AOC states we haven't seen Co2 levels like this since the Pliocene period

[Wyatt earp]

So who controls Earth's thermostat

What a mind numbingly stupid question.

I am answering you stupid ass statement

 

[daveman]

So who controls Earth's thermostat

What a mind numbingly stupid question.

What is the proper temperature of the planet?

The planet doesn't care.

If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.

People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.

But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT TEMPERATURE IS ALL I KNOW IS ITS TOO HOT

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to hyper-emotional fear mongering.

But you don't.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What is the proper temperature of the planet?

For what purpose?

If you think it has no purpose, then what's your problem?

 

[daveman]

So who controls Earth's thermostat

What a mind numbingly stupid question.

What is the proper temperature of the planet?

The planet doesn't care.

If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.

People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.

But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!

".....the planet"

A huge % of the public isnt hysterical about "the planet"

Like I've said s0n.....you need some real responsibilities in life. When that happens, trust me, you dont spend time worrying about st00pid stuff.

Nobody is sitting home worrying about sea rise 25 years from now because they know that's a Hail Mary pass guess. They've seen climate science be wrong scores of times.

And let's face it....progressive solutions are beyond retarded. Particularly with China building 1-2 coal plants/month. Doy....most of the public can connect the dots on this stuff.....progressives.....not so much.

When we aren't seeing snow storms all across the country in mid-May, maybe people might pay attention.

I think you will find that most people are concerned about global warming because, unlike you morons, they care about their children & grandchildren.

You mean the ones they don't abort?

 

[RealDave]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

"Follow the money!", you say?

Let's do just that.

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

...

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.​

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

 

[RealDave]

What a mind numbingly stupid question.

What is the proper temperature of the planet?

The planet doesn't care.

If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.

People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.

But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!

".....the planet"

A huge % of the public isnt hysterical about "the planet"

Like I've said s0n.....you need some real responsibilities in life. When that happens, trust me, you dont spend time worrying about st00pid stuff.

Nobody is sitting home worrying about sea rise 25 years from now because they know that's a Hail Mary pass guess. They've seen climate science be wrong scores of times.

And let's face it....progressive solutions are beyond retarded. Particularly with China building 1-2 coal plants/month. Doy....most of the public can connect the dots on this stuff.....progressives.....not so much.

When we aren't seeing snow storms all across the country in mid-May, maybe people might pay attention.

I think you will find that most people are concerned about global warming because, unlike you morons, they care about their children & grandchildren.

You mean the ones they don't abort?

Because only liberals have abortions. I get it. You want every fetus to be born so you can deny them food stamps, healthvp0care & doom them to a more difficuly future because you are yoo fucking stupid to grasp AGW.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

 

[RealDave]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

"Follow the money!", you say?

Let's do just that.

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

...

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.​

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions


Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?


How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

 

[RealDave]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

"Follow the money!", you say?

Let's do just that.

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

...

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.​

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions


Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?


How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

Globally 45 trillion over what time frame?

What is the cost to ignore AGW?

Just sea level rise: "If warming is not mitigated and follows the RCP8.5 sea level rise projections, the global annual flood costs without adaptation will increase to $14 trillion per year for a median sea level rise of 0.86m, and up to $27 trillion per year for 1.8m. This would account for 2.8 per cent of global GDP in 2100."

Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100

Per year. Compare that to your 435 trillion over whst 50 years?

Now look at the costs of beefing up our electric grid to handle the more electricity to run lots more air conditioning.

Then consider food costs. What happens when our bread basket can no longer effectively grow wheat & corn?

How about water for the droughts?

So yea, you keep running in circles screaming about the costs of doing something while you totally ignore the costs of your plan which is doing nothing.

You people are dumber than shit.

 

[RealDave]

Scientists don't make money from people buying EVs or green energies.

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

"Follow the money!", you say?

Let's do just that.

I noted that “In America and around the globe governments have created a multi-billion dollar Climate Change Industrial Complex.” And then I added: “A lot of people are getting really, really rich off of the climate change industry.” According to a recent report by the U.S. Government Accountability Office, “Federal funding for climate change research, technology, international assistance, and adaptation has increased from $2.4 billion in 1993 to $11.6 billion in 2014, with an additional $26.1 billion for climate change programs and activities provided by the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act in 2009.”

...

How big is the Climate Change Industrial Complex today? Surprisingly, no one seems to be keeping track of all the channels of funding. A few years ago Forbes magazine went through the federal budget and estimated about $150 billion in spending on climate change and green energy subsidies during President Obama’s first term.

