https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=ch...definition

 

Note the word SECRET.


 

My INTENT was to show that Global Warming Climate Change is a political topic. But you are right in saying that SCOTUS would twist someone's actual intent to get the result they wanted.


 

Admit you were wrong. There's no shame.

 

 

Wow, so it's a political topic and not a conspiracy, because it's out in the open that NASA and other agencies want to take over the world using climate change?  Oh wow, Malabar.  Just wow!

 

What exactly about their evil plot is out in the open? What should I be seeing that I'm missing here?

---

Wow, so it's a political topic and not a conspiracy, because it's out in the open that NASA and other agencies want to take over the world using climate change?  Oh wow, Malabar.  Just wow!

 

What exactly about their evil plot is out in the open? What should I be seeing that I'm missing here?

 

Where did I say NASA and other agencies wanted to take over the world? My original post was about UN officials acting out of self interest. Don't you think that it benefits a UN bureaucrat to expand her realm?


 

And using NASA as a whole is disingenuous. A small group of people working under the NASA umbrella are involved in Global Warming Climate Change. There are plenty of NASA people who don't buy it, but they aren't the ones depending on getting paid because of the supposed crisis.


 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/04/11...18017.html

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

So it is a conspiracy?  Or it isn't a conspiracy?  I'm getting really confused.

 

I mean, can conspiracies be hidden in plain sight?  That's your implication isn't it?

 

Seriously, how can you deny that you are refuting the vast majority of scientific research, then talk about conspiracy, and then hide behind the fact that the conspiracy is out in the open so therefore it's not a conspiracy?

 

It's hurting my brain trying to follow your defense of something you should just admit you said, and were wrong about.  

 

 

“NASA sponsors research into many areas of cutting-edge scientific inquiry, including the relationship between carbon dioxide and climate," the agency's chief scientist, Dr. Waleed Abdalati, told The Huffington Post in an email. "As an agency, NASA does not draw conclusions and issue 'claims' about research findings. We support open scientific inquiry and discussion...If the authors of this letter disagree with specific scientific conclusions made public by NASA scientists, we encourage them to join the debate in the scientific literature or public forums rather than restrict any discourse.”

---

When did liberals stop believing in the new world order? It's been talked about in open for decades?

---

When did liberals stop believing in the new world order? It's been talked about in open for decades?

Say what now?

---

When did liberals stop believing in the new world order? It's been talked about in open for decades?

You mean... the Conspiracy Theory?  


Don't tell me you also believe Jet fuel doesn't met steel, and that We never landed on the moon.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Say what now?

Just about every president since FDR has referenced a new world order. For the longest time it was liberals that rallied against a new world order as numerous republican presidents referenced a new world order.


To pretend the momentum towards a global currency and government doesn't exist is to deny reality post ww2. It's not a conspiracy if their talking about it in the public arena.

---

You mean... the Conspiracy Theory?


Don't tell me you also believe Jet fuel doesn't met steel, and that We never landed on the moon.

We landed on the moon the real question is why we stopped going to the moon. Or out of earths orbit for 40 years.


And jet fuel doesn't melt steel.

---

When did liberals stop believing in the new world order? It's been talked about in open for decades?

You've lost your mind if you think hw Bush was a liberal.

---

You've lost your mind if you think hw Bush was a liberal.

No I said it was liberals that openly opposed the New world order talk when Bush Sr was president. And Bush Sr wasn't liberal but he was a big government republican just a different shade of authoritarian to me.

---

No I said it was liberals that openly opposed the New world order talk when Bush Sr was president. And Bush Sr wasn't liberal but he was a big government republican just a different shade of authoritarian to me.

