So the liberals believe the scientists, before they disagree with the scientists, until they agree.

Following which money? Is the global warming money part of a general fund that gets distributed throughout the world? Is that why so many governments are making contingency plans and preparations for global climate change? Everyone is evidently following some imagined money from somewhere.
You dont think scientists get research grants?

Are scientists in Europe and Asia getting research funds from the US government?
Are you really this dense?
Or do you think Europeans dismiss the whole global warming thing?

I must be extremely dense because I don't understand your question at all.
Yes you are.
Scientists compete for grant money. That grant money is doled out bya variety of sources, including and especially governments. When governments profess belief in global warming scientists understand that pro global warming views will get them more research grants than anti global warming views.
So it is a money issue.

So then you know how research is conducted everywhere, as well as knowing how science is funded in every other nation on earth.
 
Came across an interesting video clip on the anti-vaccination issue. One thing especially interesting:

Finding support among liberal, well educated communities, despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines....so why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convince the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

Interesting, isn't it? Liberals who are ignoring the fact that the science is settled and instead attribute the science to scientists following the money.

Why do liberals reject science in this case, but they rant and scream at the suggestion that funding money could also be influencing the science on global warming? I guess it's that time honored liberal tradition. They were for it before they were against it.

Your premise is flawed, therefore your argument fails.

Most anti-vaxxers are right wingers, not liberals. Just ask the leading lights of the anti-vax movement like Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul.
 
Came across an interesting video clip on the anti-vaccination issue. One thing especially interesting:

Finding support among liberal, well educated communities, despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines....so why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convince the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

Interesting, isn't it? Liberals who are ignoring the fact that the science is settled and instead attribute the science to scientists following the money.

Why do liberals reject science in this case, but they rant and scream at the suggestion that funding money could also be influencing the science on global warming? I guess it's that time honored liberal tradition. They were for it before they were against it.

Your premise is flawed, therefore your argument fails.

Most anti-vaxxers are right wingers, not liberals. Just ask the leading lights of the anti-vax movement like Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul.

It's a silly, childish argument designed to preempt the obvious; the relatively few scientists who refute global climate change are indeed following the money, corporate money.
 
That clip said there was a low rate of vaccination in Marin county, neighboring San Francisco, and Los Angeles. Exactly what percentage of liberals are represented by this one county and two towns? 1/10 of 1%? Hardly a representative amount of liberals, but probably a much higher percentage of the very wealthy . One county and two towns isn't really enough to make that kind of blanket statement about all liberals. Another right wing exaggeration FAIL.
 
You dont think scientists get research grants?

Are scientists in Europe and Asia getting research funds from the US government?
Are you really this dense?
Or do you think Europeans dismiss the whole global warming thing?

I must be extremely dense because I don't understand your question at all.
Yes you are.
Scientists compete for grant money. That grant money is doled out bya variety of sources, including and especially governments. When governments profess belief in global warming scientists understand that pro global warming views will get them more research grants than anti global warming views.
So it is a money issue.

So then you know how research is conducted everywhere, as well as knowing how science is funded in every other nation on earth.
You're rapidly reaching ass chapping proportions.
Do you dispute that a lot of scientific research is funded by grants?
Do you dispute that those giving those grants often have a bias?
Do you dispute that scientists know that if they toe the line they are more likely to get those grants?
Because this has been pretty well proven to be the case.
 
Came across an interesting video clip on the anti-vaccination issue. One thing especially interesting:

Finding support among liberal, well educated communities, despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines....so why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convince the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

Interesting, isn't it? Liberals who are ignoring the fact that the science is settled and instead attribute the science to scientists following the money.

Why do liberals reject science in this case, but they rant and scream at the suggestion that funding money could also be influencing the science on global warming? I guess it's that time honored liberal tradition. They were for it before they were against it.

Your premise is flawed, therefore your argument fails.

Most anti-vaxxers are right wingers, not liberals. Just ask the leading lights of the anti-vax movement like Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul.

It's a silly, childish argument designed to preempt the obvious; the relatively few scientists who refute global climate change are indeed following the money, corporate money.
What corporate money is involved? So you know everything about corporate grants now?
 
Are scientists in Europe and Asia getting research funds from the US government?
Are you really this dense?
Or do you think Europeans dismiss the whole global warming thing?

I must be extremely dense because I don't understand your question at all.
Yes you are.
Scientists compete for grant money. That grant money is doled out bya variety of sources, including and especially governments. When governments profess belief in global warming scientists understand that pro global warming views will get them more research grants than anti global warming views.
So it is a money issue.

So then you know how research is conducted everywhere, as well as knowing how science is funded in every other nation on earth.
You're rapidly reaching ass chapping proportions.
Do you dispute that a lot of scientific research is funded by grants?
Do you dispute that those giving those grants often have a bias?
Do you dispute that scientists know that if they toe the line they are more likely to get those grants?
Because this has been pretty well proven to be the case.

Sounds like a question you won't deal with.
 
Came across an interesting video clip on the anti-vaccination issue. One thing especially interesting:

Finding support among liberal, well educated communities, despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines....so why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convince the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

Interesting, isn't it? Liberals who are ignoring the fact that the science is settled and instead attribute the science to scientists following the money.

