Clippo

Poptech continues to misrepresent my previous statements.

I clearly said in the complaint that I thought it was 'in fun' but that it was inappropriate here because it was purely commercial.

I say again, in case you have difficulty in comprehension, the moderators agreed with me.

With respect to my Exxon allegations & re the BBC program, I made the prediction of what would be discussed based on the preview that the DT television insert said
or words very similar.
Having debated these very points for several years on this and other forums, it was unsurprising in the least that I would raise the Exxon 'bogeyman'.

If you had watched the program, you will have seen that substatial portions of it are interviews by Iain Stewart with many famous contrarians in a conference earlier this year in New York.

Who organised the conference ? - either the Marshall or Heartland institutes can't remember which offhand, who openly declare they receive funding from Exxon.

Are any of the paricipants funded directly or indirectly by Exxon ? - Yes, many from information in the public domain.

So, together with the most unbiased link I know, (in my last post), I think I am quite justified in repeating those 'facts' about Exxon and have no worries about them knocking on my door with sub-poenas in hand.

So, your accusations of lies' are completely false - please withdraw them immediately.

Poptech

I think I will need help on this one...

"Dr Iain Stewart explores the Global Warming backlash" = Exxon's dirty tricks?

Forgive me for doubting you Clippo clearly the blurb defends your slander and would hold up in court. Clippo all you have is lies now, you cannot even present a discussion of a show without including them.

g hall

thoroughly debunked contrarian myths - a wonderful phrase which is totally inaccurate as you well know, it's up there with your support for Al Gore and the Mann hockey stick (which is a thoroughly debunked MMGW myth)

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
Remember TANSTAAFL and TANJ

Jeff

Clippo needs to conceed as he should have done several times previously,has he any pride?

Clippo

Poptech wrote:-
The issue here as I see it is that you are accusing me of telling lies by ‘slandering’ Exxon by predictions of their involvement in the TV program.

Having read the ‘advertisement’ for the TV program, and knowing obviously much much of the history of the ‘contrarian’ movement, and their FUNDING by EXXON, it wasn’t a very big leap of intuition to predict that Exxon funded opposition to GW would have been a central theme of the program.

Before the event, I didn’t dare hope for something so dramatic as confirming my predictions as the interviews with Roy Spencer and Pat Michaels, (incidentally both of who have retrenched considerably from their previous antagonisms to A(GW)), and at meeting orgaised & funded by Exxon supported organisations.

Now, I have given you proof enough that I didn’t slander Exxon (& I think you are incredibly naive for suggesting it). All of this material is in the public domain and so, so much more.
For your edification, here is more relevant information from the public domain so here's the help you so obviously crave:-

Exxon Exposed | Catalyst Spring 2007 | Union of Concerned Scientists

Category:Organizations of environmentalism skeptics and critics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Note particularly the Heartland Institute and the George C Marshall Institute who, I said earlier, I thought organised the Meeting in which Iain Stewart interviewed many of the attendees, including 2 named below.
……………………………………….
Heartland Institute
In a statement made by Dr. James McCarthy on March 28, 2007 to the Subcommittee on Investigations and Oversight (House Science Committee), it was disclosed that ExxonMobil contributed a total of $560,000 to the Heartland Institute between 1998 and 2005.[22]
……………………………………………………………….
George C Marshall Institute
In 1999, GMI received grants from the Exxon Education Foundation.[14] The institute's CEO William O'Keefe, formerly an executive at the American Petroleum Institute and chairman of the Global Climate Coalition, is a registered lobbyist for ExxonMobil. [15] The GMI was described in a 2007 report by the Union of Concerned Scientists as an ExxonMobil-funded "clearinghouse for global warming contrarians".[16] ExxonMobil still currently provides funds to the Institute [17].
………………………………………….
Roy Spencer
He is principally known for his satellite-based temperature monitoring work, for which he was awarded the American Meteorological Society's Special Award. He is also a supporter of intelligent design[1] and is skeptical of the scientific consensus that human activity is primarily responsible for global warming.
Spencer is listed as a member of the Heartland Institute and a contributor to the George C. Marshall Institute[21], both of which receive funding from ExxonMobil.
……………………………………………….
Stephen McIntyre
Stephen McIntyre has worked in mineral exploration for 30 years, much of that time as an officer or director of several public mineral exploration companies. He has also been a policy analyst at both the governments of Ontario and of Canada. he is listed as a Marshall ionstitute expert here :-
The Marshall Institute - Stephen McIntyre
………………………………………………………….
Pat Michaels

