Every regulatory body in the world has found that the weedkiller glyphosate is only harmful for plants. And huge studies of over 50,000 farmers have found the same.

That hasn't stopped trial lawyers and trade groups that aid them or promote competitors to glyphosate, such as Organic Consumers Association or Center for Food Safety, from insisting the studies are flawed because they are "industry funded." They know their customers, and hopefully potentially jurors, aren't aware that all safety studies must be paid for by industry. It would be wrong to let companies create products and then hand them to the government and force taxpayers to pay for a product that corporations will then patent.

University of Bonn environmentalists and economists say Peru's National Forest Conservation Program needs to do more ro protect the rainforest.

Peru, on the other hand, is navigating the shackled man problem(1); that developed countries want the rest of the world to limit progress now that rich economies are already doing well. So in 2010 they launched a program to protect the rainforest but Europeans criticize that its effect is still too small. Further, they want Peru to enact three more stringent measures and if governments in Europe agree Peru has to at least consider it because they are held hostage by international governments funding the program.

Everyone in 2019 likes to claim their beliefs are grounded in evidence.  The most anti-science groups, from the journalism department at New York University Arthur L. Carter Journalism Institute to Greenpeace, still claim to have evidence-based decision-making behind their political or financial agendas. It's no different in the "raw" pet food market, but it's harmless posturing to wrap yourself in the veil of science unless you are actually claiming to be scientific when you poison people or their pets.

The Green New Deal is the name given to a half-formed quasi-rational publicity stunt formed by the New Guard in the House of Representatives. 

Deniers for hire like Organic Consumers Association, which are opposed to agriculture (not to mention their endorsement of anti-vaccine activists and endorsement of opponents of all science) say it will be great. And it will be, for their clients. That poor people will starve or freeze to death if city politicians define "sustainable" isn't really a concern, because the wealthy elites who give to environmental groups will be fine.

I sometimes like to read the arXix preprint physics site. It's where a lot of papers go before they are in journals. It was open access, a way to see what scientists were working on before the results were locked behind a corporate journal paywall, before open access was even a thing.

Since 1990, the U.S Government Accountability Office (G.A.O.) has had NASA on its High Risk list due to persistent cost inflation and missed schedules.

Well, NASA is bold adventure, right? Doing things no one else can do? Bureaucratic timetables can't stand in the way of science. Except just the opposite is true. GAO regards NASA as a job works program for the opposite reason than that its missions are too bold for terrestrial accountants - it promises a lot and then once government is on the hook for the money, fails to deliver.