Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics
John Schwartz reports at the NY Times that prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities
Its simple to get right. You didn't, and still haven't.
And yet you still haven't successfully identified either the topic of the story or who the story is centered on. If you can't comprehend something that simple it's a safe bet that you don't have a meaningful understanding of the science of climate change, which leaves you in the cargo cult enthusiast category.
Maybe you should be planting trees, it would be more useful than your post, and it would keep you out of trouble.
So you are claiming that George Soros is a climate scientiest producing climate models and studies that dispute various aspects of climate change in addition to being a currency manipulator, business man, one of the richest men in the world, and a left wing activist and financier? That is fascinating. I don't suppose you have any documentation to back that up, do you?
Nope, its the people who have to listen to the same "experts" (who mostly aren't climate scientists) repeating the same arguments that disagree with the vast majority of actual climate scientists.
"Nope" ??? "Nope"?? I would call that a failure of comprehension. You do realize that the US government funds a great deal of climate research, right? And who approves the funding?? Who is it that is demanding the information?
... the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities, companies and trade groups about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change. In letters sent to seven universities, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change.
I'm glad you managed to work the "Koch brothers" in there. It shows you're "serious." (eyes rolling)
There are many catalysts for laughter, ignorance being one of them. I expect you are quite easily amused.
The idea of bread mold curing infections is probably going to keep you giggling for hours.
That might be insightful if it were true. Unforunately there are plenty of academics that are silenced by threats to their funding if they buck the (forced) "concensus". Witch hunts used to be concerned with brooms and cats, now they are concerned with models and views that don't conform.
It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.
I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?
That's odd. You posted in reply to me, but I see nothing in it that addresses me. You should exercise more care in posting.
Civil asset forture isn't related to any of that. Parallel construction isn't either.
As to "fantasyland," it's aways a pleasure to deal with the uninformed and mistaken.
That Time China's State Media Ran An Article About Nuclear Strikes Against Los Angeles
That's funny, in reading your post I didn't find a single shred of evidence that I'm wrong about that. Whereas you, on the other hand
That Time China's State Media Ran An Article About Nuclear Strikes Against Los Angeles
At the moment your courtesy and understanding seem to have converged. But perhaps there is hope. If you live another 50 years do you think you'll be able to process new facts that contradict your poorly founded beliefs?
I don't work for either the government or defense contractors, so that is another area you don't have right.
From the "Questions we'll never hear department": "Is she live, or paper tape?"*
* Homage to old Memorex ad.
You'll have to do better than that. The US agencies don't hand information to competitors either. France, on the other hand, does. Hmmmm.... you may need to start rethinking your position. Holes in it have started to emerge before any actual effort has been expended. Could that be because it is based on nonsense? It would seem so.
No, it isn't. ISIS is an offshoot of al Qaida. And to preempt nonsense, al Qaida isn't either.
There is a disparity in our two examples. The one I gave is a genuine threat. The one you gave is nonsense. The only people that have landed in Guantanamo Bay are members of al Qaida, associated terrorist groups, or people believed to be among them. The total has never even reach 800. "Passed some unknown "legal" line" is pure nonsense. You did get one thing right though - because of Snowden fewer terrorists are likely to be caught.
Snowden stole documents from the governments of the UK, Canada, New Zealand, Australia, and others, exposing their intelligence operations and methods. Hostile actors have noted that information and are using against those countries.
You seem to have substituted an imaginary problem (US betraying all its allies) and ignored the real ones of Snowden's damaging acts.
A morsel of genuine history is a thing so rare as to be always valuable. -- Thomas Jefferson
