Well, that's a conflict of interest

**deathgodusmc** · 03-05-15, 05:44 AM

Originally Posted by HeavyG

Then is this really a debate?

Absolutely. That particular point has been addressed and there have been no changes with it. There is still the rest of the topic available to discuss.

Originally Posted by SmokenScion

So you either do or your don't want to participate? Wtf is it, and why every time one of these topics come up you gotta be the ignorant AND the opposition all at once. Pick one! if you got a beef with me say it, or shoot me a Pm, but don't post bullshit like "i said it before."
This type of behavior is exactly why congress is so mired in mud, the willfulness to fight on every level for no other reason, to defy sound logic because "theory", to waste peoples time for no other reason than because, I'm liberal (or you think i am).

First I have no issue with you. You act a fool i respond in a way you will understand, act normal i respond normal. As for the participation part read the above response.

Edit. Actually i always thought we got along pretty well but took a few jabs here and there mostly out of fun or just fucking around because we dont see eye to eye on many things. So to readdress no i dont have a problem with you at all. You always seemed like a good guy thats as headstrong as i pictured myself and maybe thats the actual issue.

**deathgodusmc** · 03-05-15, 05:54 AM

Originally Posted by AetheLove

If he's going to argue then he must take up a contrary position.

I won't say you haven't posted a quote, but Heavy may have a point: do you have a position on the matter?

From what I can tell, your position is that everyone sucks and that everything is bullshit.

The OP was about a conflict-of-interest story; some engineer who has received more than $1.2 million from the oil and coal industry who has also published papers that support the same points being made by the PR departments of the companies that funded him. Your response was to sarcastically imply that the other "side have made a shit ton of money" too.

And maybe that's true.

But it seems to avoid the larger issue.

Æ

Sure i do and if you followed the posts up to that comment you see that comment was about a specific item, pulling in numbers that got pulled out of someones ass and calling the topic a fact.

Yes my first response was a sarcastic the other side have made a shit ton of money too. Its not really a maybe thats true, it is true. The whole topic has made millionaires and a few billionaires on both sides of the fence. As for it avoiding the larger issue i would argue it is the larger issue. There has been very little solid science made. This topic was based on making money not the environment. They started with the answer and worked backwards and that is why they have had to change the names so many times. The entire industry and yes its and industry not a field of science is filled with greed looking to find that next money pit while misleading the general public and even worse continually misconstruing the actual argument from the other side of the table. So I'm not sure what you think the larger issue is but im gonna stick with its the profit goals being set on both side of the fence because as long as your focused on profits you will never find the actual truth.