Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
So? NASA is doing what we pay them to do. If they try to take over business with cap and trade or carbon credit bullshit they will get trimmed down a bit.NASA takes public money. Look at the industry that has sprung up around it.But it isn't a conflict of interests to take public money and create a cottage industry around it?How is it slander to point out a really bad case of conflict of interest? If this had been a scientist that supports AGW, you people would be all over him like a dog with his milkbone. Complain all you want, it only shows you people lack anything resembling ethics. But then, we knew that already.I see that a slander lawsuit was not enough for the climate scaremongers... they have doubled down on the lies... Its going to be fun having the greenies paying millions to defend their slanderous statements.. The New Your Slimes is not fit for bird cage cover any more..
A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.
Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.
Right?
The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Ignore the bullets above. This is a list of some of those who are buying the deniers' lies.
- Meet The Climate Denial Machine
- Heartland Institute And James Taylor
- Competitive Enterprise Institute
- Chris Horner And The American Tradition Institute
- Manhattan Institute And Robert Bryce
- Heritage Foundation
- Cato Institute And Patrick Michaels
- American Enterprise Institute
- Marc Morano
- Anthony Watts
- Steve Milloy
- Joe Bastardi
- Matt Ridley
- Larry Bell
More ad hominem commie propaganda. You can't attack the message, so attack the messenger.
So-called "dark money" is the new left-wing bogeyman. Of course, the fact that the left is wallowing in dark money doesn't discourage them from attacking anyone who declines to disclose their donors.The left just can't stand the fact that anyone might question the credibility of their latest scheme to loot and enslave the populace. When ideas can't stand on their own merits, the left cranks up their smear machine.
The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
Have some companies done some terrible things? Sure. Shall we talk about politicians and governments now?
So you would rather move the goalpost than admit that you are wrong? Interesting strategy. Does it work very often?
I think those scientists said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and there isn't a shred of evidence that it does. And I doubt the petrochemical industry ever claimed their products are not toxic. That's just outright bullshit.The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
The typical liberal is too stupid to even see a contradiction there.
So? NASA is doing what we pay them to do. If they try to take over business with cap and trade or carbon credit bullshit they will get trimmed down a bit.NASA takes public money. Look at the industry that has sprung up around it.But it isn't a conflict of interests to take public money and create a cottage industry around it?How is it slander to point out a really bad case of conflict of interest? If this had been a scientist that supports AGW, you people would be all over him like a dog with his milkbone. Complain all you want, it only shows you people lack anything resembling ethics. But then, we knew that already.I see that a slander lawsuit was not enough for the climate scaremongers... they have doubled down on the lies... Its going to be fun having the greenies paying millions to defend their slanderous statements.. The New Your Slimes is not fit for bird cage cover any more..
A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.
Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.
Right?
Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.
The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
Have some companies done some terrible things? Sure. Shall we talk about politicians and governments now?
So you would rather move the goalpost than admit that you are wrong? Interesting strategy. Does it work very often?
What is the matter with you? Reading comprehension difficulties? It's right on point. My post that you responded to was precisely about you trusting the government but not companies.
Did I dumb that down enough for you?
I think those scientists said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and there isn't a shred of evidence that it does. And I doubt the petrochemical industry ever claimed their products are not toxic. That's just outright bullshit.The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
So? NASA is doing what we pay them to do. If they try to take over business with cap and trade or carbon credit bullshit they will get trimmed down a bit.NASA takes public money. Look at the industry that has sprung up around it.But it isn't a conflict of interests to take public money and create a cottage industry around it?How is it slander to point out a really bad case of conflict of interest? If this had been a scientist that supports AGW, you people would be all over him like a dog with his milkbone. Complain all you want, it only shows you people lack anything resembling ethics. But then, we knew that already.I see that a slander lawsuit was not enough for the climate scaremongers... they have doubled down on the lies... Its going to be fun having the greenies paying millions to defend their slanderous statements.. The New Your Slimes is not fit for bird cage cover any more..
NASA has already been turned into an arm of the AGW propaganda machine.
A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.
Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.
Right?
Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.
Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.
The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
Have some companies done some terrible things? Sure. Shall we talk about politicians and governments now?
So you would rather move the goalpost than admit that you are wrong? Interesting strategy. Does it work very often?
What is the matter with you? Reading comprehension difficulties? It's right on point. My post that you responded to was precisely about you trusting the government but not companies.
Did I dumb that down enough for you?
Except that I have said nothing about trusting or not trusting the government, did I? You have made this about the government, not I. If the government was trying to sell me cigarettes while telling me that it was good for me, I'd be the first one holding a sign calling them a liar. This isn't about the government. It is about corporations paying blood money to get unethical people to convince the American people that their products aren't really hurting anyone or the environment. They've done it for many years. They have a vested interest in people like you believing their lies. What interest are you vested in?
I think those scientists said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and there isn't a shred of evidence that it does. And I doubt the petrochemical industry ever claimed their products are not toxic. That's just outright bullshit.The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when tobacco companies got a whole bunch of scientists and doctors to claim that there was no link to cancer from cigarettes. That was a long time ago.
It's hilarious to me that he brought that up because I've used that example to counter left wing nut claims that scientists are honest and arent corruptable.
I know NOOA is, didn't know NASA was. Maybe the new congress can do some budget reforming.NASA has already been turned into an arm of the AGW propaganda machine.
I think those scientists said second hand smoke doesn't cause cancer, and there isn't a shred of evidence that it does. And I doubt the petrochemical industry ever claimed their products are not toxic. That's just outright bullshit.The funny and ironic thing about liberal thinking is that they are frightened by the possibility that a CORPORATION (gasp) could influence science, but a government consisting of politicians have nothing but selflessness and goodness in mind.
Yes, when the tobacco industry pays "scientists" to say that smoking doesn't cause cancer when the science is clear that it does, it does frighten me. It also makes me angry, as it should you. And when the petrochemical industry tries to tell me that their products don't hurt anyone, all I have to do is point to their own facilities and their products, and show people the results of their actions.
I don't know how old you are but I'm old enough to remember when tobacco companies got a whole bunch of scientists and doctors to claim that there was no link to cancer from cigarettes. That was a long time ago.
It's hilarious to me that he brought that up because I've used that example to counter left wing nut claims that scientists are honest and arent corruptable.
A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.
Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.
Right?
Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.
Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.
None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.
A government run by politicians and controlled by PACs is good and true. They would never tamper with data to achieve the results they and their money sources want. They would never organize a campaign of intimidation in either scientific circles or the media, no no that's not how politicians do things.
Politicians, the PACs that pay them, and the government that they run only functions for the common good of the people. Never would those good and honest souls ever concider anything underhanded.
Right?
Do you have any evidence that politicians and PACS are altering climate data to achieve some kind of agenda? No? Well, alrighty then.
Tons of evidence has been posted in this forum ad nauseum.
None of it on the denier side published in any peer reviewed scientific journals. Probably because they would have to show their work, eh? Next.
I know NOOA is, didn't know NASA was. Maybe the new congress can do some budget reforming.NASA has already been turned into an arm of the AGW propaganda machine.
