Confused malcontents swilling Chardonnay while awaiting the Zombie Apocalypse.
Nellie is still questioning the wisdom of bringing Stella into our home . . .
Why on Earth did a sad, then uplifting story turn into a tirade against the left?
Such is the state of the Left/Right divide in America after eight years of Obama enforced identity politics. Not to worry, I believe we will Make America Great Again *chuckle*.
Until then, Stella will entertain and amuse us . . .
Cat in the pot.
Is she a Siamese?
She is a barn cat of unknown parentage. Some have likened her to a Ragdoll? But she reminds me of our first cat, Petruchio, who was a Balinese - same inquisitive, piss and vinegar personality. We 'rescued' her thanks to a vet tech who told us of the litter at her parents' farm. We had just had to put down our 17 year old Calico, Bob, so we agreed to consider it, but when she brought her in for us to meet, we were all in . . .
But back to the issue...
ExxonMobil intentionally misled the public on climate change for decades, Harvard study finds
So here we have a company with a vested interest in non-renewable energy misleading the public on the data they had collected.
Harvard science historian Naomi Oreskes and postdoctoral fellow Geoffrey Supran analyzed internal, scientific, and public-facing communications from Exxon Mobil. They found the vast majority of the company’s peer-reviewed papers and internal documents confirmed that climate change is real and caused by human activity. But Exxon’s communications with the public through paid editorials, or ‘advertorials’, in the New York Times promoted climate skepticism.
The study also cites ExxonMobil calculations that capping global warming at under two degrees Celsius — the goal enshrined in the landmark Paris climate accord — would impose sharp limits on the amount of fossil fuels that could be burned, and thus potentially affect the firm’s growth.
The new study fleshes out previous reporting on the divergence between what Exxon Mobil knew about climate change and the picture it presented for public consumption. The Times, working with the Energy and Environmental Reporting Project at Columbia University’s Graduate School of Journalism, reported in 2015 that the company had invested heavily in research into how climate change could affect a variety of operations in the Arctic, with company scientists using widely accepted climate models that its executives publicly dismissed as unreliable.
But why on Earth would they DO such a thing?! It's not like they had anything to gain from lying to the public!
Oh, no wait - that's the climate scientists who keep screaming "Stop polluting the Earth!!!"
Interesting of a clever way of telling a lie, by omission.
No one can find fault with the documented statements he read, these are facts.
What is significant is the one left out regarding "good" people on both sides, thus
equating KKK-NAZIs who came with an off topic (nothing to do with Robert E Lee) agenda
Is this is the Trump Charlottesville debate?
I need to brush up on whatever I've said.