@HeartlandInst @DanaRohrabacher How many scientists contributed to the #NIPCC report? How was the science evaluated? Who funded it?
-
-
Replying to @akornblatt
@akornblatt@HeartlandInst I don't have all that info at my finger tips, I do know it is based on 3,000 peer reviewed studies.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher@akornblatt@HeartlandInst No corp funding. Family foundations w/no stake in energy. Scores of scientists in NIPCC.1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @jlakely
@jlakely@DanaRohrabacher@HeartlandInst Which foundations? Is there a place to see a list of both?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @akornblatt
@akornblatt@jlakely@HeartlandInst ask them not me. R U interested in validity of what they advocate, or trying to nix issue debate?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher@jlakely@HeartlandInst I want to learn all the facts and see how the proverbial hot dog was made.2 replies 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @akornblatt
@akornblatt@jlakely@HeartlandInst So U end up trying not 2 focus on rightness or wrongness of competing ideas, but on process1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher@jlakely@HeartlandInst If the process is sound, then the competing ideas can stand on equal ground. Why is that a problem?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @akornblatt
@akornblatt@jlakely@HeartlandInst confirm process details with them. focusing on process distracts from honest exam of ideas or policy1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Replying to @DanaRohrabacher
@DanaRohrabacher@jlakely@HeartlandInst So, I could come to you with anything and it would be admitted into the discussion?1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes
@akornblatt @jlakely @HeartlandInst If U disagree with a point I've made feel free topoint out why U think I am wrong
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.