>The tobacco companies were "harped on" for protecting their interests, and i doubt that many people found the harping to be absurd.

The harping was absurd. The CEOs should have stood up and said "Look, we put a warning right on the damn box. Cigarettes are bad for you, just like a lot of other things. Now if you want to ban tobacco, then do so, otherwise quit grandstanding." Congress proved its hypocracy when they got a hold of the proposed settlement and immediately started filling it up with pet projects until they doubled the size. If tobacco is so bad then ban it already, otherwise let the companies produce.

>Personnally, i see a great deal of similarity in the defensive techniques employed by those industries.

I see a great deal of similarity in the hypocritical techniques employed by the Congress. Talk a big game and do nothing of substance. Congress makes the rules. If they want to remove the tax breaks or impose a 'windfall tax' to be dedicated to renuable energy then they should quit grandstanding and do so. Put your re-election money where your mouth is.

>Plus, I would think that you'd be use to people pointing out the energyCo-funded-scientific-naysayer lobby connection by now.

I am used to dealing with the lemming mentality of those who believe something has been proven simply becuase it has been repeated a great number of times.

The criticisms of man-made global warming and its impact are coming from a number of scientists for a number of reasons.

Dismissing some because they receive money from energy companies is not constructive. If it were then we should be equally dismissive of those who receive money from Greenpeace or The Sierra Club. Dismissal is one tactic being used to silence the discussion. Look to Delaware and Oregon, where forces are trying to replace their state climatologists because they are rightly critical of the 'consensus'. Look at the Weather Channel's climatologist who wants to strip 'deniers' of their scientific certification. Note the term 'deniers' is being used on purpose to equate the dissenting view with that of 'Holocaust Deniers'.

The current policy paper from ICPP is just that, a policy paper. Drawn up by politicians and ambassadors. The actual data will not be released until May, only after it has been made to fit the policy. That is not science.

>>>>>>http://www.desmogblog.com/discredited-friends-of-science-emerge-as-the-natural-resources-stewardship-project
>>>>>>
>>>>>>One side is funded by environmental groups and the other by energy interests.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>
>>>>>Surely you jest.
>>>>
>>>>Actually, yes, that was a joke to demonstrate the absurdity of constantly harping on energy companies for protecting their interests. Apparently too subtle. Maybe I should've compared them to union's giving money to Pelosi.
>>>
>>>Are you impressed with how the tobacco companies protected their interests... back in the day?
>>
>>Actually no. They ended up looking foolish and getting creamed by lawsuits.