Only things I remember about Bush Sr. were:


"Read My Lips: Go To Texas"

He didn't like Broccoli (3rd best Vegetable after Potatoes and Corn tbh)

Gulf War

Norman Schwarzkopf

His son was President, and his other son plans on running for President (Or at least he plans on planning on running)

 

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Only things I remember about Bush Sr. were:


"Read My Lips: Go To Texas"

He didn't like Broccoli (3rd best Vegetable after Potatoes and Corn tbh)

Gulf War

Norman Schwarzkopf

His son was President, and his other son plans on running for President (Or at least he plans on planning on running)

I'll find the video there's a video of all the times our presidents have referred to a new world order. Point is it's not a conspiracy there has been an open push by the political class to establish a new world order for a long time.

---

Only things I remember about Bush Sr. were:


"Read My Lips: Go To Texas"

He didn't like Broccoli (3rd best Vegetable after Potatoes and Corn tbh)

Gulf War

Norman Schwarzkopf

His son was President, and his other son plans on running for President (Or at least he plans on planning on running)

 

 

Jeb Bush announced his candidacy two weeks ago.  

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Jeb Bush announced his candidacy two weeks ago.  

Well excuse me for not keeping up with the 200 republican nominees   

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Well excuse me for not keeping up with the 200 republican nominees   

 

Let's not exaggerate. There are only 192. 

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Well excuse me for not keeping up with the 200 republican nominees   

 

Well it was broadcast on the "evil" FOX News network as well as CNN.  Not sure if MSNBC or The Daily Show covered it, so perhaps that's why you didn't know.   :thumbsup:

---

There are 10 kinds of people in this world.  Those who understand binary and those who don't.

Well it was broadcast on the "evil" FOX News network as well as CNN.  Not sure if MSNBC or The Daily Show covered it, so perhaps that's why you didn't know.   :thumbsup:

Did you know studies have shown that people who exclusively watch FoxNews actually know less about the world than if they didn't watch any news at all? That's means you get more straight talk standing around the water cooler at work than you do from everybody's favorite 24 hr infotainment broadcasting. Also, did you know that the Daily Show is actually one of the best sources of actual news around?


Anyways, more shenanigans from the corporate right:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://wtop.com/dc/2015/06/smithsonian-to-improve-ethics-policies-on-research-funding/'>http://wtop.com/dc/2015/06/smithsonian-to-improve-ethics-policies-on-research-funding/</a>

---

Well it was broadcast on the "evil" FOX News network as well as CNN.  Not sure if MSNBC or The Daily Show covered it, so perhaps that's why you didn't know.   :thumbsup:

 

The Daily Show isn't bad for news actually.  Just like FOX isn't bad for comedy.  But I digress.  Some of us don't follow the presidential primaries when nothing is going on.  Especially when the first primary isn't for another 6 months.  We're going to be oversaturated with these candidates to the point where the debates will be pointless.

---

I was wrong about Trent Baalke. 

Did you know studies have shown that people who exclusively watch FoxNews actually know less about the world than if they didn't watch any news at all? That's means you get more straight talk standing around the water cooler at work than you do from everybody's favorite 24 hr infotainment broadcasting. Also, did you know that the Daily Show is actually one of the best sources of actual news around?


Anyways, more shenanigans from the corporate right:

<a class="bbc_url" href='http://wtop.com/dc/2015/06/smithsonian-to-improve-ethics-policies-on-research-funding/'>http://wtop.com/dc/2015/06/smithsonian-to-improve-ethics-policies-on-research-funding/</a>

 

What your link doesn't say is that the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics signed an agreement with a donor that required Dr. Soon to not disclose one of the many sources of funding. The fault was with the bureaucracy of HSCA, not with Dr. Soon. Typical that a Warmist director would gloss over that fact. The director adjusted the data to fit his narrative.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"

Also, did you know that the Daily Show is actually one of the best sources of actual news around?

 

 

 

The Daily Show isn't bad for news actually.

 

So jagibelieve was right. The Daily Show is your main source for news. That's truly pathetic.


 

Game, set, match.

---

                                                                          

"Why should I give information to you when all you want to do is find something wrong with it?"