Trapesing around the woods all freakin' day is a cushy job?
As I was saying about clueless armchair activists...
As I was saying about clueless armchair activists...
Are corners being cut or is this an armchair opinion?The gals and guys who work taking samples for the oil companies aren't evil. But their employers are no less scrupulous than the MBAs running my company when it comes to maximizing profit. If given the chance, like PoliticalNick says, they will maximize the return to investors in any way they can get away with. They are doing it now, and if they aren't they should be fired in the system we have
I spent many years traipsing around the woods picking wild mushrooms for a living. It is hard work but it is also very rewarding and fun. Sitting in an office picking your nose is very hard work because it is boring as stink.Trapesing around the woods all freakin' day is a cushy job?
As I was saying about clueless armchair activists...
I spent many years traipsing around the woods picking wild mushrooms for a living. It is hard work but it is also very rewarding and fun. Sitting in an office picking your nose is very hard work because it is boring as stink.
I'm not talking about environmentalist sitting in offices. Hardest job I ever had was being a drafting supervisor, best job was picking wild edible mushrooms, second best was farming.Who are these green beans sitting in their office picking their nose Cliffy? If you green beans are a bunch of nose pickers you may as well give up on your cause and burn your soap box for heat.
I haven't seen corners cut, that doesn't mean it isn't happening. The company I work for employs over a hundred thousand people. No organization that big will be without at least a few who are willing to cut corners.Are corners being cut or is this an armchair opinion?
They always been high it's the nature of the beast meaning it has always been that way since a long long time ago.Cancer rates are soaring on reserves down stream from the oil sands, fish with tumors and three eyes and many other aberrations in the Athabaska.
I think it very hilarious that you think that just because an environmental scientist works in resources they must be evil, greedy or gotten to by some omnipresent power wielding a big stick.
Of course it isn't impossible but at the first iota of men and women who went to the frontlines hired by resource industries with nothing but good intentions automatically were dubbed as corrupted simply because of who signs their cheques.I never said that. You are conjecturing or projecting. I only asked why you thought it impossible since it was your defence that enviro scientists are were pure and therl tar sands were green.
Of course it isn't impossible but at the first iota of men and women who went to the frontlines hired by resource industries with nothing but good intentions automatically were dubbed as corrupted simply because of who signs their cheques.
That is a big leap.
If people with an eco-agenda are given the keys to their enemies castle, why aren't they trusted to bring forth what they find.
Scientists can use Crime Stoppers and TIP lines too. Where are all the complaints from the insiders?
TIP will put you in direct contact with the nearest CO who has the power the make arrests.
Not everything but some and because they are afraid to lose their cushy jobs like everybody else. They have mortgages and are in dept like everybody else - they are wage slaves to the bank.
Only for capitalists. Not so much for wage slaves.
Now for Tonington.
Are you aware of the scrutiny in resources or you can only comment on your own industry? If you claim all sciences are susceptible to human nature why do you discount the work of the greens who were given free reign by resource industries yet believe the climate fear and loathing hook line and sphincter?
Either you trust science or you don't which is it?
Good science? As opposed to what?
So the answer is no, you can't name an industry without sin. That's a lot of words and way off topic to simply say no Petros.
As for trusting science or not, I trust good science. Your either or scenario is a logical fallacy. Do you know what type?