you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (30 children)

So you simply asked for proof of ESG funds with no motivation?

You made the claim that the study was funded by such a fund. I wondered if it was true. tbh I thought if you answered I'd be able to work out what an ESG fund is.

You claim this is not an issue, while clearly this is important to you somehow.

I don't believe that there was any external funding. When people say things that I suspect are wrong, I tend to call them out on it.

You ignored so many Questions

Such as?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (29 children)

Do you wish for me to Quote every Question you ignored is this thread? I can but it would be silly. And not the point at all. To be clear, I was discussing your over reaction to the topic. Not the topic itself.

Now back to what I was originally saying. Money gets results. Even if that money is based on lies. You can turn a tidy profit by pushing any agenda no matter if it is the truth or it is not.

https://www.investopedia.com/news/gender-equality-potential-driver-esg-funds/

ESG subverts nations.

Environmental Social Governance. Not a single one of those things are the business of banks. And they have no right to be Governing, performing social engineering, nor dictating environmental science based on their banking practices.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (28 children)

Do you wish for me to Quote every Question you ignored is this thread? I can but it would be silly.

Just any that you're interested in why I didn't answer.

Now back to what I was originally saying. Money gets results.

This doesn't relate to the Netherlands paper does it? There wasn't any money involved in that. It's not climate change denial or religious rights to be prejudiced against science, gays and education.

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (27 children)

Just any that you're interested in why I didn't answer.

Jesus Christ man. The next three sentences actually touches base on that. Did you not manage to get to the second sentence? How does context work? What is a paragraph and how do they work?

I was discussing your over reaction to the topic. Not the topic itself.

I was emphasizing how you singled out that one point and harped on it to the point of accusations of lying. How that you made ESG a major point of contention, and yet have no opinion on it. For some reason, emphasizing it's lack of inclusion. Which seems paradoxical and strange to me.

This doesn't relate to the Netherlands paper does it? There wasn't any money involved in that.

You don't dictate my comments, or what the point of them is. Simply saying it doesn't have to do with what you said is garbage. In addition, simply saying there was no outside influence or funding, is a childish assumption. Everything in existence has outside influence, and it is up to the observer to determine bias and effect.

It's not climate change denial or religious rights to be prejudiced against science, gays and education.

I'm going to need for you to give that another try. As I am uncertain of what you were trying to say there, or how it is related to the rest of the reply.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (26 children)

Everything in existence has outside influence, and it is up to the observer to determine bias and effect.

What is the outside influence on this paper?

https://scholar.google.com.au/scholar?hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5&q=dinosaur+skin&btnG=#d=gs_qabs&t=1675283442911&u=%23p%3DD0zsB56LmZIJ

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (25 children)

Please provide a single paper and not a search result.

In addition, remove your location data from your above link.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (24 children)

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (23 children)

Which would you prefer to hear? That it doesn't disclose it's funding, or that everything in all recorded history and the world at large influenced it?

As for it's Abstract and it's Results? I just see a lot of excuses being made for unexplained abnormalities.

Please do tell me what the point of this little exercise was.

[–]ActuallyNot 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (22 children)

Which would you prefer to hear?

What dark money you think is behind pure research when that research is away from a topic that you have motivated distrust of the facts.

... Or did I overestimate your grasp of reality. Are you against palaeontology too, because young earth creation or something?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (14 children)

So now ESG funds are dark money?

[–]Questionable 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (6 children)

What dark money you think is behind pure research when that research is away from a topic that you have motivated distrust of the facts

You may not understand what you are saying. A paper is not "pure research". In fact, it's not research at all. A paper attempts to prove it's abstract and premise, as motivated by it's authors, the authors professor, and or funders involved. The only "research" involved is almost always clerical.