Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty86
What scientific consensus is that? You don't see an incentive for "green" energy companies to lie? If man made climate change was 100% debunked tomorrow how much do you think their subsidies would drop?
The scientific consensus that humans are partly responsible for the rate at which the climate is changing. Green energy companies may be incentivised to lie when it comes to the efficiency of their products, cost of setup and so on. I have already stated that they should face the same consequences as Exxon if they have mislead shareholders and so on. However, I do not see what they have to lie about when it comes to the impact of man made climate change. The science is already on their side. This is not the case for companies like Exxon.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Shifty86
You should list the positives/negatives of fossil fuels and the positives/negatives of tobacco then compare them.
The fact that you compare fossil fuels to tobacco or lead in paint is insane, I think you watched Gasland a few too many times.
I've never heard of Gasland. Why exactly is it insane?
Tobacco companies and companies that added lead to paint continued to lie about the negative impact of their products long after scientific consensus had been reached. I would recommend reading about Robert Kehoe and Clair Patterson if you're uninformed about the behaviour of companies that added lead to fuel.
If Exxon have lied about climate change then their is a clear comparison between their behaviour and the the behaviour of the other businesses mentioned. As Kukraprout stated you get the same organisations trying to spread doubt about the scientific consensus on multiple topics. The Heartland Institute have done this for both
second hand smoke and
climate change. Quite how you cannot see the similarity is beyond me. Do you have any sort of argument to back up your view point or are you just going to insult anyone that disagrees with you?