Should Obama prosecute climate change skeptics

[BoilerMadness]

I don't read, but I have an opinion.

Thanks Ms. Kardashian.

There you go again, making a fool of yourself. You don't do a very good job of reading or comprehending my posts, yet you are full of erroneous opinions about them. I think your ass just got a little wider, Ms Kardashian. Perhaps if you remove your head, it will revert to just being bodacious.

I'm sure everyone on here has read the latest research on plant migration. You probably think it's on the NYT Best Seller list. Get serious!!

 

[BoilerMadness]

This is a perfect example.

You have no idea how measurements are taken but you know they are wrong.

It is like SC asking about temp readings with no knowledge of stations, floats, sat readings, etc...

You fellows have no idea what is actually going on, not with the climate, but with the science.

That doesn't stop you from repeating a talking point, though.

Are you embarrassed? Even a little bit?

You ought to be embarrassed about your lack of reading comprehension. You have your little agenda and you're not letting anything get in your way.

You've been blasting everything I've written, without bothering to actually read it. You're just on an insane rant, because I suggested earlier, that you felt entitled. Get over yourself. SC and I have asked legitimate questions, which BB has made the effort to answer. You, on the other hand, have ranted at both of us, because we ASKED QUESTIONS. One can only assume, that you THINK you know everything, so you have never asked a question in your life, because, in your twisted mind, one can't ask a question unless he knows everything about the subject matter first. Grow up, please....

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

You ought to be embarrassed about your lack of reading comprehension. You have your little agenda and you're not letting anything get in your way.

You've been blasting everything I've written, without bothering to actually read it. You're just on an insane rant, because I suggested earlier, that you felt entitled. Get over yourself. SC and I have asked legitimate questions, which BB has made the effort to answer. You, on the other hand, have ranted at both of us, because we ASKED QUESTIONS. One can only assume, that you THINK you know everything, so you have never asked a question in your life, because, in your twisted mind, one can't ask a question unless he knows everything about the subject matter first. Grow up, please....

The same scientists that are paid by the Queen of England through British Petroleum that she owns personally most of the stock laughing at everyone, they are planning to create an Oxygen atmosphere on Mars. Haha... they tell all the little dummies in these public colleges one thing, and then submit academic research papers to the Ivy League or private colleges where they insult laugh stomp the public while they do a 180 and say on yes we need CO2 machines on Mars.

A TOTAL STOMP IN THE FACE TO THE PUBLIC.
The same heating effect could be reproduced on Mars by setting up hundreds of these factories. Their sole purpose would be to pump out CFCs, methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These greenhouse-gas factories would either have to be ferried to Mars or made out of materials already located on Mars, which would take years to process. In order to transport these machines to Mars, they would have to be lightweight and efficient. These greenhouse machines would mimic the natural process of plant photosynthesis, inhaling carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. It would take many years, but the Mars atmosphere would slowly be oxygenated to the point that Mars colonists would need only a breathing-assistance apparatus, and not a pressure suit as worn by astronauts. Photosynthetic bacteria could also be used in place of or in addition to these greenhouse machines.

 

[BoilerJS]

I don't trust scientific organizations with a political agenda. Which, unfortunately, is most of em nowadays.

I am very aware that there are various fingerprints that point to a warming planet. But, so what, I could find various fingerprints that pointed to a cooling planet. Again, the climate always changes, that's what climates do. Prove that man is causing it and that its going to be catastrophic. Sorry, but you can't do that, not even close. When you're only looking for one thing, you will always be able to find things to justify it. Where is your skepticism? Where is any skepticism on the enviros side?

Again, even those great agencies, filled with some very smart people I'm sure, are corrupted by politics. If you don't believe that, sorry, we'll have to agree to disagree.

I've seen all the data, trust me I've looked at this from multiple viewpoints. There is nothing there that is indicative of anything. I don't get bogged down by data to the point I can't see the forest for the trees.

We don't need "complete" understanding, but we arent even close. Determinations are being made with only a couple hundred years of even somewhat reliable data about a climate that has been changing for billions of years. Sorry, I'm not dumb enough to think that's significant.

I dont know what to say to somebody that doesnt think science should deal in "proof" Theories are different than reality. Just because you can make a theory doesnt make you a scientist.

