Climate Change Deniers you're as wrong as anti-vaxxers and anti-nuclear power advocates.

Why not whip out GMO's and compete the trifecta of false conflations? Fact is, nuclear power is by far the most dangerous, and by far the most expensive, power source ever invented by man. Skip the comparisons to collapsing dams, that depend on counting disasters before the widespread use of nuclear power and ignoring the vast disparity in numbers between hydro and nuclear.

Go ahead to the part where you rattle off the nuclear power plants that roll the full cost of construction, decomission, security, maintenance, disaster preparedness, insurance, and last but not least storing the waste for thousands of years into the rates charged to customers.

It's hard for this to come across as anything other than a lazy "we failed to win the argument so lets just call them names" approach.

Or, a lazy denial of the fact that you can't reason someone out of a position they didn't reason themselves into. The more you shower the anti-vaxxers with facts, the more they deny them. Not sure why anyone would continue to argue otherwise when studies have shown this to be the case, not just your lying eyes.

News at 11.

You'd still be crying "character assassination" if a pro-AGW study turned out to have been funded by Al Gore without disclosure, and was met with the same criticism? It's an apples-to-apples comparison, so you should have no problem answering a simple question with a simple monosyllabic answer.

Yes or no.

Yes or no.

Yes or no.

Asking for consistency is "character assassination" on what planet? Asking a conservative if he'd have no problem with Michael Moore covertly funding AGW studies is no more "assassination" than asking an Obama fan why she stopped having a problem with the Patriot Act after Obama was elected.

Where you dropped on the head as a child, or something?

Which part of "chemical weapons degrade over time" did you skip over, or "it's not a weapon of mass destruction if it's incapable of causing mass destruction? This is on the scale of falling out of a boat in the middle of the Pacific and insisting that water is dry, because of some link to HuffPo, which never actually says anything about WMD's.

FFS man, Hillary and a Bush are the so-far front runners for 2016. The Hillary that's been complaining that Obama hasn't bombed ISIS enough. If WMD's were found in Iraq, they would be letting you know. They're not.

Sniper is full of the later, starting with the suggestion that Kyle was in Iraq was 911, which was well-debunked a decade ago. Then suggesting that if Kyle was wrong to shoot someone, he'd end up in military prison - a farce as the U.S. made the puppet government it set up agree to give American's immunity from war crimes. But even the puppets got fed up and refused to let the U.S. go on shooting Iraqis for shits and giggles without consequence. Then there's the rationalization of murdering a woman and a boy because they were going to throw a grenade at the hostile, torturing, shoot-first-ask-questions-never army occupying their country. To use the movie's own metaphor, American forces were the wolves, and the "insurgents" were the sheepdogs trying to drive out the invaders who came on false pretenses.

Zero Dark 30 was a similar POS, for making the equally debunked claim that torture led to the successful assassination of Bin Laddin. On the other side of the coin, Selma might have won best picture if it hadn't relied on it's own historical revisionism, when it made out LBJ as being an opponent of civil rights that had to be won over into an ally. A lie, and a lazy one at that - if they wanted to throw rocks at LBJ, all they had to do was bring up Vietnam, another aggressive war of choice that MLK adamantly opposed. Which disproportionately affected black men, as they were far less likely to have the means to dodge the draft by going to college, or flee it entirely by going to Canada or Mexico.

Repeating right wing canards doesn't make them true. Sorry.

Because you'd have the same "leave the Brittney scientist alone" reaction if the situation was completely reversed. If an oft-cited study demonstrating that climate change was a real thing suddenly turned out to have been funded on the sly by Michael Moore, Al Gore, or Greenpeace, or the liberal booogyman of your choice. You'd still be calling it character assassination and wanting the science to "speak for itself."

Yup. Sure. You becha.

As to Saddam having WMDs, you apparently have not read the reports about ISIS using the WMDs which Saddam had stockpiled

This canard comes up ever time some mustard gas container from the Iran-Iraq war turns up. It's all the same BS, as chemical and biological weapons degrade over time, and it's simply not a weapon of mass destruction if it's no longer capable of mass destruction.

Period.

Otherwise, all the former Bushies would be crowing 24/7/365 that they were right to invade Iraq, and it's all you'd be hearing about from both Jeb and Hillary. But that's not the case, because this is nothing more than a wingnut fantasy.

Probably more for being pro-climate change.

