4 ms·
Even calling what the national lab does "alarmism" is objectively a lie meant to distort and politicize basic and important science. I don't need to tell you th
by epistasis 10mo ago
Even calling what the national lab does "alarmism" is objectively a lie meant to distort and politicize basic and important science. I don't need to tell you the political party of the person from the quote because that political party has been working for six a long time to take non-partisan science and politicize it and use that politicization to divide the country.
There is no national lab producing "alarmism" and calling it that as justification for cutting funding is meant as a justification for restricting free speech and free science.
- Alupis 10mo agoI'm not sure how/why you are asserting this is a "free speech" or "free science" issue. The government isn't obligated to fund this (or any) lab - private donors are free to step in and continue funding.
- g-b-r 10mo agoI'm sure plenty of oil tycoons will step in
- Alupis 10mo agoYes because "oil tycoons" are clearly the only wealthy people in this country.
- g-b-r 10mo agoMight it be that you can't rely on private funding for things that don't result in a profit? And that there's some disincentive for wealthy people to go against the current administration's policies?
- Alupis 10mo agoWealthy people fund all sorts of non-profitable things, ie. non-profits, charities, philanthropic initiatives, etc. Look at Bill Gate's philanthropy over the years. There's thousands of others, including all of the Hollywood Celebrities that like to crow about the climate so much. The NCAR was spending less than $150MM per year - it's not some outrageous amount of money for donors to fund.
- epistasis 10mo agoThe government is pulling fund g because they don't like the science and the outcomes of that science. That is the government trying to perform censorship.
- zahlman 10mo ago>... calling [something] [an inherently subjective term] is objectively... Sorry, I don't follow. At any rate, you're replying to a post that gave object examples of things that actually happened, and you made not attempt to explain why the things the other person considered unreasonable are actually reasonable. > calling it that as justification for cutting funding is meant as a justification for restricting free speech Freedom of speech as a philosophical concept does not entail entitlement to funding, never mind 1A.