I understand it's easier to stay in your bubble than to talk rationally with people like me, but that should tell you something about you not me. Ignore me, mock me all you like. Unlike you sensitive types it doesnt bother me much. I care more about being right than being accepted.

Of course man is the cause of global warming. No coincidence the glaciers started melting, once man mastered fire, some 15,000 years ago. Seriously, I am more concerned about the survival of mankind when the climate starts cooling again. Who feeds the world once again the bread basket of the world is again under 2 1/2 miles of ice?
That said we still need to be as environmentally friendly as possible. This is the only home we have.

 

[BoilerJS]

HAHA.... republican talking point? That is a 1st grade science book. You got to love these people that are so invested in their lies that they now call photosynthesis a conspiracy theory. They are so invested in the lie that all reality is now a conspiracy theory. If you say anything true it is a conspiracy theory because they gotta have their one word government. I was also reading their white papers at Penn State, some of those emails that got hacked. You just finely illustrated one of their tactics is that they take something so incredibly basic and simple and use that fancy word trick to paint over the moronic minds of the public that doesn't even know what CO2 is or H2O. You tell the public is water good and they'll say yes. You tell the public should we ban H2O because it is a toxic chemical and they'll have a law passed tomorrow because they're such nincompoops they can't understand what H2O means. They like to use those fancy words to confuse the moron heads in public dummy classes at all these nelly schools with a simpering slob as a teacher. Without CO2 ALL life on Earth would die. Life cannot exist without CO2. And the government is trying to tell you that it is more evil than Satan. Now there is no sugar coating that or sidestepping here. That is undeniable. They are an occupational organization here to conduit the United States under foreign rule through a world government and their program is to put their world tax over the economy forever, and that will be a tax to breathe. As plants produce oxygen by digesting CO2. CO2 is what plants breathe. Does that register in your brain? The MAGNITUDE of that? What is even more amazing is that it was the United Nations that established CO2 as bad under the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) and now they say a global carbon tax paid to them is their proposal. That is how dumb the masses are. If you were going to try and put an atmosphere on Mars the first thing scientists would do is find away to produce carbon dioxide. That is what is so amazing. They say on Earth it is evil, but you read those same authors in some cases, the ones at the Ivy League colleges that are on the take to lie, they write in their academic papers that the key to establishing an atmosphere on Mars is to line the planet with CO2.

They tell you CO2 is evil while they laugh at you in their Ivy League white papers. It is such an insult to all you dummied up global warming ninnies. Man have they made you their minions.


THEY LAUGH AT YOU GUYS
The same heating effect could be reproduced on Mars by setting up hundreds of these factories. Their sole purpose would be to pump out CFCs, methane, carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gases into the atmosphere.

These greenhouse-gas factories would either have to be ferried to Mars or made out of materials already located on Mars, which would take years to process. In order to transport these machines to Mars, they would have to be lightweight and efficient. These greenhouse machines would mimic the natural process of plant photosynthesis, inhaling carbon dioxide and emitting oxygen. It would take many years, but the Mars atmosphere would slowly be oxygenated to the point that Mars colonists would need only a breathing-assistance apparatus, and not a pressure suit as worn by astronauts. Photosynthetic bacteria could also be used in place of or in addition to these greenhouse machines.

Mars is missing a magnetic field that would keep its atmosphere from being stripped away by the suns radiation. A biosphere that protects life from sudden bursts of radiation emitted by the sun, is the only place, on Mars plants would survive. Regardless there isn't enough water on Mars to sustain vegetation growth as found on Earth.

 

[BoilerMadness]

Of course man is the cause of global warming. No coincidence the glaciers started melting, once man mastered fire, some 15,000 years ago. Seriously, I am more concerned about the survival of mankind when the climate starts cooling again. Who feeds the world once again the bread basket of the world is again under 2 1/2 miles of ice?
That said we still need to be as environmentally friendly as possible. This is the only home we have.

I agree wholeheartedly. An Ice Age would be far more devastating to man and the planet, than GW.

I also agree, that we should be environmentally friendly and it would be nice if the rest of the world shared that view as well. Right now, the US is like a nice house next to a toxic dump (China, India, Russia). No matter what you do, the toxic fumes from next door can still take their toll on you.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Mars is missing a magnetic field that would keep its atmosphere from being stripped away by the suns radiation. A biosphere that protects life from sudden bursts of radiation emitted by the sun, is the only place, on Mars plants would survive. Regardless there isn't enough water on Mars to sustain vegetation growth as found on Earth.

