actual quote...

"We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it."

quote you used...

"global warming exists and humans are largely if not totally responsible for global warming".

so, what you are saying is that the quote that you used in the article is innacurate.

their quote does ask the public acknowledgement of global warmings existence, but nowhere in that quote does it say that humans "are largely if not totally resonsible for it."

(Citizen)Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1January 1, 2007 12:05:54

so, what you are saying is that the quote that you used in the article is innacurate. their quote does ask the public acknowledgement of global warmings existence, but nowhere in that quote does it say that humans "are largely if not totally resonsible for it."

yes you are right I used my words for their quote. what is your point? Their words, my definition of what I read.

yes you are right I used my words for their quote. what is your point?

my point is that doing that is shoddy and purposefully misleading writing, not to menton just plain lying.

Their words, my definition of what I read.

and your definition couldn't be further from the truth. at best, you are essentially defending the "right" to yell "fire" in a movie theater, which isn't covered under the 1st ammendment at all. in case ya hadn't noticed, the "global warming" and "is it real" debate is over...it is real. we can debate causes and possible solutions and whatnot...but the planet definitely is warming. even the bushies are finally acknowledging that.

and there may be good cause to criticize this letter, but you overreached by a mile.

you, in effect, did the same thing that the pundits against global warming have been doing for years...throw as much crap at the other side while avoiding the actual issue and science behind global warming. you went for a "free speech" attack, which doesn't hold an ounce of water on even the 1st inspection.

this is one of those political battles, that like terry shaivo, the more "science" that comes in, the more it shows the conservatives fighting them to be wrong.

on the other hand (i really didn't intend to attack you in this thread, so it's only right i throw ya a bone...) i am surprised more conservatives don't use science when debating abortion. i have been traditionally pro choice as far as legislation even tho personally abortion repulses me. i have always, in the end, supported the woman's right to choose and make her own decisions without fear of legal repricution. but it seems in that battle, at least, science is the conservative's best friend, as the "viability" (i hope i'm using the right term there) of the fetus is being shown to be apparent earlier and earlier the more that comes in.

take care:)

(Citizen)Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1January 2, 2007 18:40:45

yes you are right I used my words for their quote. what is your point? my point is that doing that is shoddy and purposefully misleading writing, not to menton just plain lying.

will accept that to you it is misleading.. shoddy to you ok on that too.. as for lieing now you are just trying to hurt. please refrain from that.

and there may be good cause to criticize this letter, but you overreached by a mile.

I do not think I over reached at all, but that is what makes life intresting differing points of view.

you, in effect, did the same thing that the pundits against global warming have been doing for years...throw as much crap at the other side while avoiding the actual issue and science behind global warming. you went for a "free speech" attack, which doesn't hold an ounce of water on even the 1st inspection.

Anytime anyone warn you about who you may support because they are in conflict with your beliefs it is a free speech issue IMO>

as for lieing now you are just trying to hurt. please refrain from that.

ok,,,i don't think you lied...i'm not trying to start a pissing contest, lol...but ya gotta realize that what you did is a no-no in the world of journalistic reporting.

(Citizen)Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1January 2, 2007 19:42:38

ok,,,i don't think you lied...i'm not trying to start a pissing contest, lol...but ya gotta realize that what you did is a no-no in the world of journalistic reporting.

two years ago when I first came here I could not spell, nor could I form sentences, grammar and punctuation were something unknown to me and still give me trouble, truly I am the average joe this site was created for.

just remember that when you use quotes and say that something is "stated" by someone, then they had better be the exact words they used. there are ways people use to shorten or abbreviate quotes like using summation words in parenthesis or using "..." to get rid of nongermaine fluff. and other stuff. of course, some use these thechniques to change the meantings and take people out of context with these methods, that's why i like to check quotes that others cite.

what you should have said in the orig. article was that is how you interpreted their words, not what they "stated" and then used a quoted statement inferring that was exactly what they said.

take care man:)

(Citizen)Sean Conners

Just remember. I am your boss, so You say what I want you to say. Dont like it? Fine, I cant fire you for not saying what I want you to. Oh, but wait. You did not dot thaT I. What about that T?

Now, do you want to speak your mind, or what I tell you to?

Dont be a moron! Read the above or just be one. His premise is right. His paraphrases are right. Or are you now saying the lords of london cant read english as well?

Geez! Stop being a robot! Or maybe try not to be one in your life?

"We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it."

I'd have no argument with them had that been all they said, and had they said it in some public forum. But to seek out the CEO of a company and say, in so many words, "Our science or else, buddy." is a different matter.

