I was a scientist at Exxon:

https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855

Interesting conundrum.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:10pm:

I was a scientist at Exxon: https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855 Interesting conundrum.

Nah. It is a paper that regurgitates Oreskes opinion piece about Exxon. This time with the imprimatur of a "paper".

"We adapt and combine the methodologies used to quantify the consensus on AGW by Oreskes [23] and Cook et al [22] with the content analysis methodologies"

http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/aa815f

Of course the Cook study to which they refer is the 97%  crock. Where in actual fact about 65 papers (according to Cook's methodology) said humans caused more than 50% of AGW.

The other thing is if Oreskes paper was so good, why did she have to change her methodology?

Of course you could read Lenny Bernstein's Ex-Exxon email-
http://www.ucsusa.org/sites/default/files/attach/2015/07/Climate-Deception-Dossier-Leonard-Bernstein-Email.pdf

Too funny. :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

It is written by a student then scientist who worked for Exxon.

Would he work for them again is the conundrum.

Be interesting to know how many of the public deniers like JoNova are getting paid and get material to obfuscate and falsify what is known about AGW?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

It is written by a student then scientist who worked for Exxon.

Yes. Katherine Hayhoe is a climate activist. ;)


Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:27pm:

Would he work for them again is the conundrum.

I think the name Katherine means she is female. ;)

Lets see what she said -

"From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my master’s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions."

Oh, financial support. Doesn't say she worked there then.

"I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of the published studies referenced in Supran and Oreskes’ new analysis."

So she spent several weeks as an intern at their lab in 1996.
She did years working on collaborative research. She does not say if she was working for Exxon at that time.

If you read it you will see she did work for Exxon.

Nevermind, will post extracts of that later, have only given it a quick skim for now.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:41pm:

If you read it you will see she did work for Exxon.

So tell me what is the difference between "I worked for Exxon" and "I was an Exxon-funded Climate Scientist"?

She seems to go out of her way to deny actually working for them. Afraid of litigation because it could be shown she didn't "work" for them?

Your desperation is showing again.

Fvvck me, why be so desperate to deny she worked for Exxon? That she did is clear:


Quote:

The stark contrast between internally discussing cutting-edge climate research while externally conducting a climate disinformation campaign is enough to blow many minds. What was going on at Exxon? I have a unique perspective – because I was there. From 1995 to 1997, Exxon provided partial financial support for my master’s thesis, which focused on methane chemistry and emissions. I spent several weeks in 1996 as an intern at their Annandale research lab in New Jersey and years working on the collaborative research that resulted in three of the published studies referenced in Supran and Oreskes’ new analysis. Climate research at Exxon A scientist is a scientist no matter where we work, and my Exxon colleagues were no exception. Thoughtful, cautious and in full agreement with the scientific consensus on climate – these are characteristics any scientist would be proud to own. Did Exxon have an agenda for our research? Of course – it’s not a charity. Their research and development was targeted, and in my case, it was targeted at something that would raise no red flags in climate policy circles: quantifying the benefits of methane reduction.

Maybe I should look at the Oreskes papers? Anything there, Lees, of interest, hmm?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:55pm:

Your desperation is showing again.

Well you can always contact her and find out for yourself. ;)

http://katharinehayhoe.com/wp2016/contact/

So she did work for Exxon, working on methane reduction.

The conundrum is: knowing Exxon presented false data about AGW to the world, data at odds with what its own scientists were finding would she work for Exxon again?

A moral conundrum.

Interesting.

Hmmm some good info about Oreskes.

I spent quite a bit of time in the Barr Smith library basement reading papers/articles about continental drift, don’t remember that US scientists were skeptical of it at first (with discovery of plate tectonics of course continental drift became accepted.)

Cancer from tobacco, AGW from burning fossil fuels and paid scientists, intellectual whores, who published false information and generally obfuscated and denied the real science performed by others.

Definitely worth a score of follow up posts!

Just parking:

https://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/10/opinion/exxons-climate-concealment.html

https://insideclimatenews.org/content/Exxon-The-Road-Not-Taken

https://www.ted.com/talks/naomi_oreskes_why_we_should_believe_in_science

Ha! I said Holland is very concerned with sea levels.
https://phys.org/news/2016-10-unravelling-secrets-sea-north.html#nRlv

Technical University of Delft, South Holland (my birthplace) has been studying the North Sea sea levels since the 1950s. Only 8cm—the closer you are to meltwater coming off Greenland the lower the sea levels—counterintuitive or what?

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sinking-atlantic-coastline-meets-rapidly-rising-seas/

https://phys.org/news/2013-04-climate-sea-gulf-finland.html

https://phys.org/news/2017-08-sun-current-global-temperature.html#nRlv

https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/sea-level-rise-is-speeding-up-in-parts-of-the-southeastern-u-s/

Wasting your time with His Density there Lee, he just cannot see another pov or cede any point no matter how obvious it is in refuting his beloved Theory.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 12:34am:

Ha! I said Holland is very concerned with sea levels. https://phys.org/news/2016-10-unravelling-secrets-sea-north.html#nRlv Technical University of Delft, South Holland (my birthplace) has been studying the North Sea sea levels since the 1950s. Only 8cm—the closer you are to meltwater coming off Greenland the lower the sea levels—counterintuitive or what?