Plants need CO2. They were designed by God to breathe in CO2 so that they in turn can produce Oxygen. The United Nations is the group that started this propaganda about CO2. They are telling Americans to pay themselves your money. Animals exhale CO2 out of their bodies. Human bodies were designed to exhale CO2. Plants were designed to inhale CO2. Plants exhale Oxygen. Animals inhale Oxygen. The government is telling the world CO2 is evil. The same scientists Ford Foundation pays to lie, on the take, they write white papers to the Ivy League about how in oder to build their off world breakaway civilization they need to transport CO2 machines to Mars so that they can create an Oxygen environment there. That is how dumb they think Americans are. That they will tax humans to breathe the air that the Earth was formed to feed animals. The MAGNITUDE of that. We are talking 1st grade science here. 1st grade science while the TV acts like it is a conspiracy theory. That is how bad Americans have fallen. If a government was trying to exterminate the world they'd put a tax on CO2. That is the point. Do you realize how evil it is to make a religion about hating CO2? All life on earth would die without CO2 on this planet.

What gets me is these scientists were caught at Penn State forging the research. Forged research. Out in the open. Reputation assassination funds. Forged articles to contradict real science. And all over CO2. Believe me, if there is anything I can't wrap my head around it is how nobody can pick up a 1st grade science book and lookup the fact that CO2 is what plants breathe. Ask someone random. Anyone. Say man its hot today. Global warming. Then say all of these greenhouse gases. Doesn't CO2 kill plants? These people will say yes and get violently angry if you tell them plants need CO2 to produce Oxygen. That's not a joke. That is who these people are. Its incredible. With unlimited information on the internet, most people that believe in global warming think that CO2 is what they use to exterminate plants. It is simply amazing. Then you try and tell them did you know your body exhales CO2. They will literally call that a conspiracy. It is worse than idiocracy.

 

[Bill4411]

The planet has changed radically in the last 150 years. We didn't have herbicides or pesticides of any consequence until the middle of the 20th century and there used to be bugs galore in the summer-remember how your windshields were just covered with them in the summer. We have killed the majority of them off, which is changing the ecology. Is that bad? I don't know but we are making those changes at a pretty rapid rate. We have decreased the world's rain forests in the last 150 years by at least half, which I always understood was the chief means of converting CO2 back into oxygen and we had a global equilibrium due to it since human history has began. Is global warming bad? I don't know. I think we are hasting the ice caps to melt by some of our activities and Greenland may one day live up to it's name and be a great place to live but we had a mini-ice age in Europe in the middle ages, which is why they had to quit raising grapes and had to go start producing beer instead of wine at least in Northern Europe and man had no bearing on its occurrence.

So the earth is always changing but I think we need to know what we are doing before we completely screw up our environment but with the growing world wide population we need to keep our technologies advancing. We do have better herbicides and pesticides than in the 50's because for one thing those older herbicides were getting into the water table and the water was not going to be drinkable if we didn't change how they were manufactured. So, it's pretty dumb to totally discount research and trying to adapt your technology so you don't have long term disasters for example asbestos mining. I had a friend that used to live around Chernobyl and you know how well that turned out--just another gift by Russia to the Ukraine. I think the no-GMO movement is just plain stupid but it still needs to be monitored as I don't want some idiot introducing a plant that can't be contained and becomes some noxious week that can't be controlled. Modern technology is wonderful but it needs to monitored just as man's activities regarding potentially changing the temperature of the planet. However, all bets are off if we have another massive comet or asteroid hit the earth-then we all will probably die very quickly and that may be, if you are really lucky.

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

The planet has changed radically in the last 150 years. We didn't have herbicides or pesticides of any consequence until the middle of the 20th century and there used to be bugs galore in the summer-remember how your windshields were just covered with them in the summer. We have killed the majority of them off, which is changing the ecology. Is that bad? I don't know but we are making those changes at a pretty rapid rate. We have decreased the world's rain forests in the last 150 years by at least half, which I always understood was the chief means of converting CO2 back into oxygen and we had a global equilibrium due to it since human history has began. Is global warming bad? I don't know. I think we are hasting the ice caps to melt by some of our activities and Greenland may one day live up to it's name and be a great place to live but we had a mini-ice age in Europe in the middle ages, which is why they had to quit raising grapes and had to go start producing beer instead of wine at least in Northern Europe and man had no bearing on its occurrence.

