Remember me
▼ Content

Why doesn't Exxon sell cigarettes?


Why doesn't Exxon sell cigarettes?19-11-2015 23:03
trafnProfile picture★★★☆☆
(779)
Given they use the same deceptive tactics, why not?


(click on image)



The 2015 M2C2 (Global 9/11) Denialist Troll Awards

1st Place - Jep Branner - Our Stupid Administrator!
2nd Place - IBdaMann - Science IS cherry picking!
3rd Place - Into the Night - Mr. Nonsense numbers!
4th Place - Tim the plumber - The Drivel Queen!
20-11-2015 04:46
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
trafn wrote:Given they use the same deceptive tactics, why not?

Well, then why doesn't the IPCC get into the tobacco business?

Oh, that's right, they're already making a killing with Global Warming and the vast population of scientific illiterates who are eager to be duped out of their cash and their freedom.

Adding cigarettes would actually mean a cut in profits. Sticking with Global Warming they can focus on their particular brand of dishonesty.

As for me, science doesn't deceive very well. I'll have to stick with honest pursuits.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
04-09-2016 08:03
StephenS20
☆☆☆☆☆
(12)
Well, I agree. I think that the oil companies use just as deceptive (or more) techniques to cover up climate change than tobacco companies covering up the cancer/health risks of their products...... and Exxon probably does sell cigarettes at their convenient stores but maybe they aren't licensed to sell tobacco in your area or there is some other reason why they can't sell it in certain countries/states/provinces. Can't be sure though, maybe they don't sell cigarettes, but if they don't, I doubt it's out of concern that it might cause some people health issues. Oil companies don't care about anything other than how much money they can make, in my experience anyways.
04-09-2016 09:35
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
StephenS20 wrote:
Well, I agree. I think that the oil companies use just as deceptive (or more) techniques to cover up climate change than tobacco companies covering up the cancer/health risks of their products...... and Exxon probably does sell cigarettes at their convenient stores but maybe they aren't licensed to sell tobacco in your area or there is some other reason why they can't sell it in certain countries/states/provinces. Can't be sure though, maybe they don't sell cigarettes, but if they don't, I doubt it's out of concern that it might cause some people health issues. Oil companies don't care about anything other than how much money they can make, in my experience anyways.


You are obviously unaware how the oil companies have spent billions on research (and successfully too!) to produce from a given barrel of crude oil the kinds of products the market actually wants, and make it all cheaper doing it!

Gasoline, for example, is a much precise formula than it was just a short time ago, with far less waste going to other types of petroleum products unnecessarily.

AND they've done all this despite the continued government interference in their affairs.

Oil companies don't have to cover up for climate change. The term 'climate change' is a nonsensical term. It doesn't mean anything.

Oil companies don't have to cover up for global warming. There is no way to measure the temperature of the globe, oil products allow us to travel, have computers, order stuff from Amazon, watch the ball game or listen to it on the radio, enjoy our favorite movies and music on plastic media, dress like a peacock, or get on a forum like this and complain about how evil the oil companies are because they happen to make a profit.

That is the point of any company isn't it, to make a profit? Without a profit, the company would die.

I suggest you take your hateful Religion and stick to your chants and mantras instead. I already understand the Church of Global Warming is a hate filled religion.


The Parrot Killer
04-09-2016 12:53
Tim the plumber
★★★★☆
(1295)
Oh god, is tafn back, oh; no, it's an old post.
Edited on 04-09-2016 12:53
06-09-2016 03:36
Surface Detail
★★★★☆
(1673)
Tim the plumber wrote:
Oh god, is tafn back, oh; no, it's an old post.

I can't believe you edited that and still got the semicolon in the wrong place!
14-09-2016 08:10
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Holy batman! Necro!

"We can't measure the temperature of the Earth", ergo it is impossible to determine whether global warming is happening, ergo global warming is not happening.

lol
15-09-2016 16:11
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Holy batman! Necro!

"We can't measure the temperature of the Earth", ergo it is impossible to determine whether global warming is happening, ergo global warming is not happening.

lol

Your logic is rather poor as well. This science thing isn't for you.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 16:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Experimental verification of the following statement: "IB's behavior cannot be changed by changing the post."

