM:ltä, että miten joku voi
olla yhtäaikaa Skepsis ry:n puheenjohtaja ja niin herkkäuskoinen että uskoo
ilman vähäisintäkään skeptisyysttä kaikki kulttuurimarksististen
viherpunikkitoimittajien ilmastovouhotusartikkelit?

Btw, kannattaa lukea kommenttiosuus, siellä on mm tällaista herkkua
x x x
One small correction that I think is warranted, Wilis: the Guardian did not
"miss" the information that you noted. Of course they read the entire mail,
since they would have been looking for even more damaging info. They knew
exactly what was there, and deliberately chose to hide it in the hope (and
justified belief) that their target audience wouldn't care at all about the
manipulation.
x x x
Perhaps I should have made it clear that the doomed effort is due to the
amazing ability of The Guardian to resist facts and avoid truth.
x x x
Willis, thank-you for posting more information on the Guardian article. It
showed up on my FB page yesterday and I've been checking WUWT to get more of
the background. As I suspected, there was a different slant to the email
than what The Guardian presented. It helps to have these facts in hand when
the inevitable AGW dogfights ensue.
x x x
It seems truth and reality
Are outside of the Guardian's reach,
Disagreement they won't tolerate,
Curtailing any free speech;
I fell out with the Guardian,
Now my comments are canned;
Agree with the Guardian
Or you will be damned!
http://rhymeafterrhyme.net/the-guardian-and-censorship/
x x x
Over here the Guardian is read by "champagne socialists" people who are
intellectual and prosperous, but with a guilt complex for those who aren't.
They embrace any left-wing view no matter how crazy it is.
x x x
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/07/09/exxonomics/
Onko Otto M Jäkälä ruvennut shammanjasosialistiksi? Ja minä kun luulin, että
otto ottaa ottolonkereo, jotta värikin olisi niin terveen harmaa...

--
--TJT--
The only thing that appears to be evolving is 'evolution,' and it's becoming
more and more absurd.