Citing from cfact. . . Nice.

Cough me up something from a major newspaper or magazine (National Review included), and I'll pay attention.

 

Thanks for pointing that out. I didn't have time to check this the other day, but now that I have, I see they get money from Exxon, exactly the company that is the subject of this thread. Of course CFACT is going to say Exxon is just great. They've been getting some of that quarterly revenue from Exxon for some time now. Googling this organization will reveal this information quite quickly.

That's called Debate fail.

I also note that oil rigs are capable of moving to different areas once one location is exhausted of resources, so I think the notion that rigs provide reef sanctuaries (while not totally false as a concept) is pretty tenuous since it takes a long time for a reef to develop, and a reef is not going to develop quickly on a platform that moves. Methinks hands-rubbing think tank members with blatant conflicts of interest are trying to make a very transparent connection between sinking old ships to create reefs, and trying to justify pursuing the proliferation of a technology that is becoming obsolete.

 

when a company sponsor a study. It's called conflict of interest.

Tobacco companies have been saying for years that smoking is safe and nonaddictive.
Firestone has been saying that their tires are safe.

 

^ and Senators and Congressmen are the ones who make the National Budget - read into that anything you like.

 

And if you don't like oil companies, sell your S and get a damn bicycle.

Tell these "evil companies" what you think about them by voting with your wallet. If your not going to do that, well don't bitch because you are contributing to their profits.