And having built dikes before, much having been below sea level, they have lost the ability to even extend them? it is rising so fast? ;)

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 25^th, 2017 at 11:10pm:

I was a scientist at Exxon: https://theconversation.com/i-was-an-exxon-funded-climate-scientist-49855 Interesting conundrum.

Maybe Exxon did feel threatened back then, thinking it could be the start of the end for them.

But these days Exxon has climbed aboard the Anthropogenic Global Warming gravy train spouting what any true warmist would consider a delight to hear.

These days Exxon is on your side JV.............. :-*

There going to save us all from our selves by creating a $$$ unlimited market of carbon derivatives on the stock exchange.

I guess they did the math and found it most welcoming.

http://www.exxonmobil.com.au/en-au/environment/climate-policy/exxonmobils-perspectives-on-climate-change

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 12:10am:

So she did work for Exxon, working on methane reduction. The conundrum is: knowing Exxon presented false data about AGW to the world, data at odds with what its own scientists were finding would she work for Exxon again? A moral conundrum. Interesting.

Well did look at her career profile.
Now for someone who "worked: for Exxo-Mobil she doesn't have a lot of data.

Since 1997 she has been CEO of Atmos Research & Consulting.
Since Since1901? - she has been an Advisory Council Member of Energy and Enterprise Initiative.
Also since 1901? - she has been an Advisory Board Member of the Citizen's Climate Lobby.

https://www.linkedin.com/in/katharine-hayhoe-a9b3516/

Now being a committed Christian why would she leave out her working for Exxon-Mobil?

How old is this bitch anyway? Working since 1901?


;D


Nope, work for Exxon she did and accepted Exxon funding for her Masters.

The conundrum is: would anyone in her position go to work for Exxon again, knowing that publicly they deny AGW tho knowing it is happening, knowing it publishes false science and otherwise acts to confuse the public, just like the bloody tobacco industry did before.

I suppose you would if:

1. You really needed the money; or

2. The research would materially improve the lot of mankind.

What do you reckon Lees?

Good grief....   :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D
Why do you keep spouting this kind of crap Monk?

Why don’t you FOR FVVCKING ONCE debate the topic of a thread? Not enough brain power, that is obvious to a blind bat!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 1:57pm:

Why don’t you FOR FVVCKING ONCE debate the topic of a thread? Not enough brain power, that is obvious to a blind bat!

Why don't YOU read people's posts and answer their questions?

Oh right  YOU DON'T LIKE FACTS.

keep running away and trolling, that's all you seem good for oh and reposting stuff you don't even understand. :D

I mostly ignore you roach because you are a windbag with nothing interesting, new or clever to post. I have wasted 10 minutes on you and have read nothing factual, new, interesting or clever from you.

Bloated windbag, piss off!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:02pm:

I mostly ignore you roach because you are a windbag with nothing interesting, new or clever to post. I have wasted 10 minutes on you and have read nothing factual, new, interesting or clever from you. Bloated windbag, piss off!

No...  YOU have that wrong....  I'm wasting my afternoon, being courteous and answering you.

Grendel wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:03pm:

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26th, 2017 at 2:02pm: I mostly ignore you roach because you are a windbag with nothing interesting, new or clever to post. I have wasted 10 minutes on you and have read nothing factual, new, interesting or clever from you. Bloated windbag, piss off! BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!

JUST GO AWAY!

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 12:53pm:

How old is this bitch anyway? Working since 1901?

According to wiki Born 1972.

But you can't blame linkediN for the errors. They are entered by person themselves.

So she can't assess dates. That much is clear. I wonder what else she has wrong? ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

The question is: would someone in her position work for Exxon again?

I gave two reasons why a person would.

Care to discuss that?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:28pm:

The question is: would someone in her position work for Exxon again?

The question is did she ever "work" for Exxon? Being an intern out of college is not work.

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 26^th, 2017 at 2:28pm:

The question is: would someone in her position work for Exxon again? I gave two reasons why a person would. Care to discuss that?

Falsification and Obfuscation....?
Hansen, Mann.....  the list goes on and on Monk.
http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdfhttp://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

What are you bloviating about now?

Jovial Monk wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 1:25pm:

What are you bloviating about now?

Well if you don't know you should simply piss off out of the Environment forum.

Nah, why don’t you just go back to PA? Your stupidities have given me a good laugh a few times but constant display of stupidity gets tiring.

One more time...


Grendel wrote on Aug 28^th, 2017 at 1:09pm:

Falsification and Obfuscation....? Hansen, Mann.....  the list goes on and on Monk. http://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdfhttp://www.lavoisier.com.au/articles/greenhouse-science/climate-change/climategate-emails.pdf

http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Lavoisier_Group

LOL
Sourcewatch.
Got nothing eh? :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D :D

"SourceWatch is a propaganda site funded by an extreme left-wing, anti-capitalist and anti-corporate organization, the Center for Media and Democracy."

http://www.populartechnology.net/2011/10/truth-about-sourcewatch.html

"CMD began primarily as a project of career far-left activists John Stauber and Sheldon Rampton, who used CMD as a platform from which to publish a series of books. Since Stauber and Rampton’s retirements, CMD has been run by Lisa Graves, a career Democratic Party and left-liberal activist who previously worked for Sen. Patrick Leahy (D-Vermont) and the American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU)."

https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/12-center-for-media-democracy/