There is no doubt about the existence of global warming; it's been here before and it's here again. There's also not much doubt about human activity exacerbating it. The legitimate argument revolves around 2 issues: 1) how much of a contribution to the warming trend is man-made (meaning potentially reversible by active means), and 2) the likely impact of efforts to reverse or mitigate that man-made contribution.

I doubt that Tillerson considers global warming per se a myth, but I bet he doubts that we (can) have as much of an impact on it as, say, Al Gore.

guy....huh?...whatever bud....keep attackin, lol

daiwa...now there was a lil more intelligent analysis of the letter. i disagree with the "our science or else" premise, as i don't read it that way. the letter does strongly encourage the new CEO to take a new path from his predecessors, but i see no threats of anything there.

and daiwa, since at least snowe's people did publicly release this letter (i don't know if rockefeller's site had it) featuring it on the front page of the senator's webpage.

if any of ya'll had even bothered to do a little fact checking, you would have come across the actual letter on her site. there, and only there (from what i have found) is the only "demand" that is made. it's not in the letter. it's on the headline on the senator's site. the headline reads "ROCKEFELLER AND SNOWE DEMAND THAT EXXON MOBIL END FUNDING OF CAMPAIGN THAT DENIES GLOBAL CLIMATE CHANGE
Senators Demand that the World’s Largest Oil Maker Make Public Its History of Funding Climate Change “Skeptics”"

from there, the website issues a press release and further describes what they want from the new CEO (which is the equivalent of people wanting nixon to declare "i am a crook" or getting bush to admit that Iraq was a mistake,,,ain't gonna happen). but there are no threats made at all, despite the site's boisterous headline. if anyone had even bothered to check, that would have brought up.

but instead, i get more personal attacks that have nothing to do with this story. big surprise there...

and btw,,,this letter is nothing new,,,it was sent out on october 30th...real crack reporting goin on there, lol.

it's obvious that moderateman didn't research this article at all and doesn't really understand the issue. all that happened here was a punditlike parrot of another pundit without any understnding of the facts. but in all fairness, mm has written some good stuff recently on other things. his article on schlessinger and the bible was good stuff. nothing new, but good stuff and right on point, imho. there have been some other good things too. this just wasn't one of them, imho.

this was more like a pavlovian response (as was the personal attacks from ol guy there...) than a well researched article.

Reply By: Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1Posted: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 just remember that when you use quotes and say that something is "stated" by someone, then they had better be the exact words they used. there are ways people use to shorten or abbreviate quotes like using summation words in parenthesis or using "..." to get rid of nongermaine fluff. and other stuff. of course, some use these thechniques to change the meantings and take people out of context with these methods, that's why i like to check quotes that others cite. what you should have said in the orig. article was that is how you interpreted their words, not what they "stated" and then used a quoted statement inferring that was exactly what they said. take care man:)

thank you for the tips kindly delivered, I will remember them for future article.

best,

 

elie

Reply By: DaiwaPosted: Tuesday, January 02, 2007 "We would recommend that ExxonMobil publicly acknowledge both the reality of climate change and the role of humans in causing or exacerbating it." I'd have no argument with them had that been all they said, and had they said it in some public forum. But to seek out the CEO of a company and say, in so many words, "Our science or else, buddy." is a different matter.

that is exactly what I heard when I read the letter and that is in fact stomping on first amendments rights,

Citizen)Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1January 3, 2007 09:07:22

it's obvious that moderateman didn't research this article at all and doesn't really understand the issue

Just because we come to differing conclusions, does not mean I did not read the article, nor does it mean I do not comprehend the meaning of the letter or the issue at stake, IE: global warming and First amendment. While I never had much formal education, I am pretty well read and since the onset of my illness have had alot of time on my hands to get caught up with my peers on things like world events and politics, current events etc.

Just because we come to differing conclusions, does not mean I did not read the article, nor does it mean I do not comprehend the meaning of the letter or the issue at stake,

again, i'll state that i think you have written some good stuff lately. i just didn't think this was one of em.

i'll be interested to see what ya write down the line,,,take care:)

Reply By: Sean Conners, a.k.a. SConn1Posted: Wednesday, January 03, 2007 Just because we come to differing conclusions, does not mean I did not read the article, nor does it mean I do not comprehend the meaning of the letter or the issue at stake, again, i'll state that i think you have written some good stuff lately. i just didn't think this was one of em. i'll be interested to see what ya write down the line,,,take care:)

ah this I can live with, not like what I write is a long way from your other statement. as the frogs say.. viva la difference!