What is wrong with Insurance Journal? Here is the opening paragraph, as sad and funny as it is revealing:
“Climate change protesters outside a Manhattan courthouse this week expressed overwhelming support for New York’s landmark securities fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, even if they weren’t entirely sure what the case was actually about.”
Sounds like a description of every Climate Zealot everywhere. “Please raise gas prices on the poor and middle class” they scream.
The Insurance Journal weren’t the ones doing the protesting. They are reporting on the fact some of the protesters there were misguided when it came to this case. I would think you’d be applauding IJ for reporting on that. Did your read the rest of the article or just the opening paragraph before drawing your conclusions?
You both know what I meant. Again you make disingenuous comments.
IJ has never published any article about the mountain of science that justifies skepticism about what we know. And when they hint at the ignorance of the Climate Zealots, it’s a surprise.
All we ever read is the doom and gloom comments from numb skulls who aren’t even remotely climate scientists (see related article in today’s edition of IJ where some government employee ridiculously cites that last 5 years as proof of doom, something NO climate scientist would do).
First, your opening statement was an insult towards the IJ. While it seemed pretty obvious what you were trying to do, secondly, I didn’t make a disingenuous comment Craig – I asked you a question and provided you with an opportunity to better explain yourself. Third, maybe if you did a better job expressing what you really meant the first time we wouldn’t wonder about your actual intent.
Rosenblatt: Craig is focused on the stupidity of protestors, some of whom are likely PAID to protest. PLEASE DON’T TELL ME that doesn’t happen; several instances of people being paid by Soros, et al is common knowledge.
This is more interesting than the ignorance of protesters, paid or not:
“But when New York state finally got its hands on some 4 million pages of documents, they weren’t enough to make the bigger case: that Exxon lied about climate science or the future value of its yet untapped assets.”
Further showing the ludicricy of this court case:
“On Tuesday, outside the Manhattan courthouse, this didn’t seem to bother the protesters. Termini, the retired software engineer, wouldn’t budge on the importance of the case and the need to show support for an environment under threat from the burning of fossil fuels.
“This is just fine,” she said of the securities fraud case. “Whatever works. Climate change is so huge—whatever we can do.” ”
The above statements show true ignorance and prejudice in accepting something without proof…. (because there is no proof!).
October 25, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Rosenblatt says:
Like or Dislike:
6
1
If I disagreed that some of the protesters had no idea what they were protesting, I would have asked “where’s the evidence that they were uninformed?” I asked why Craig was so upset with that comment when I thought he’d be happier that IJ acknowledged it to be true.
October 25, 2019 at 2:19 pm
Craig Cornell says:
Like or Dislike:
6
11
IJ should be ashamed. My comment WAS in part a slam; they should be publishing the truth and not just one side of the issue. It is far, far more complicated than they make out (just like the rest of the MSM).
October 25, 2019 at 6:23 pm
Jon says:
Like or Dislike:
9
3
It’s actually far less complicated than you make it out to be. That’s why the right’s entire shtick is obfuscating the truth, now that outright denial has stopped working. You continue trying to make the people polluting the planet richer while pretending that they have your best interests in mind, the rest of us aren’t stupid enough to believe Exxon cares about anything except Exxon’s profits. You keep trying to shame people for negating your nonsense, we know you’re the one who should really be ashamed of himself, and that you’re entirely incapable of that. You’re a ghoul, spreading disinformation to continue your agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
October 26, 2019 at 10:39 am
Common Sense says:
Like or Dislike:
4
5
Rosenblatt, when haven’t you argued with Craig or Polar on any article? Why not use some Common Sense for a change?
October 28, 2019 at 3:27 pm
flawedlogic says:
Like or Dislike:
6
0
Agent/Common Sense,
Where have the posts been where Polar and Craig have not argued with: Jon, Helpingout, Captain, Rosenblatt?
Oh almost no article? Great, now we don’t need to make pointless comments like that Mike!
October 25, 2019 at 2:22 pm
Common Sense says:
Like or Dislike:
9
10
Some of these ignorant protestors were probably left over from the old “Occupy Wall Street” protestors. Paid off by Soros. Pretty sad in America.
Wait is this seriously agent now? is he taking a page from polar and constantly changing his name? Was it because he posted his real name so long ago and people won’t let him forget?
