calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 they think they have the power to demand compliance and agreement.... or else. http://dailycaller.com/2016/06/27/dem-party-platform-calls-for-prosecuting-global-warming-skeptics/#ixzz4CnHHPuko Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 27, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 http://forum.axishistory.com/viewtopic.php?t=54854 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 27, 2016 Report Share Posted June 27, 2016 Well they do have a lot of time on their hands and it's probably boring looking the other way for Hillary. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Wasn't something similar done for the tobacco industry and the misleading research they funded? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Wasn't something similar done for the tobacco industry and the misleading research they funded? Not that I'm aware of. What do you think it was? And who was involved? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Posted Yesterday, 10:06 PM Wasn't something similar done for the tobacco industry and the misleading research they funded? woody ******************************************** Stop...changing....the....subjects.....of....threads. Tobacco has nothing to do with mmgw. Tobacco exists, and it is not good for you. MMGW has not been proven to exist. It's a theory. Tobacco is still called "tobacco". MMGW is now called "climate change" because climate changes, and the scandals involving the flawed theory of mmgw are legit - so is the evidence to the contrary of the flawed theory of mmgw. Therefore, mmgw is a crock. Tobacco is not a crock. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Meanwhile... lol... climate scientist says we don't need science to prove mmgw. He just sees it on TV. You betcha. What a CROCK. lol http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/michael-mann-climate-scientist-data-increasingly-u/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Meanwhile... lol... climate scientist says we don't need science to prove mmgw. He just sees it on TV. You betcha. What a CROCK. lol http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jun/27/michael-mann-climate-scientist-data-increasingly-u/ Not what he said, but alright. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Not that I'm aware of. What do you think it was? And who was involved? WSS I thought sanctions were brought against the tobacco industry for misleading statements and research. Maybe nothing came about as far as fines go. Either way, the situations are pretty similar. A big industry using money to mislead the public on the dangers of their product. By politicizing this issue we fucked up. Make it a right vs left thing and you'll have one side screaming about it, regardless of the science behind it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Regardless? If I recall correctly the tobacco industry was hit by a monstrous punitive fine for something I thought was probably a bullshit charge. Bullshit meaning that my grandmother told me when I was 5 years old tobacco was no good. I still don't get your point, are you saying Hillary should be prosecuted and fined in the same manner as the tobacco companies then? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 I was comparing the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry in their attempts to mislead the public. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 I was comparing the tobacco industry and the fossil fuel industry in their attempts to mislead the public. Fair enough. My comment was about the justice department covering for Hillary so I don't know how we got our wires crossed. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 misleading the public over tobacco was intentional by the people who sell it. Nobody is selling disagreeing over a flawed, politically ulterior motives-driven theory about climate. Now, come on, woody, stop for a moment and just stop emoting. Fraud is not the same as disagreeing with a political leftwing, UN-driven facts on both sides of the flawed theory that some demand agreement with for political gain. It started out as a political gambit. It was even admitted, by a member of the UN group, that redistribution of wealth to poor countries of the world was hopeless without acceptance of mmgw. I mean, talk about the mmgw crisis, etc etc etc, then turn around and say a rich country can pollute/contribute to mmgw all it wants, as long as it buys "carbon credits" from poor countries? How is there anybody dim enough that they don't see that as a con job? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Fair enough. My comment was about the justice department covering for Hillary so I don't know how we got our wires crossed. WSS Oh I see. I was responding to Cal, not you, even though you were the previous post. My bad. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 woody, why do you think the fossil fuel industry is misleading the public? over mmgw? that's baloney - mmgw has not been proven - it's falling apart as fast as Corelware hitting a granite walk. The misleading the public was proven in court. The questioning of the legitimacy of mmgw is absolutely required. There is lefty politics written all over it from the beginning. Tobacco never was a political question, it was a greed question. One of the tobacco companies bred the tobacco to have more and more nicotine in it - addictive...more sales. There is no aspect of that to warrant your attempted analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 woody, why do you think the fossil fuel industry is misleading the public? over mmgw? Financial gain Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Financial gain http://www.forbes.com/sites/larrybell/2011/08/23/the-alarming-cost-of-climate-change-hysteria/#6b85839e6f70 Financial gain you say? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Your link took me to Forbes main page. I have an idea what gothcha you think you just made, but ok ahead and let me know anyway. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Your link took me to Forbes main page. I have an idea what gothcha you think you just made, but ok ahead and let me know anyway.That's odd, I clicked on it and it went right to the article about the high cost of GW spending. There's money changing hands at an alarming rate and given the fact that this money is going to people whose job it is to report as to how much more money they need, well you get the idea. WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DieHardBrownsFan Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MLD Woody Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 That's odd, I clicked on it and it went right to the article about the high cost of GW spending. There's money changing hands at an alarming rate and given the fact that this money is going to people whose job it is to report as to how much more money they need, well you get the idea. WSS I don't find it a believable argument that a virtual consensus of every climate scientist and reputable scientific organization across the globe is on the take and only reporting like this because of all of that money in science... It is much more likely that multi billion dollar companies with large fortunes to lose are funding misleading studies to influence public opinion. I mean, this is already happening if you dig into the finding lists on some anti climate change reports. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Westside Steve Posted June 28, 2016 Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 You have examples of the Energy company funding studies that show there is no such thing as man-made global warming? WSS Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
calfoxwc Posted June 28, 2016 Author Report Share Posted June 28, 2016 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_scientists_opposing_the_mainstream_scientific_assessment_of_global_warming Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.