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.
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.
And that there's some disincentive for wealthy people to go against the current administration's policies?
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.
That is the government trying to perform censorship.
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.