Master of Puppets

Whoa, Exxon earned $39.5 billion in 2006. That's more than $75,000 per minute. More than any company ever earned. And that's about the same economic performance of the whole country I live in. After all, it looks like it is kind of useful to have a president puppet, denying global warming and attaking countries with rich oil fields if needed. And BTW, it looks like he tries to prepare the next attack, sending 48.000 troops instead of the promised 21k. Naah, those won't be used for that neighbour country with even more oil fields, I'm sure.

eleven comments, already:

Absolutely fucked up on both counts.
Fortyseven (link) - 02 02 07 - 18:14

And they will pay 10.000$ if someone can disprove the UN Climate Report (see (sorry, german link) )

crazy (perhaps it could help if the next President of the USA is black or a woman, but not both (C. Rice) ;)
maxi () - 02 02 07 - 18:17

how does the iraq war benefit oil companies? i would think it would make their jobs harder since it has caused so much instability in the area. it certainly hasn’t lowered the price of gas in the US.
climate change is another story. exxon seems to be resorting to some pretty crappy tactics here. though, since it has recieved so much press, they are highly unlikely to succeed.
buhatkj - 02 02 07 - 23:19

What’s wrong with funding scientific research on global warming?? How different is that from UN and special interests groups funding research? If global warming is man-made and so terrible, would not we be able to see the scientific evidence produced by scientific research regardless of who is funding it? I thought that the scientific method could not be biased. And if it is, how can we know which is the one that is not biased?
juantar (link) - 03 02 07 - 01:55


science can be spun to the masses with ease. Use a lot of fancy words and input and research from leading scientist become obsolete mainly because it reinforces the beliefs of whichever party. That is why some people still consider global warming a myth. It is not possible for it to be a myth. It is not a matter of whether it is happening, it is a matter of whether we are contributing. And from the leading scientist, I would have to agree that, yes we are having a significant impact on climate change. Also someone asked how Exxon could benefit from the Iraq war? The profit was listed by niko, the next thing to do is find correlation, which shouldn’t be hard at all. I would like some Haliburton stock myself. Although, I am not in the business of profiting of the blood of the innocents.
blah - 03 02 07 - 05:29

the attacks had NOTHING to do with oil, get used to it. The reason have been the iraqi support of the terrorists. No, wait. The weapons of mass destruction. No, wait. Because Saddam was evil! He was a thread to us american people, living on on the other side of the earth!
Now it’s nuclear weapons.
erik - 03 02 07 - 08:09

erik, the truth is, USA never found any “weapons of mass destruction” or “nuclear weapons” in Iraac. In fact, USA is the one who has all those things. Do you know what’s the proffesion of President Bush before becomeing a president?
xeno () - 03 02 07 - 09:41

blah, you are totally right. Personally, I do believe that there is global warming and that man has some minor influence into it. Now by “It is not possible for it to be a myth” I hope you meant that there is so much research that the scientific consensus is that there is global warming. I am totally pro conservation. My problem was that I felt it was unfair to close our ears or even prevent any scientific research of the other side of the issue. I also believe that we ourselves have most of the power to help: those of you who want to help: look around you, is there any light on that you don’t need? turn it off, Can you use public transportation instead of using your car? Take the bus or metro. Do you have enough money to buy a solar panel? Buy it. Do you leave your PC on the whole day? turn it off and take a walk outside. Many people talk a lot about Government and big companies, but those people themselves don’t want to make their own sacrifices.
juantar (link) - 03 02 07 - 14:36

Hum, breaking a trend, and offending people at the same time. Can life get any better?

I tell you, it can not.

I thought “science” was supposed to be the “revisionist” religion. That is, when new facts come out to disprove the old ones, the old facts are discarded in favor of the new evidence. If that’s the case, you shouldn’t be trying to hinder the progress in any way, shape, or form. $10,000 to disprove the UN findings? Sure, go ahead! If the findings are true, then you should have nothing to worry about. If they’re false, then you should accept the “new” truth, and discard the old one. That’s how evolution works, isn’t it? Slow, steady progress, accepting improvements in current technology and discarding old ones. That’s why humans are superior to monkeys, isn’t it?

Actually, evidence goes to indicate that while the Earth may be getting warmer in the past hundred or so years, that’s simply part of a multi-millennium solar cycle, which will hit its peak in about 500 or so years, if I’m remembering my numbers correctly, and then we’ll fall back towards the ice age. You know, that thing with the woolly mammoths and smilodons. Funny thing, that: woolly mammoths couldn’t survive a cold winter, as their fur lacks oil to waterproof it, so any moisture they get hit with would go straight to the skin, and act as a beautiful thermal conductor, freezing them solid if cold temperatures happen to strike. This is part of the reason we actually find mammoth corpses frozen and preserved so well that the sperm cells may still be viable, and able to be injected into elephant cows.

But I digress.

Even if global warming is actually a real danger, it’s been happening for the past what, hundred, two hundred years? the Industrial Revolution, responsible for launching most of the artificial greenhouse gasses into the air, only started half a century ago. SO2 from today’s plants can’t have been responsible for greenhouse warming a century ago, it didn’t exist yet! Oh, I specify artificial because the #1 greenhouse gas is water vapor, evaporated from the oceans, and any solutions to that are going to be just plain ugly, as those same oceans are also where we get something like 60-90% of our usable oxygen.(Phytoplankton, gotta love ‘em!)

My personal view on global warming: Polar ice caps melt, oceans rise a few hundred feet, Texas and California(Hollywood, especially) are under water. Wait, tell me again how this is a bad thing! If that’s the consequences of global warming, I’m gonna go buy me an SUV that runs on CFCs and joyride.
Yukikaze - 05 02 07 - 07:07

Exxon’s profit per gallon: 8 cents. The government’s profit (via taxation) per gallon? An average of FORTY cents per gallon. You want to get angry at someone for profitting from the sale of gasoline, take a look at the government.

In addition, that profit doesn’t go to the corporation. It goes to the SHAREHOLDERS. People like you and me who’ve invested their money in Exxon. Are you seriously against anyone making a profit from their business investments?
Name () - 06 02 07 - 22:51

oh, just the shareholders, eh? okay, so the people that run a company never own any of their own stock? ^_~
mdm-adph () (link) - 06 02 07 - 23:17

Remember personal info?
Email (optional):
URL (optional):
Enter "layered" (antispam):
Comment:Emoticons / Textile

  ( Register your username / Log in )

Notify: Yes, send me email when someone replies.  

Small print: All html tags except <b> and <i> will be removed from your comment. You can make links by just typing the url or mail-address.
Note: If you type in your email adress above, it will be visible to other visitors, although it will be hidden for bots using javaScript.