Re: Federal Prisons Are Beginning to Force Trans Inmates Off Hormone Therapy

On 5/26/26 5:16 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
> On May 26, 2026 at 3:33:55 PM MST, "zendejo" wrote
> <[email protected]>:
> 
>> On 5/26/26 4:06 PM, Brock McNuggets wrote:
>>>> Twisted science and scientists have been know to lie.
>>> You reject science. Thanks for admitting my point.
>>
>> He rejects junk or pay to play science, you otoh revel in it.
> 
> I looked to science... peer reviewed.
> 
You misspelled "grant-herded" pay for play.

https://www.heritage.org/environment/commentary/follow-the-climate-change-money

he first iron rule of American politics is: Follow the money. This 
explains, oh, about 80 percent of what goes on in Washington.

Shortly after the latest Chicken Little climate change report was 
published last month, I noted on CNN that one reason so many hundreds of 
scientists are persuaded that the sky is falling is that they are paid 
handsomely to do so.

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.”

This doesn’t mean that the planet isn’t warming. But the tidal wave of 
funding does reveal a powerful financial motive for scientists to 
conclude that the apocalypse is upon us. No one hires a fireman if there 
are no fires. No one hires a climate scientist (there are thousands of 
them now) if there is no catastrophic change in the weather. Why doesn’t 
anyone in the media ever mention this?

But when I lifted this hood, it incited more hate mail than from 
anything I’ve said on TV or written. Could it be that this rhetorical 
missile hit way too close to home?

How dare I impugn the integrity of scientists and left-wing think-tanks 
by suggesting that their research findings are perverted by hundreds of 
billions of dollars of taxpayer handouts. The irony of this indignation 
is that any academic whose research dares question the “settled science” 
of the climate change complex is instantly accused of being a shill for 
the oil and gas industry or the Koch brothers.

Apparently, if you take money from the private sector to fund research, 
your work is inherently biased, but if you get multimillion-dollar 
grants from Uncle Sam, you are as pure as the freshly fallen snow.

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.

This tsunami of government money distorts science in hidden ways that 
even the scientists who are corrupted often don’t appreciate. If you are 
a young eager-beaver researcher who decides to devote your life to the 
study of global warming, you’re probably not going to do your career any 
good or get famous by publishing research that the crisis isn’t happening.

But if you’ve built bogus models that predict the crisis is getting 
worse by the day, then step right up and get a multimillion dollar grant.

Now here’s the real scandal of the near trillion dollars that 
governments have stolen from taxpayers to fund climate change hysteria 
and research. By the industry’s own admission there has been almost no 
progress worldwide in actually combatting climate change. The latest 
reports by the U.S. government and the United Nations say the problem is 
getting worse not better and we have not delayed the apocalypse by a 
single day.

Has there ever been such a massive government expenditure that has had 
such miniscule returns on investment? After three decades of “research” 
the only “solution” is for the world to stop using fossil fuels, which 
is like saying that we should stop growing food.

Really? The greatest minds of the world entrusted with hundreds of 
billions of dollars can only come up with a solution that would entail 
the largest government power grab in world history, shutting down 
industrial production (just look at the catastrophe in Germany when they 
went all in for green energy), and throwing perhaps billions of human 
beings into poverty? If that’s the remedy, I will take my chances on a 
warming planet.