Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member Latest Breaking News Editorials & Other Articles General Discussion The DU Lounge All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

Environment & Energy

hatrack

(61,361 posts)

2. Without regulatory authority, I'm trying to see what the point would be.

Reply to Ndp5 (Reply #1)

Mon Nov 11, 2024, 12:33 PM

Nov 11

Sure, money from Gates or Bloomberg could be used to fund science gutted by Shitstain, but there's already overwhelming scientific consensus on global warming, air pollution, toxins, negative health impacts.

Nobody working for President Asshole is paying attention to what's already out there in the scientific literature, so what possible difference would more science make?

Edit history

Please sign in to view edit histories.

Recommendations

0 members have recommended this reply (displayed in chronological order):

4 replies

= new reply since forum marked as read

Highlight:

EPA Bracing For All-Out Assult On Staffing, Funding And On Legal Authority To Protect People From Pollution [View all] hatrack Nov 11 OP

How to counter this? Ndp5 Nov 11 #1

Without regulatory authority, I'm trying to see what the point would be. hatrack Nov 11 #2

Not what I said Ndp5 Nov 11 #3

Well, if you count 1988 as the starting gun for climate activism, we're now in year 36 . . . . hatrack Nov 11 #4