is one of the most prolific and widely quoted climate change skeptics. He has frequently been called "Virginia's state climatologist" although the State of Virginia recently told him to stop using that title when conducting his private consulting business.
In 1995 Harpers Magazine author Ross Gelbspan reported that Pat Michaels has received more than $115,000 from coal and energy interests. In 2006 a leaked memo from the Intermountain Rural Electric Association (IREA) details payments of at least $100,000 and the soliciting of more money for Michaels et al from other coal outlets. Pat Michaels is also a Visiting Scientist with the George C. Marshall Institute and a Senior Fellow in Environmental Studies with the Cato Institute. Both of which receive funding from Exxon Mobil and other oil interests.
………………………………………………………

Now, if you think that any of the information I have given above is incorrect e.g a lie, please provide confirmable information that all can see.

If you cannot, please retract your accusations of lies or I will be forced to ask the mods to place a sanction on you.

Added in Edit:-
Here's more specifically about ExxonMobil:- From the source you love to hate (but remember Exxon could have changed it if it wished so it must be true)

Poptech

Clippo your slander of Exxon still sands as none of that supports anything with the BBC broadcast.

You ridiculous notions that because Exxon donates money to an organization that means it dictates policy, it simply means they agree with one of their positions which include free-market economics. Even more laughable is that because of a persons association with an organization, that the donations from a group to that organization for various reasons is now linked to the member? I realize that agreement in policy positions is beyond your scope of understanding. Your slander is much easier to spread as propaganda.

As an example I fail to see how the $70,000 a year from Exxon to the most outspoken group the Heartland Institute some how manages to fund all the 150 or so skeptics to relentlessly put their careers on the line for about $500 a year by your propaganda suggestions. When it is much easier for them to get grants to believe in AGW. Your logic makes no sense as all your other arguments.

Aardvark

Right, first mod in makes the decision.

All of you, program is an American word when related to TV programmes and I ought to ban the lot of you for being unable to argue in the Queen's English.

Secondly, slander is spoken, libel is published. By posting on the forum the allegations are 'libellous' and not 'slanderous'.

Thirdly. IMHO, Exxon has been linked to pushing a particular agenda and I go with Clippo on that one.

Fourthly, there is a defence to both slander and libel of 'fair comment'. Since Exxon funds certain organisations that push a certain line of argument it is likely that a court would find in Clippo's favour. The truth is obviously not libellous (unless you live in Kazakhstan, but that's a story for another day).

Fifthly, calling people liars directly is not acceptable unless you can substantiate that claim with something more than 'he said, she said' arguments.

Jeff, you will be warned. Poptech you're out of here for one week. Clippo, please calm down and accept that no matter how well you argue there will always be doubters. ghall, you know better.

Matter resolved; Aardvark now has more enemies than before, but that's moderation for you.

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008

Jeff

Sorry,Mod.

g hall

I know but please inform Clippo that I know better

__________________
"That government is best which governs least."
"This is a sharp Medicine, but it is a Physician for all diseases and miseries".
"To be "matter of fact" about the world is to blunder into fantasy --and dull fantasy at that, as the real world is strange and wonderful."
Remember TANSTAAFL and TANJ

Aardvark

He's watching.

God, how I hate having the wisdom of Solomon!

__________________
When in Woking do as the Wokes do.

"I do not wish to form my opinions by thoughtlessly quoting others; I wish others to support their opinions by sensibly quoting me." Paul Wesson (Aardvark) 13th April 2008