So the earth is always changing but I think we need to know what we are doing before we completely screw up our environment but with the growing world wide population we need to keep our technologies advancing. We do have better herbicides and pesticides than in the 50's because for one thing those older herbicides were getting into the water table and the water was not going to be drinkable if we didn't change how they were manufactured. So, it's pretty dumb to totally discount research and trying to adapt your technology so you don't have long term disasters for example asbestos mining. I had a friend that used to live around Chernobyl and you know how well that turned out--just another gift by Russia to the Ukraine. I think the no-GMO movement is just plain stupid but it still needs to be monitored as I don't want some idiot introducing a plant that can't be contained and becomes some noxious week that can't be controlled. Modern technology is wonderful but it needs to monitored just as man's activities regarding potentially changing the temperature of the planet. However, all bets are off if we have another massive comet or asteroid hit the earth-then we all will probably die very quickly and that may be, if you are really lucky.

Would it be bad for scientists at Penn State to FAKE research that proves the Earth is not warming at all? Would it be bad for the government so spray the skies with Chemtrails? Would it be bad for the government to run an extermination front company called Monsanto that makes all those herbicides and pesticides that are in our food? Would it be bad for the government to dump fluoride in the US water supply to attack the US public and ready them for takeover and thrashings? Why is it that those are the same people asking the US ninny stomped public to pay them taxes in their offshore accounts at the UN as they lavish themselves in the ignorance of America? They are telling America that plants are Earth murderers because they need CO2. And that humans are worse than evil for exhaling CO2. Dam them horses and farm animals. They feed plants what is needed to produce oxygen. And Al Gore gets up there and lavishes himself with all America's money filthy rich styled. The filthy rich are the ones pushing this. That is what is so abhorrent. They steal all of America's money and now they say they are our hero and that we need to pay them a tax to breathe. That is so evil that it is beyond the scope of the English language to even define. Words cannot describe the level of evil of this plan. These people have 5 castles and private jets and average 10 kids practically. Then tell all the servile slaves that they need to pay them a tax to breathe and surrender all their money to a UN bank account.

It is the kind of fraud that isn't even believable in the most despotic science fiction movie EVER. And it is so sniveling of a fraud. It is such an embarrassment to the country.

Yep it is true. The country has been stupid stomped.

 

[JoeZap]

Apparently 20 pro climate change scientists wrote a letter the President Obama urging him to use the RICO laws to fine and jail climate change skeptics. Do you think this ia an appropriate prosecution or is it violating free speech? Do you believe in free speech anymore? Is free speech obsolete? http://www.breitbart.com/big-govern...-alarmists-obama-use-rico-laws-jail-skeptics/

