Recent content by Silvanus

According to this, the funding to the FAO had supported 180 outbreak investigations in 22 countries, and capacity increases in 160 laboratories. So a termination of that work would have led to fewer investigations, fewer labs, and less monitoring than we'd have otherwise had with continued funding.

And if i had wings i could fly! Except the FAO spokesperson telling us they received termination notices after funding was withdrawn.

"There are other hospitals, and this is why defunding a hospital cannot have an effect on health". Yes, the fact they pulled FAO funding for unrelated, mostly spurious reasons, certainly justifies it. I mean, you have yet to identify an actual error in what I've said. You seem to have...

I genuinely don't know how someone can write such an inane piece of drivel without being embarrassed.

Cute, but cutting the end of the sentence to give the misleading impression i don't care about our actual topic of discussion is dishonest. No, it just hobbled efforts to tackle the issue. This is like arguing that closing a hospital didn't "cause issues with poor health", and then insisting...

So? You think that's a direct result of the cost of renewable energy generation, do you? So? So not "hidden taxes", then. You're talking about the levy. Proceeds of which were reinvested in boiler upgrade schemes, insulation schemes etc, and have lowered household costs in the long term...

Once again, i'm really not interested in your opinions on why you don't think the FAO program is worthwhile. "There are other bodies doing related (though different) things" is not under discussion. Well, since you won't engage: here's the list of USAID awards sent to Congress in March 2025...

That's only contradictory if we were to accept that the USDA is doing exactly what the FAO was doing. Yet we both know that's not the case. The efforts went through international agencies, to tackle transborder disease. Yes, i am incredulous that anyone could believe you can pull funding from...

Yet you did. Your attempt to make the narrative look self-contradictory 2 posts ago involved doing exactly that. Recognise that they're separate bodies, and there's no contradiction. I have one very good reason to disregard them: they're not full lists. The admin put out a few inexhaustive...

What relevance does any of this have? 1. Hydro is a renewable. 2. Prices are set by the private companies, and are not set according to the cost of generation. We've been over this already. Google can take you to good info. It can also take you to misleading or politically slanted info; the...

Because you're conflating funds for the USDA and FAO. Its very easy to imagine them allocating funding to one body, and then cutting funding to another body. I'm not really interested in your opinions on why a cut is unimportant. Poisoning the well. If you genuinely believed that a body...

Ah, a statement vague enough to include or exclude whatever they want at discretion. DOGE cut hundreds of millions in funding that inexperienced near-teenagers had decided didn't fit with the administration's priorities. You genuinely just accept whatever they say at face value, don't you?

Uh-huh, but i also provided a source showing they're cheaper to produce. Then solutions were made! Oh, the corp propaganda interviewing someone without any relevant expertise. The context is that there's no estimate or evidence that renewables receive anywhere near as much.

Rubio boasted that 83% of USAID operations were terminated. Not restructured or reshuffled, terminated. He never provided a full list, and neither did DOGE. But 80% would be >5,000 contracts. And we have the FAO telling you it included the ones we're talking about. Much of USAID's work is...

Can't really find anything from him that matches what you described.