I spend some time reading well researched and founded studies that break down verifiable data using methodology that is reasonably comprehensible. Occasionally I run across a subject that will have 'dueling' studies involving roughly the same data sets. Such studies provide the research basis for articles such as this WaPo piece which is supported by this this NPP study. NPP is the National Priorities Project which can be found in alliance with the Soros Foundation and the Tides Foundation on most subjects.
Dr. Tim Kane is a research fellow with the Heritage Foundation who authored this study which provided this rebuttal of the NPP conclusions and wound up on the editorial page of USA Today.
One data set (roughly), two conclusions, which if not diametrically opposed are at minimum unsupportive of each other. Which conclusion is more supportable based upon the evidence presented?
UPDATE: The link now goes to the correct Washington Post article.
Of hypocrites, globull warming, and El Nino
1 hour ago