I was mocking Into's logic. You responded to an argument which a literal interpretation would classify as "in support of climate change skeptics" as if it were both serious and arguing against you. You do not care about the actual post - as long as you can insult people, the content doesn't matter.
15-09-2016 17:03
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
jwoodward48 wrote: I was mocking Into's logic.

You were TRYING to mock it, and you didn't even do that correctly. And why not? Your logic is exceedingly poor. I'd offer to help you on that but we both know how that would go. You really aren't interested in learning anything. The insulting originates with you. You like to dish it out but you can't take it. I would suggest knocking off the insults because you are not equipped to handle incoming fire.

If anything changes and you want to discuss science, let me know. If you are going to insist on denying science as well as insist on controlling what others write, you are an EASY target for mockery.

Decide how you want it to be.

jwoodward48 wrote: You responded to an argument which a literal interpretation would classify as ...

Why the pointless obsession with how other people respond? Worry about how you participate in the discussion and let others concern themselves with what they post. You don't get to control what others write.

You lost all your credibility when you bitch-slapped attempts to help you that didn't align with your WACKY religion.


.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 19:31
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Fine. I misinterpreted your response. Moving on.

Wait, you're complaining that I misconstrued Into? Hypocrite.

You still think that insults are the purpose of this discussion. They're not. I respond with insults because I tire of hearing the constant tirade of abuse. This is no war. I can handle any abuse you throw my way. I just think that it is false, inappropriate, and not improving your image. I'm just trying to help you, you see, via heavy application of nastiness. Just like how you "helped" me!

I am not denying science. You are using a naive interpretation of one simple law to try and disprove "all those goddamn commie liberals stealing my money." You seem rather biased. Also, did I mention that I have science completely on my side? You ignorant science denier.

Also, have you seen my discussions with Into? They're... Much better than my discussions with you, though that doesn't say much. If you actually wanted to help me, you wouldn't have been so nasty. I respond in kind. Treat me well, we'll have a good discussion. Maybe I'll learn something from you. Maybe, if you aren't as close minded as you seem, you'll learn something yourself. But insults do nothing to achieve such a conversation.

Also, you lost all credibility when you were nasty to anyone who posted anything contrary to your WACKY religion.

If the same argument works on both sides, it's useless. Anyone can insult. That doesn't make you any more right.
15-09-2016 20:09
IBdaMannProfile picture★★★★★
(4640)
jwoodward48 wrote:Wait, you're complaining that I misconstrued Into?

I never complained. I was mocking you and your poor logic proficiency.

jwoodward48 wrote: You still think that insults are the purpose of this discussion.

Nope. I'm just firing back in like kind. You made it clear that you have no intention of discussing science, only in preaching your WACKY religion. You won't recognize any science that runs counter to your WACKY religion. Since I cannot hold a discussion by myself, you forced it into the muck and you apparently don't want it emerge.

Fine. My only option at this point is to mock your constant stream of science denial. You make that very easy, btw.

jwoodward48 wrote:They're not. I respond with insults because I tire of hearing the constant tirade of abuse.

Bulslhit. You got pissed that I presented science that fukced with your WACKY religion, and you became an ashsole, and I fired back, and that's where we stand.

There's something about Stefan-Boltzmann that makes you become a dikc. I reference Stefan-Boltzmann often because you violate it often, and hence you become a dikc often. Yookan blome E.

Stefan-Boltzmann isn't going away. Your denial is only going to become loonier and loonier. As long as you are trying to prove you "greenhouse effect" miracle you might as well try to prove Santa Claus exists as well.


Global Warming: The preferred religion of the scientifically illiterate.

Printing dollars to pay debt doesn't increase the number of dollars. - keepit

Ah the "Valid Data" myth of ITN/IBD. - tmiddles

Ceist - I couldn't agree with you more. But when money and religion are involved, and there are people who value them above all else, then the lies begin. - trafn

You are completely misunderstanding their use of the word "accumulation"! - Climate Scientist.