That didn’t include the tax subsidies that provide a 30 percent tax credit for wind and solar power — so add to those numbers about $8 billion to $10 billion a year. Then add billions more in costs attributable to the 29 states with renewable energy mandates that require utilities to buy expensive “green” energy.

Worldwide the numbers are gargantuan. Five years ago, a leftist group called the Climate Policy Initiative issued a study which found that “Global investment in climate change” reached $359 billion that year. Then to give you a sense of how money-hungry these planet-saviors are, the CPI moaned that this spending “falls far short of what’s needed” a number estimated at $5 trillion.

For $5 trillion we could feed everyone on the planet, end malaria, and provide clean water and reliable electricity to every remote village in Africa. And we would probably have enough money left over to find a cure for cancer and Alzheimers.

The entire Apollo project to put a man on the moon cost less than $200 billion. We are spending twice that much every year on climate change.​

unlike the 4.65 trillion dollar fossil fuel market.

The rerally funny part with you deniers is that going green can save you money.

Buying higher MPG vehicles save you monet

Installing geothermal HVAC saves you money.

EVs can save you money.

Ignoring AGW & you will pay big time for the results like higher food costs, addressing coastline higher sea levels, more storm damage from storm surges, addressing more droughts, redoing HVAC systems to address higher temperatures . increasing our electrical grid, etc ertc etc.

So your plan is more expensive.

Let's see your math...and not bullshit opinions


Do you have 45 trillion dollars to go green?


How Much Does It Cost to Go Green? The Answer is $45 trillion

Globally 45 trillion over what time frame?

What is the cost to ignore AGW?

Just sea level rise: "If warming is not mitigated and follows the RCP8.5 sea level rise projections, the global annual flood costs without adaptation will increase to $14 trillion per year for a median sea level rise of 0.86m, and up to $27 trillion per year for 1.8m. This would account for 2.8 per cent of global GDP in 2100."

Rising sea levels could cost the world $14 trillion a year by 2100

Per year. Compare that to your 435 trillion over whst 50 years?

Now look at the costs of beefing up our electric grid to handle the more electricity to run lots more air conditioning.

Then consider food costs. What happens when our bread basket can no longer effectively grow wheat & corn?

How about water for the droughts?

So yea, you keep running in circles screaming about the costs of doing something while you totally ignore the costs of your plan which is doing nothing.

You people are dumber than shit.

The ocean will rise regardless if we were here or not, dumb fuck.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Correct, they don't. Scientists make their money off taxpayers, and politicians who provide those funds are behind global warming (or climate change if you desire).

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.

God damn asshole I made threads on it here

 

[RealDave]

So who controls Earth's thermostat

What a mind numbingly stupid question.

What is the proper temperature of the planet?

The planet doesn't care.

If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.

People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.

But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!

I DON'T KNOW WHAT THE RIGHT TEMPERATURE IS ALL I KNOW IS ITS TOO HOT

If you had science on your side, you wouldn't have to resort to hyper-emotional fear mongering.

But you don't.

Look, you are so fucking ignorant.

When global average temps rise 2 degrees C, things will change.

Agriculture will change. Food that grows now well will no longer grow as well.

Coastal areas will need to either protect against sea level rise. Including many military installations.

Some areas will be wetter & some dryer. Some areas will be devastated.

But het, it is only going to be warmer. Another example of your stupidity.

 

[Wyatt earp]

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.

God damn asshole I made threads on it here

I am putting this one in politics this is where climate change funding money goes... To anything but real science.



Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant


Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant


Republican U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, whose district stretches from San Antonio north into Austin, recently pressed an official about the government bankrolling a musical

Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, listed six National Science Foundation grants as questionable--including, Smith said at the panel’s March 26, 2014, hearing, a "climate change musical that was prepared for Broadway but I’m not sure ever was actually produced, $700,000."

Smith then asked John Holdren, the White House science czar, if the foundation should justify such grants to the public, whose tax dollars fund them, the Texan reminded.

Holdren replied that the foundation, which is entrusted with promoting scientific progress, already justifies its grants in online posts.


Grant confirmed

To our inquiry, a foundation spokeswoman, Dana Topousis, said by email the grant was awarded in 2010, adding: "The Civilians, Inc., a Brooklyn, N.Y., theatre company, developed an innovative, out-of-the-box approach to exposing U.S. citizens to science. The project represents the unique cultural leverage of theater in its attempt to inspire the public’s imagination and curiosity about basic science and its relation to their everyday lives."

 

[RealDave]

Scientists can work for corporations, universities, research firms, Fossil Fuel companies, think tanks, etc.

Universities get federal funding along with grants from private organizations.

Now, who has the most to lose as we go green. What do the scientists they fund say?

