The old TB smoke and mirrors.
According to the table on your link, the government spent 32.2 billion on ALL its climate change activities (technolgy, science, and international assistance) in the years listed, NOT on "supporting its climate change message" as you imply.
The $16 million Exxon spent went entirely to propaganda ("supporting its message") pure and simple. Just operating one ice-core drill rig in Antarctica, gathering real data, probably costs a lot more than any public relations campaign, but comparing the two is not just an apples-and-oranges error, its downright unfair.
What would have been much more instructive is to compare that 32.2 billion to how much Exxon made in profits by contributing to global warming from 1998 to 2005. That's what is really at stake here.
Tom, do you see why we refuse to play the footnote game with you? You are about as oily as the American Petroleum Institute.
Current Events » in reply to The paper tallies about $16 million from 1998 to 2005 (8 years) that Exxon spent on its message.
Re: The paper tallies about $16 million from 1998 to 2005 (8 years) that Exxon spent on its message.
The whole thread (27 posts)
- What's really needed to combat climate change
- From the Union of Concerned Scientists
- The paper tallies about $16 million from 1998 to 2005 (8 years) that Exxon spent on its message.
- Re: The paper tallies about $16 million from 1998 to 2005 (8 years) that Exxon spent on its message.
- Re: The paper tallies about $16 million from 1998 to 2005 (8 years) that Exxon spent on its message.
- The paper tallies about $16 million from 1998 to 2005 (8 years) that Exxon spent on its message.
- The question I've been pondering for many years is,
- Moved from the Space Science Board
- From the Union of Concerned Scientists