How do you figure? Solar panels are pennies on the ten thousand dollar bill next to oil. Fellating Exxon is a thoroughly bipartisan endeavor - Obama has opened up more land to drilling than Bush and Cheney, including the eastern seaboard. He brags that the U.S. is producing more oil and gas than it has the ability to transport to market. Biden's son is a top executive at Ukrainian energy company. BP was allowed to savage the Gulf of Mexico and get away with paying a fraction of the costs of mitigation. Politicians from both parties fall over themselves in the rush to pledge their love of coal.

Government has a heavy bias toward fossil fuels. If there was a bias resulting from government-funded science grants, it would be against climate change, not for it.

Some of them even play for the same team - Clinton pushed through laws Reagan could have only dreamed of: NAFTA, gutting welfare, telecom deregulation, and repealing Glass-Steagall. The "mainstream media" serves the same status quo interests as Fox, and does it better. Everyone knows Sean Hannity is a chicken hawk hack, but Tim Russert on the other hand! He's got that patented tuffbutfair gravitas, which he gave away to Cheney every time he was on his show.

Remember all the complaints that it was time for OWS to start picking issues and candidates, getting involved with electoral politics? That was frustration from political operatives that OWS didn't immediately turn itself into tools of the DNC the way the Teabaggers let themselves be co-opted by the Kochs.

Lazy non-response is lazy.

Women are stuck with the consequences no mater what.

Morning after pill is "no matter what"?

Abortion is "no matter what"?

Giving the child up for adoption - with or without his consent - is "no matter what"?

Spill the load and knock her up, you're lost the choice and are still responsible for your actions

So you're going to barrel on with that double standard, regardless? How precious.

But if you think in some way she isn't bearing the brunt of the responsibility, you are completely naive.

You're completely ignoring the following 216 months with your tunnel vision on the first 9. Why is that? Do you think that responsibility for a child stops with birth?

No, they fund things that have a military application, some of which are interesting. But it's not like the good old days, when they'd fund things that were interesting, regardless of military value.

If you're going to go around reading Wikipedia pages, you may as well finish reading them before citing them.

Here's what the very same Wikipedia page says, one paragraph after the one you quoted:

The ARPANET incorporated distributed computation (and frequent re-computation) of routing tables. This was a major contribution to the good survivability that the ARPANET had, in the face of significant destruction - even by a nuclear attack. Such auto-routing was technically quite challenging to construct at the time. The fact that it was incorporated into the early ARPANET made many believe that this had been a design goal.

The ARPANET was in fact designed to survive subordinate-network losses, but the principal reason was that the switching nodes and network links were unreliable, even without any nuclear attacks. About the resource scarcity that spurred the creation of the ARPANET, Charles Herzfeld, ARPA Director (1965â"1967), said:

The ARPANET was not started to create a Command and Control System that would survive a nuclear attack, as many now claim. To build such a system was, clearly, a major military need, but it was not ARPA's mission to do this; in fact, we would have been severely criticized had we tried.

Which agrees nicely with what I said in my earlier comment.

You then went on to say:

No, they weren't the only place with money. But ARPA was founded in 1958, and it wasn't until 1973 that they were required to only spend money on defense-related projects. Before that, they had a habit of giving money to all sorts of interesting projects. JCR Licklider, an obscure, yet tremendously important person in computing history, wanted to build computer networks and was a higher-up at ARPA in the 60's. His successor was Ivan Sutherland, who should need no introduction, and Sutherland brought in Bob Taylor, who finally got a network funded and built. Since you like Wikipedia, here's a passage from Taylor's entry:

Among the computer projects that ARPA supported was time-sharing, in which many users could work at terminals to share a single large computer. Users could work interactively instead of using punched cards or punched tape in a batch processing style. Taylor's office in the Pentagon had a terminal connected to time-sharing at MIT, a terminal connected to the Berkeley Timesharing System at the University of California at Berkeley, and a third terminal to the System Development Corporation in Santa Monica, California. He noticed each system developed a community of users, but was isolated from the other communities.

Taylor hoped to build a computer network to connect the ARPA-sponsored projects together, if nothing else to let him communicate to all of them through one terminal.

When ARPA got out of the business of spending money on interesting work, the National Science Foundation was supposed to pick up the slack, but this never happened. While I can understand how some people might cast aspersions on projects that used military funding, even if they're not meant for military applications, the money spends well enough.