October 29, 2019 at 10:26 am
Common Sense says:
Like or Dislike:
2
6
I wonder why gas costs $4 per gallon in California and $2+ in Texas. Also, Exxon is using its technology to actually make fuel out of Algae. Isn’t that what the former Potus wanted them to do?
What is wrong with Insurance Journal? Here is the opening paragraph, as sad and funny as it is revealing:
“Climate change protesters outside a Manhattan courthouse this week expressed overwhelming support for New York’s landmark securities fraud lawsuit against Exxon Mobil, even if they weren’t entirely sure what the case was actually about.”
Sounds like a description of every Climate Zealot everywhere. “Please raise gas prices on the poor and middle class” they scream.
The Insurance Journal weren’t the ones doing the protesting. They are reporting on the fact some of the protesters there were misguided when it came to this case. I would think you’d be applauding IJ for reporting on that. Did your read the rest of the article or just the opening paragraph before drawing your conclusions?
Wouldn’t you be more upset if IJ reported on the protests and ignored that the protesters weren’t even sure about the particulars of the case?
You both know what I meant. Again you make disingenuous comments.
IJ has never published any article about the mountain of science that justifies skepticism about what we know. And when they hint at the ignorance of the Climate Zealots, it’s a surprise.
All we ever read is the doom and gloom comments from numb skulls who aren’t even remotely climate scientists (see related article in today’s edition of IJ where some government employee ridiculously cites that last 5 years as proof of doom, something NO climate scientist would do).
First, your opening statement was an insult towards the IJ. While it seemed pretty obvious what you were trying to do, secondly, I didn’t make a disingenuous comment Craig – I asked you a question and provided you with an opportunity to better explain yourself. Third, maybe if you did a better job expressing what you really meant the first time we wouldn’t wonder about your actual intent.
Rosenblatt: Craig is focused on the stupidity of protestors, some of whom are likely PAID to protest. PLEASE DON’T TELL ME that doesn’t happen; several instances of people being paid by Soros, et al is common knowledge.
This is more interesting than the ignorance of protesters, paid or not:
“But when New York state finally got its hands on some 4 million pages of documents, they weren’t enough to make the bigger case: that Exxon lied about climate science or the future value of its yet untapped assets.”
Further showing the ludicricy of this court case:
“On Tuesday, outside the Manhattan courthouse, this didn’t seem to bother the protesters. Termini, the retired software engineer, wouldn’t budge on the importance of the case and the need to show support for an environment under threat from the burning of fossil fuels.
“This is just fine,” she said of the securities fraud case. “Whatever works. Climate change is so huge—whatever we can do.” ”
The above statements show true ignorance and prejudice in accepting something without proof…. (because there is no proof!).
If I disagreed that some of the protesters had no idea what they were protesting, I would have asked “where’s the evidence that they were uninformed?” I asked why Craig was so upset with that comment when I thought he’d be happier that IJ acknowledged it to be true.
IJ should be ashamed. My comment WAS in part a slam; they should be publishing the truth and not just one side of the issue. It is far, far more complicated than they make out (just like the rest of the MSM).
It’s actually far less complicated than you make it out to be. That’s why the right’s entire shtick is obfuscating the truth, now that outright denial has stopped working. You continue trying to make the people polluting the planet richer while pretending that they have your best interests in mind, the rest of us aren’t stupid enough to believe Exxon cares about anything except Exxon’s profits. You keep trying to shame people for negating your nonsense, we know you’re the one who should really be ashamed of himself, and that you’re entirely incapable of that. You’re a ghoul, spreading disinformation to continue your agenda. Nothing more, nothing less.
Rosenblatt, when haven’t you argued with Craig or Polar on any article? Why not use some Common Sense for a change?
Agent/Common Sense,
Where have the posts been where Polar and Craig have not argued with: Jon, Helpingout, Captain, Rosenblatt?
Oh almost no article? Great, now we don’t need to make pointless comments like that Mike!
Some of these ignorant protestors were probably left over from the old “Occupy Wall Street” protestors. Paid off by Soros. Pretty sad in America.
Hi Agent!
Wait is this seriously agent now? is he taking a page from polar and constantly changing his name? Was it because he posted his real name so long ago and people won’t let him forget?
I wonder why gas costs $4 per gallon in California and $2+ in Texas. Also, Exxon is using its technology to actually make fuel out of Algae. Isn’t that what the former Potus wanted them to do?
Ha HA! Fact free insults. (Cool with Andrew. Hey, are YOU Andrew?)
Love the Down votes for truthful statements. “Down with the Truth!”