3 ms·
Projection, your honor! We started with "probable billions" on climate-related PR and you replied with evidence of millions, much of which isn't on climate rela
by revelio 3y ago
Projection, your honor! We started with "probable billions" on climate-related PR and you replied with evidence of millions, much of which isn't on climate related stuff. Now you're saying what you meant wasn't billions at all. That's goal post moving!
Yes you hedged your claim, but so what? It's still wrong. You don't get to make wild and totally false claims by sticking "probable" onto everything.
> That you find a climate-disinformation spend
You haven't shown that or even laid the groundwork for that. Even if these firms were spending the amounts you claim, which they apparently aren't, did it occur to you that they might be right? Nope. You just assume anything they say must be wrong, because you've been brainwashed by propaganda. You can't even find any specific campaign!? If you could we could then debate the real issues, but didn't even get that far.
- ttctciyf 3y ago> We started with "probable billions" on climate-related PR and you replied with evidence of millions, Again you omit the salient detail that "probable billions" referred to an entire industry and the (conservative) $33m (offered as a simple example in relation to your claim of "I could only find $10k!") is the contribution from only a single component of that industry. Classic goalpost shifting, which is why it's fruitless to engage.