Even if would take your explanation, what kind of mindset would shorten "this lousy excuse for a science" to "science"?
> On the other hand, the entire Heartland anti-AGW fund is smaller than the one bribe, er, "grant" paid to one NASA administrator, and a tiny drop in the bucket compared to the various government pro-AGW propaganda expenditures.
Taking into account the amount of factual results produce, I would say, the Heartland Institute receives a disproportionate amount of money.
Science, it works in the sense, that for example, that it allows us to produce rockets, which got us to the moon.
If the Heartland Institute produces something similar, then I would consider it putting it in the same league as a single NASA administrator.