Fact: Over the course of earth history, CO2 in the atmosphere has ranged between ~200 ppm (ice age) and ~520 ppm (precambrian).
Current CO2 is 370 ppm. That's parts per million.
Fact: In the historic graphs of earth temperature, rises in CO2 lagged earth temperature by 50 to 70 years. This make sense. As the
permafrost receded, life spread to cover more of the planet. More life, more CO2.
Fact: The first belief in man induced global warming was developed in a laboratory. They compared the temperature changes in two
class boxes. One contained CO2 and the other O2 and N2. The CO2 box got hotter. This was a closed system. Our atmosphere
is an open system. One was 100% CO2. The other contained No CO2. No comparison.
Fact: Satellite thermography shows yearly average temperatures rose an insignificant amount between 1978 and 1998. The difference
between the two years was 1.08 degrees F. The difference between 1998 and 2015 is NEGATIVE 0.36 degrees F. The year to
year standard deviation is ~ 1.75 degrees F.
Fact: The human body respirates 1.5 tons of CO2 a year. Even if the US shut down its entire industrial complex and went 100%
renewable fuels, population growth would replace that lost production is a year.
Fact: H2O has a 10000 times the effect on global temperature as CO2.
Fact: ~93 million miles away from the earth, there is this big ball of nuclear fire that has multi-year cycles. Sunspot cycles, solar flare
cycles. etc
Fact: The survey of scientists that is used to claim 97% agreement on climate change, included 110 supposed climate experts, 90 from
the US. Every one of their livelihoods depends upon government / UN grants. Follow the money.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Fact: Over the course of earth history, CO2 in the atmosphere has ranged between ~200 ppm (ice age) and ~520 ppm (precambrian).
Current CO2 is 370 ppm. That's parts per million.
Fact: In the historic graphs of earth temperature, rises in CO2 lagged earth temperature by 50 to 70 years. This make sense. As the
permafrost receded, life spread to cover more of the planet. More life, more CO2.
Fact: The first belief in man induced global warming was developed in a laboratory. They compared the temperature changes in two
class boxes. One contained CO2 and the other O2 and N2. The CO2 box got hotter. This was a closed system. Our atmosphere
is an open system. One was 100% CO2. The other contained No CO2. No comparison.
Fact: Satellite thermography shows yearly average temperatures rose an insignificant amount between 1978 and 1998. The difference
between the two years was 1.08 degrees F. The difference between 1998 and 2015 is NEGATIVE 0.36 degrees F. The year to
year standard deviation is ~ 1.75 degrees F.
Fact: The human body respirates 1.5 tons of CO2 a year. Even if the US shut down its entire industrial complex and went 100%
renewable fuels, population growth would replace that lost production is a year.
Fact: H2O has a 10000 times the effect on global temperature as CO2.
Fact: ~93 million miles away from the earth, there is this big ball of nuclear fire that has multi-year cycles. Sunspot cycles, solar flare
cycles. etc
Fact: The survey of scientists that is used to claim 97% agreement on climate change, included 110 supposed climate experts, 90 from
the US. Every one of their livelihoods depends upon government / UN grants. Follow the money.

Fact: Many folks in this thread, including you, would benefit from an earth science class.
Fact: Your "facts" are either disingenuous or completely false
Fact: You'll continue to post/talk about this issue as if you know what you're talking about. You don't.

 

[JoeZap]

Fact: Many folks in this thread, including you, would benefit from an earth science class.
Fact: Your "facts" are either disingenuous or completely false
Fact: You'll continue to post/talk about this issue as if you know what you're talking about. You don't.

So you have contributed nothing to this discussion and you feel you can come on here and insult people to prove your nonexistant point? Brilliant!!!!!! NOT

 

[qazplm]

So you have contributed nothing to this discussion and you feel you can come on here and insult people to prove your nonexistant point? Brilliant!!!!!! NOT

LMAO he's repeatedly tried, quite frankly more than he should have, to provide links/evidence/facts and folks like you ignore it all. So the fact that this particular time he's not bothered with, again, laying it all out doesn't mean "he's contributed nothing to this discussion."

What it does mean is that he's realized that folks like you come on and will continuously pump out the same things, no matter how much or how many times he and others debunk it, you'll just pause, then repost the same things again.

Like the idea that only climate scientists paid for by the government deserve skepticism because somehow they won't be employed unless they say there is human-causes climate change, but other climate scientists funded by other entities don't. So basically, unless you are a scientist working for free, we should just "follow the money" right?

I mean countries all over the world are spending a lot of money to rein in greenhouse gases and do other things to reduce global warming...clearly all of them are just wasting money on a boondoggle because...well I'm sure it's all about socialism or something.

Or the ridiculous idea that you simply compare one year to another separated by decades, and if that one year is close to the other then there is no real meaningful change in global warming. That clearly makes more sense than looking at the entire period, because if you did that you'd see a pretty clear straight line going up despite small year to year fluctuations...and clearly that's just more scientists cooking the books for that fat government money right?

Thankfully we have all the climate scientists funded by oil companies to keep things in line.

http://www.shell.com/global/environment-society/environment/climate-change.html
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/10/17/b...imate-change-un.html?partner=rss&emc=rss&_r=0
http://www.spokesman.com/stories/2015/oct/16/oil-companies-pledge-support-for-paris-climate-dea/
http://www.csmonitor.com/Environmen...l-Oil-president-Global-warming-debate-is-over

 

[Jedifick]

Haha Every time i come onto the gen. discussion board there is always two leftist children spewing every media message they bought into that week. Ecouch and qazplm, keep doing you. Didnt a top panel of scientists just brief the UN a week ago about climate change being a hoax? Pretty sure the top NASA meteorologist was on thay panel, but could be wrong.

