That situation is a bit different. Oil Companies performed proprietary research internally and promoted those results as scientific. Whereas, the implication in this post here is that anyone who ever worked for an oil company in climate science can no longer do climate science for an agency.

The insulin response you’re talking about is very small and it doesn’t lead to a chain reaction.

I think it’s sort of a catch 22. The people that tend to be the most knowledgeable about a particular science often have industry experience doing the exact thing you want them to study now. The idea that people could study the effects of aspartame for decades but are now “tainted” because they used to work for a soda company doesn’t necessarily square up to economic reality.

If however, you choose to put your foot in the sand there you’re going to have a bunch of people on a committee that have no idea what they are doing (which by the way people will also criticize you for) Remember when Trump appointed senior cabinet positions to people with completely unrelated experience? Such as Ben Carson (a former medical doctor) being appointed secretary of housing.

It’s a lose/lose situation I’m not sure what you all are expecting.

Hey, wanted to level-set with you real quick. Some people in the office have commented that they see you playing ping pong quite a bit. I know you’re just playing on your breaks but It’s really not a good look.

Thanks for the chat.

Probably on a per capita basis but we are all contributing to climate change (the majority of it): https://www.epa.gov/ghgemissions/global-greenhouse-gas-emissions-data

Do you have a source?

Rome was a republic for like 500 years.

When interest rates are low the difference between a dollar now and a dollar later (discount factor) is negligible. In this environment the math favours businesses that can grow revenue really fast.

Now that rates have risen, the discount factor has become more expensive and so firms want their dollars today. A lot of companies need to come up with a path to profitability quickly to shore up their stock prices and have a sustainable business.

How do you feel about scary movies or violent video games? Same thing?

Seems to me this argument rests on the assumption of private regulators being less accountable public regulators but i don’t think this plays out so clear cut in practice. When’s the last time you ever had a problem with FINTRAC or the New York Stock exchange for instance?

What socialist societies that have existed have lasted a long time?

This is a bad explanation. Dividends are paid out of retained earnings. They are actually taxed TWICE and investing money into the business is a capitalized under GAAP not expensed.

The actual reason is that pre-IPO companies prioritize revenue growth while they are raising money over expense control. The idea is once their growth flatlines they can cut expenses while maintaining their revenue.