The Stefan-Boltzman equation doesn't come up with the correct temperature if greenhouse gases are not considered - Hank

:*sigh* Not the "raw data" crap. - Leafsdude

IB STILL hasn't explained what Planck's Law means. Just more hand waving that it applies to everything and more asserting that the greenhouse effect 'violates' it.- Ceist
15-09-2016 21:19
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Experimental verification of the following statement: "IB's behavior cannot be changed by changing the post."

I was mocking Into's logic. You responded to an argument which a literal interpretation would classify as "in support of climate change skeptics" as if it were both serious and arguing against you. You do not care about the actual post - as long as you can insult people, the content doesn't matter.


Mocking is an insult in itself.

If you expect to be treated with any kind of respect, I suggest you cease from using mocking of anything as a technique. This one I will let slide for now.

The obvious conclusion if you can't measure global temperature is simply that we don't know if the world is warming, cooling, or staying the same.

To harp on one and ignore the other possibilities is the problem with the Global Warming argument.

We simply don't know. The Global Warming argument itself begins as a circular argument, and any mechanism that warms the atmosphere or the surface is used, while any mechanism for cooling the atmosphere or the surface tends to get chucked away.

Making a claim of temperature movement without valid data is the basic fallacy of the Global Warming argument. It is what makes it a circular argument. There is no way to test the falsifiability of the theory because there is no way to measure global temperature.

This by itself falsifies the theory as a scientific theory by definition of science. No scientific theory may incorporate a logical fallacy, which a circular argument is.

The circular argument has another name.

Faith.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 01:08
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Good Science, you're right. I am being hypocritical. Mocking people to mock their mocking of mocking? This is going too far. Perhaps I should remember Jes- *dammit catholic education* I mean, what a central tenet of interpersonal ethics says - treat others as you would have them treat you. I'm sorry, that decreased the intelligence of the discourse. I will try to keep out of the mud next time. (the mud in which both IB and I were wallowing, mind
)

(Also note that I never realized anything like this when IB posted. While this may be an example of bias, it is still convincing evidence for the statement "ashsoles don't convince." Ergo either IB doesn't want to convince me [he likes this type of argument] or he's mistaken. Pure logic, not biased at all. The fact that I dislike him doesn't play into anything.)
16-09-2016 02:17
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Good Science, you're right. I am being hypocritical. Mocking people to mock their mocking of mocking? This is going too far. Perhaps I should remember Jes- *dammit catholic education* I mean, what a central tenet of interpersonal ethics says - treat others as you would have them treat you. I'm sorry, that decreased the intelligence of the discourse. I will try to keep out of the mud next time. (the mud in which both IB and I were wallowing, mind
)

(Also note that I never realized anything like this when IB posted. While this may be an example of bias, it is still convincing evidence for the statement "ashsoles don't convince." Ergo either IB doesn't want to convince me [he likes this type of argument] or he's mistaken. Pure logic, not biased at all. The fact that I dislike him doesn't play into anything.)


You say I am right. I presented several arguments here.

My first argument is about the mocking. In this I assume you are agreeing with me.

My second argument is about what was mocked. May I assume you agree with my logic now as well? (The part about not having a global temperature, so we simply don't know if the world is warming or not?)

My third argument describes how this arrives at a circular argument. This is an argument that tries to be a conclusion by using itself as a predicate. It's simplest form is, "X is true, therefore X is true".

Do you agree with this argument?


The Parrot Killer
Edited on 16-09-2016 02:20
16-09-2016 02:33
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
Ah, I see. No, I do not yet think that global warming is nonexistent. I do, however, think that I am hypocritical. The latter might be more important anyway.

I do agree partially with your second argument. We cannot measure average temperature with a high level of accuracy. There are other ways that gw could be proven, though.

It is the third argument that I disagree with. Natural cycles, for instance, exist in which solar energy hitting the earth changes. This is normally small, but feedback can increase its effects.