 

[qazplm]

Haha Every time i come onto the gen. discussion board there is always two leftist children spewing every media message they bought into that week. Ecouch and qazplm, keep doing you. Didnt a top panel of scientists just brief the UN a week ago about climate change being a hoax? Pretty sure the top NASA meteorologist was on thay panel, but could be wrong.

Go ahead and provide us with the link where a "top panel of scientists" briefed the UN that "climate change was a hoax" and that they included the top NASA meterologist.

Should take you all of two seconds to find such ground-breaking information because it should be all over the internet and news.

 

[qazplm]

So I searched for anything concerning the UN and global warming in the last week, and this is what I found:

http://www.theguardian.com/environm...fresh-focus-on-climate-solutions-not-problems

Nothing on hoax, nothing on top NASA meterologist.
By the way here's the NASA link on climate change, apparently the "top meterologist" wasn't consulted:

http://climate.nasa.gov/

I'll let you google who the "top meterologist" actually is, and what his views on climate change actually are, but suffice to say, it ain't what you think.

So yes "you could be wrong."

 

[IlluminatiEXPOSETHEMNOW1]

Haha Every time i come onto the gen. discussion board there is always two leftist children spewing every media message they bought into that week. Ecouch and qazplm, keep doing you. Didnt a top panel of scientists just brief the UN a week ago about climate change being a hoax? Pretty sure the top NASA meteorologist was on thay panel, but could be wrong.

You got to love those people though. Al Gore said that Florida was going to be underwater. Then he goes out and buys a castle on Miami Beach. It is abhorrent these people. They tell you that Carbon Dioxide is evil when plants breathe it in. I mean imagine the magnitude of that. That their lie contradicts 1st grade science. Science considered so basic, so true, so engrained into the basis of all science, that a 1st grader can understand it. Human exhale Carbon. Plant breathe. Plant exhale Oxygen. Human breathe Oxygen. And then the leftists say it is a conspiracy theory. I mean you couldn't put that in a non-fiction horror film it is so unbelievable 20 years ago. Now publicly elected people think the public is so dumb that they'll actually believe it.

I mean IMAGINE how dumb these leftist people must be. Can you imagine how this spray painted hair gaggle of people that froth their liberal ideology on everyone must actually be to believe carbon dioxide is evil because plants need it, and that it is bad for the environment when we can't have oxygen without it. It is twilight zone level.

1st grade science is now a conspiracy theory

 

[ecouch]

Haha Every time i come onto the gen. discussion board there is always two leftist children spewing every media message they bought into that week. Ecouch and qazplm, keep doing you. Didnt a top panel of scientists just brief the UN a week ago about climate change being a hoax? Pretty sure the top NASA meteorologist was on thay panel, but could be wrong.

I have finally found one of those Trump/Carson poll voters.

 

[Jedifick]

Please tell me these guys arent Purdue alums. I have faith that we'd never accept someone with the intelligence of a 12 year old, but ive been wrong before. Still holding out hope that they are iu grads.

I feel sorry for anyone that will back a candidate (or policies) that can look you straight in the eyes and lie to your face. Says something about a kid that accepts that fate.

 

[ecouch]

Please tell me these guys arent Purdue alums. I have faith that we'd never accept someone with the intelligence of a 12 year old, but ive been wrong before. Still holding out hope that they are iu grads.

I feel sorry for anyone that will back a candidate (or policies) that can look you straight in the eyes and lie to your face. Says something about a kid that accepts that fate.

Trump or Carson?

 

[qazplm]

Please tell me these guys arent Purdue alums. I have faith that we'd never accept someone with the intelligence of a 12 year old, but ive been wrong before. Still holding out hope that they are iu grads.

I feel sorry for anyone that will back a candidate (or policies) that can look you straight in the eyes and lie to your face. Says something about a kid that accepts that fate.

lol yeah, like when Carson lied about being associated with that whackjob "medical" outfit then it turned out he had a contract with them to promote them.

You are so right.