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.

God damn asshole I made threads on it here

God damn assshole? Fuck you. You know nothing about grants. You know little alout anything. I have debunked every post you made.

 

[skookerasbil]

So who controls Earth's thermostat

What a mind numbingly stupid question.

What is the proper temperature of the planet?

The planet doesn't care.

If you want 7 billion people to survive in todatys society, then that is another question.

People will survive a save temp increase of 4-6 degrees C but the current coastlines will be underwater, the mid west will no longer be our bread basket, military bases will need relocated, droughts, more severe storms, etc.

But hey., what the fuck do you care? We can't regulate greenhouse gases because, OMG OMG OMG, socialism,!!!!

".....the planet"

A huge % of the public isnt hysterical about "the planet"

Like I've said s0n.....you need some real responsibilities in life. When that happens, trust me, you dont spend time worrying about st00pid stuff.

Nobody is sitting home worrying about sea rise 25 years from now because they know that's a Hail Mary pass guess. They've seen climate science be wrong scores of times.

And let's face it....progressive solutions are beyond retarded. Particularly with China building 1-2 coal plants/month. Doy....most of the public can connect the dots on this stuff.....progressives.....not so much.

When we aren't seeing snow storms all across the country in mid-May, maybe people might pay attention.

I think you will find that most people are concerned about global warming because, unlike you morons, they care about their children & grandchildren.

Lol.....sorry s0n but no evidence anybody cares! You dummy....except for legislation on light bulbs a few years ago, we havent seen dick on climate change action.

Know what that means dummy?

People might care....but not much!

 

[Wyatt earp]

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.

God damn asshole I made threads on it here

God damn assshole? Fuck you. You know nothing about grants. You know little alout anything. I have debunked every post you made.

Of course I do you fucking moron I made multiple threads on it


I am putting this one in politics this is where climate change funding money goes... To anything but real science.



Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant


Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant


Republican U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, whose district stretches from San Antonio north into Austin, recently pressed an official about the government bankrolling a musical

Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, listed six National Science Foundation grants as questionable--including, Smith said at the panel’s March 26, 2014, hearing, a "climate change musical that was prepared for Broadway but I’m not sure ever was actually produced, $700,000."

Smith then asked John Holdren, the White House science czar, if the foundation should justify such grants to the public, whose tax dollars fund them, the Texan reminded.

Holdren replied that the foundation, which is entrusted with promoting scientific progress, already justifies its grants in online posts.


Grant confirmed

To our inquiry, a foundation spokeswoman, Dana Topousis, said by email the grant was awarded in 2010, adding: "The Civilians, Inc., a Brooklyn, N.Y., theatre company, developed an innovative, out-of-the-box approach to exposing U.S. citizens to science. The project represents the unique cultural leverage of theater in its attempt to inspire the public’s imagination and curiosity about basic science and its relation to their everyday lives."

 

[The Original Tree]

Her next Crusade will be to BAN the CO2 In Beer!

 

[RealDave]

Poor ass liberal art professors who lose federal grants..you really don't know how it works do you? They get grants just by signing a piece of paper saying they agree to something that's not even in their field

Bullshit.

You really hate the truth /facts and don't know how grants work do you?


Educate yourself, the truth will set you free.

You presented no facts. Just your ignorance.

God damn asshole I made threads on it here

I am putting this one in politics this is where climate change funding money goes... To anything but real science.



Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant


Climate change musical funded by $700,000 National Science Foundation grant


Republican U.S. Rep. Lamar Smith, whose district stretches from San Antonio north into Austin, recently pressed an official about the government bankrolling a musical

Smith, chairman of the House Science, Space & Technology Committee, listed six National Science Foundation grants as questionable--including, Smith said at the panel’s March 26, 2014, hearing, a "climate change musical that was prepared for Broadway but I’m not sure ever was actually produced, $700,000."

Smith then asked John Holdren, the White House science czar, if the foundation should justify such grants to the public, whose tax dollars fund them, the Texan reminded.

Holdren replied that the foundation, which is entrusted with promoting scientific progress, already justifies its grants in online posts.


Grant confirmed

To our inquiry, a foundation spokeswoman, Dana Topousis, said by email the grant was awarded in 2010, adding: "The Civilians, Inc., a Brooklyn, N.Y., theatre company, developed an innovative, out-of-the-box approach to exposing U.S. citizens to science. The project represents the unique cultural leverage of theater in its attempt to inspire the public’s imagination and curiosity about basic science and its relation to their everyday lives."

A grant to educate the public.

OMG OMG OMG OMG

The government should not try to make Americans smarter. Noooooooooooo.