Also, when I said "that decreased the quality of discourse," I was referring to my mocking and hypocrisy, not the later-inserted reference to the Golden Rule. (Is that religious or secular? I don't know, due to the aforementioned Catholic education.)
16-09-2016 03:24
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ah, I see. No, I do not yet think that global warming is nonexistent. I do, however, think that I am hypocritical. The latter might be more important anyway.

All I ask is that you keep an open mind.
jwoodward48 wrote:
I do agree partially with your second argument. We cannot measure average temperature with a high level of accuracy. There are other ways that gw could be proven, though.
Don't see how. A global temperature is central to the concept of a warming, cooling, or anything.
jwoodward48 wrote:
It is the third argument that I disagree with. Natural cycles, for instance, exist in which solar energy hitting the earth changes. This is normally small, but feedback can increase its effects.
What feedback would that be?
jwoodward48 wrote:
Also, when I said "that decreased the quality of discourse," I was referring to my mocking and hypocrisy, not the later-inserted reference to the Golden Rule. (Is that religious or secular? I don't know, due to the aforementioned Catholic education.)

This is why I assumed you agreed with my first argument (the one about the cost of mocking).


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 03:47
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
If, in fact, the Earth is warming up, but we have no way of measuring this yet, there could still be ways of not quite proving, but suggesting that global warming is happening. I do not know of a specific method of doing so, but indirect proofs can be pretty effective.

Temperature feedback exists, both positive and negative. All in all, water tends to heat up the Earth even more than CO2 does. (Although this could probably be disputed.) Ice cap melting is another example of positive feedback. Negative feedback does exist, but IIRC happens to be less effective than the positive feedback sources. This means that normally-negligible temperature changes could cascade into a catastrophe.
16-09-2016 05:46
Into the Night
★★★★★
(9286)
jwoodward48 wrote:
If, in fact, the Earth is warming up, but we have no way of measuring this yet, there could still be ways of not quite proving, but suggesting that global warming is happening. I do not know of a specific method of doing so, but indirect proofs can be pretty effective.
Since the definition of Global Warming is temperature rising, I really don't see how you're going to get around this.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Temperature feedback exists, both positive and negative. All in all, water tends to heat up the Earth even more than CO2 does.

Neither water nor CO2 can heat up the Earth, other than they are mass, like the Earth. Neither can change the average temperature of the Earth.
jwoodward48 wrote:
(Although this could probably be disputed.)
No, it can't. S-B is quite clear about that.
jwoodward48 wrote:
Ice cap melting is another example of positive feedback
Ice caps are not directly struck by the Sun's energy. A glancing blow at best in the summer, and nothing at all in that pole's winter.

Ice caps are not melting. There isn't enough energy in the entire Earth to melt either cap without boiling the oceans first.

jwoodward48 wrote:
Negative feedback does exist, but IIRC happens to be less effective than the positive feedback sources. This means that normally-negligible temperature changes could cascade into a catastrophe.

Don't panic. No catastrophe.


The Parrot Killer
16-09-2016 05:56
jwoodward48
★★★★☆
(1537)
No panic here. I was just... Come to think of it, I probably chose "catastrophe" for its alliteration, heh. What I really should have said was that feedback can worsen a bad situation.

Perhaps I am using the wrong word. Ice caps exist on mountains, right?

I recently wrote a post about my current thoughts in a new thread. Perhaps we could discuss that there? I can hardly repost it here without the now-temporarily-lost access to the computer I had then. I can summarize it here, though. Water is good at absorbing radiation, and it does this regardless of the originating place of the radiation. It then conducts this energy to the rest of Earth, serving to capture both incoming and outgoing radiation and put it on Earth.

If I can prove that CO2 dramatically increases temperature, and that we have released much CO2 into the atmosphere, then the logical conclusion is that global warming is happening. I'm not saying I can do that, but there are indirect ways of proving gw.




Join the debate Why doesn't Exxon sell cigarettes?:

Remember me

▲ Top of page
Public Poll
Who is leading the renewable energy race?

US

EU

China

Japan

India

Brazil

Other

Don't know


Thanks for supporting Climate-Debate.com.
Copyright © 2009-2019 Climate-Debate.com | About | Contact