Why do liberals reject science in this case, but they rant and scream at the suggestion that funding money could also be influencing the science on global warming? I guess it's that time honored liberal tradition. They were for it before they were against it.

Your premise is flawed, therefore your argument fails.

Most anti-vaxxers are right wingers, not liberals. Just ask the leading lights of the anti-vax movement like Michelle Bachmann or Rand Paul.

It's a silly, childish argument designed to preempt the obvious; the relatively few scientists who refute global climate change are indeed following the money, corporate money.
What corporate money is involved? So you know everything about corporate grants now?

I know every bit as much about corporate grants as you do about how foreign governments fund research.
 
Following which money? Is the global warming money part of a general fund that gets distributed throughout the world? Is that why so many governments are making contingency plans and preparations for global climate change? Everyone is evidently following some imagined money from somewhere.

The funding money, that's what money.
 
Your premise is flawed, therefore your argument fails.

No, you just failed to identify my premise. I'm not claiming that the anti-vaccine movement is predominantly composed of liberals.
 
Came across an interesting video clip on the anti-vaccination issue. One thing especially interesting:

Finding support among liberal, well educated communities, despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines....so why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convince the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

Interesting, isn't it? Liberals who are ignoring the fact that the science is settled and instead attribute the science to scientists following the money.

Why do liberals reject science in this case, but they rant and scream at the suggestion that funding money could also be influencing the science on global warming? I guess it's that time honored liberal tradition. They were for it before they were against it.


Liberals or Democrats?

Is "liberal" in this since characterize their voting or their unwillingness to buck the status quo?
 
Like these other examples:

National Organization for Women (NOW)....but only left wing women.

National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)....but only left wing colored people.

Code Pink (anti war).... But only when a Republican is POTUS.

Left wing nutters, and they are all nutters, only like science and scientists that support their agenda. They like Climatologists these days but they haven't been liking Forensic Science lately.
 
Following which money? Is the global warming money part of a general fund that gets distributed throughout the world? Is that why so many governments are making contingency plans and preparations for global climate change? Everyone is evidently following some imagined money from somewhere.

The funding money, that's what money.

Oh, well that explains it, that clears up everything.
 
Are you really this dense?
Or do you think Europeans dismiss the whole global warming thing?

I must be extremely dense because I don't understand your question at all.
Yes you are.
Scientists compete for grant money. That grant money is doled out bya variety of sources, including and especially governments. When governments profess belief in global warming scientists understand that pro global warming views will get them more research grants than anti global warming views.
So it is a money issue.

So then you know how research is conducted everywhere, as well as knowing how science is funded in every other nation on earth.
You're rapidly reaching ass chapping proportions.
Do you dispute that a lot of scientific research is funded by grants?
Do you dispute that those giving those grants often have a bias?
Do you dispute that scientists know that if they toe the line they are more likely to get those grants?
Because this has been pretty well proven to be the case.

Sounds like a question you won't deal with.
Your deflection is noted and you are written off as a moron.
 
Following which money? Is the global warming money part of a general fund that gets distributed throughout the world? Is that why so many governments are making contingency plans and preparations for global climate change? Everyone is evidently following some imagined money from somewhere.

The funding money, that's what money.

Oh, well that explains it, that clears up everything.

It should. Sadly, I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand.
 
I must be extremely dense because I don't understand your question at all.
Yes you are.
Scientists compete for grant money. That grant money is doled out bya variety of sources, including and especially governments. When governments profess belief in global warming scientists understand that pro global warming views will get them more research grants than anti global warming views.
So it is a money issue.

So then you know how research is conducted everywhere, as well as knowing how science is funded in every other nation on earth.
You're rapidly reaching ass chapping proportions.
Do you dispute that a lot of scientific research is funded by grants?
Do you dispute that those giving those grants often have a bias?
Do you dispute that scientists know that if they toe the line they are more likely to get those grants?
Because this has been pretty well proven to be the case.

Sounds like a question you won't deal with.
Your deflection is noted and you are written off as a moron.

Being written off around here doesn't seem like much of a handicap.
 
Following which money? Is the global warming money part of a general fund that gets distributed throughout the world? Is that why so many governments are making contingency plans and preparations for global climate change? Everyone is evidently following some imagined money from somewhere.

The funding money, that's what money.

Oh, well that explains it, that clears up everything.

It should. Sadly, I don't think you have the mental capacity to understand.

I'm sure you're right, that must be the reason.
 
Came across an interesting video clip on the anti-vaccination issue. One thing especially interesting:

Finding support among liberal, well educated communities, despite science showing over and over there's no link between autism and vaccines....so why don't parents believe the scientists? Some of them are convince the government is working with the pharmaceutical industry and just want to sell vaccines.

Interesting, isn't it? Liberals who are ignoring the fact that the science is settled and instead attribute the science to scientists following the money.

Why do liberals reject science in this case, but they rant and scream at the suggestion that funding money could also be influencing the science on global warming? I guess it's that time honored liberal tradition. They were for it before they were against it.


Liberals or Democrats?

Is "liberal" in this since characterize their voting or their unwillingness to buck the status quo?


I meant WILLINGNESS
 
Does getting paid to work in your expert field automatically disqualify you from being able to give advice in that field?
 

New Topics

Forum List

Back
Top