Major scientific institutions don't get funding for saying "Things seem to be going ok right now", they get funding for saying "Things are screwed up, here's why, and we think we can fix it". I say this as someone who works at a major scientific institution.
We have an Institute for Creation Research [1]. There is plenty of funding for anti-climate change research. It's just not producing anything. That should give a hint as to where reality lies amidst interests.
I doubt that funding is even a tiny fraction of the research money from governments. And in addition it is money that might taint your reputation for future research funding rounds.
This is true in many areas of research. If you want funding there are certain opinions and buzzwords you should include when applying for funding.
Why yes, they do. Look at the LHC or major astronomic observatories - it's not like they fix a big existential problem for most people for the time being. Where do you work?
Actually, romans were usually tolerant of other religions. Yes, some religions were persecuted, but that was usually due to political reasons. Many (most?) christians were persecuted not for not following official religion but for creating unrest and speaking against Rome.
By far the most extreme christian persecution was by Diocletian. His hatred for christians began when fortune tellers, and priests of the Oracle of Apollo told him they couldn't predict the future because of the influence of Christians--definitely a religious rather than political reason.
>creating unrest and speaking against Rome
Those were the charges leveled against them (many times falsely) primarily by their fellow pagan citizens who were motivated by religious intolerance not political concern.
Most of the time the state wouldn't have persecuted the Christians had not the people demanded it.
The Romans also had a history of banning religious cults before the rise of Christianity.
He has not been arrested due to rape charges, to begin with, because said charges have not been brought up. That said, had he been arrested, he couldn't have refused to show up for any hearings.
My English is perhaps not 100% when it comes to describing legal matters like this, so I'll just quote Wikipedia to clarify what I was trying to say.
From http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Julian_Assange :
On 20 August 2010, Swedish police began an investigation into two sexual encounters involving Assange. Assange has said allegations of wrongdoing are "without basis", describing all the sexual encounters as consensual. In December 2010, Assange, then in Britain, learned that the Swedish authorities had issued a European Arrest Warrant (EAW) to extradite him to Sweden for questioning. Assange appealed the EAW, and a District Judge (Magistrate's Court) in England ruled that Assange should be extradited. Assange has appealed the extradition decision.
Could you name one major scientific institution related to climate science that dispute anthropogenic climate change?