http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5184

After all, this $15 million is important, but the $100 million that is laundered for Soros and Bennett by the Tides group every year is not important.

I have my own theory. First we need to set the stage. One of two things is true, either human activity causes global warming or it does not. Either way we have two choices, either we choose to reduce carbon output or we choose not to. We are assuming that global warming would suck for us, if we assume otherwise then the point is moot. If global warming does not suck then we have nothing to argue about.

It's even more complicated than that. First, either human activity causes climate change or not. (I think virtually everyone agrees yes, as a concept.) Next, either human activity causes significant climate change or not. This one is much, much more debatable, even among climatologists. Next, either that significant change is something that the climate doesn't already compensate for as part of it's normal feedback loops or it isn't. Finally, either the change is something that is harmful for human life, or not.

If we hit "not" on any of those, then we are wasting our time with climate change carbon nonsense. That isn't to say that we shit on the ecology -- no one likes to live in filth. However, we do need to recognize that "green" is a luxury, and one that frankly most of the world can't afford. American and European poor are rich, compared to the poor in... well, any place that isn't America or Europe. The rest of the world's poor need electricity, healthy water, medicine, and transportation any way they can get it.

Frankly, at this point, to impose any sort of "carbon" standards on any part of the world is tantamount to genocide, because the economic costs associated with it contribute directly to the starvation and disease related deaths in Africa and Asia.

A better reason why there has been little "action" on climate change is that it is all based on bad science with no reliable predictions and constant falsification.

It is extortion, and here's where they are playing with fire -- they don't enjoy qualified immunity regarding the arrests like the police do, so as soon as someone beats one of these "citations", then the airport and the individual are liable for damages in a lawsuit by the falsely accused person.

Europe has a lot of practices that aren't abided by a free people.

The police are already complaining in America that they can't catch "drunk" drivers at .08. Why? Because at .08 your driving isn't impaired enough to show in your driving. "We need random stops/checkpoints/whatever because we can't catch the people between .08 and .1." Dropping it to .05 is a complete waste of time and just a sop to the cops who want to arrest people (or let them go) on a whim.

NorK Man in the Middle attack in 3... 2...

Yes. The study only counted cultures that were grown from swabs of the bag. They were viable, transferable bacteria.

It's been tested:

http://www.llu.edu/public-health/news/news-grocery-bags-bacteria.page

Half the bags tested positive for coliform -- you know, that bacteria that are transmitted through human shit.

Already tested:

http://www.llu.edu/public-health/news/news-grocery-bags-bacteria.page

Surprise! The bags are filthy.

That is when cross contamination comes in. Congratulations, that infected package didn't get you this week. Guess what, though? It's still on the bag, so now your new groceries are also contaminated. Luckily, though, you made it by again! Week 3 -- cross contaminated by the bag AGAIN. Oh, and this week was extra stressful at work, and your immune system is a little weaker... and now this opportunistic bacteria can get a foot hold. But, hey, your widow can feel good about you not impacting the global carbon footprint anymore, right?

"You have died of dysentery."

In all fairness, liberalism only endangers the lives of poor people, not humans in general. Wealthy people have the means to deal with all the feel-goodism liberals spawn, while poor people just have to hope that they don't starve to death before the increase in disease kills their whole village.

There is no transparency with Tides. The organization was formed to launder grants and donations. Grants are made and earmarked for certain purposes, but the original donor is obscured and hidden behind the confidentiality of the Tides Foundation.

If you believe in transparency as a democratic ideal, then the Tides Foundation is your mortal enemy.

Sure. The problem is, $120 million is nothing compared to what the Tides Foundation has laundered and funneled to universities and "think tanks."

Pass your law, and then we can have the FBI raid Tides in San Fran, and pretty much every "climatologist" in the country can be behind bars.