$700,000 From National Science Foundation

[California Girl]

There's already a thread on this.

 

[PoliticalChic]

Let us know when you can recognize the difference between education and advocacy.

Thanks.

Now, apparently the proposer did veil this in an informal education experiment, but it is still an advocacy piece rather than an awareness piece.

Of course the NSF is an advocate for Global Climate Change, just as they are an advocate for Evolution, Relativity, and Cosmology. You seem to think that there is some big controversy about the existence of global climate change in the scientific community and the NSF is taking sides on the issue. This simply isn't so. The controversy exists in right wing political groups, business interest, and various segments of the general public.

Science can tells us what global climate change is doing to the earth and how it is doing it, but it can't tell us how we should go about solving the problem. That's a political and economic decision. And there lies the controversy. It is irrational to deny or ignore scientific evidence of a problem because you don't like the possible solutions. Denying the existence of global climate change is akin to denying cancer because you don't want to face the possible outcomes.

The NSF is just funding a presentation of scientific evidence in a form we can all understand.

But science is not what Si is about. She sees the world through the a political lense.

And today's winner in the category of 'Unintentional Humor'......get ready....

ROCKY!


To those cognizant, it is 'global warming' that fits the fill-in: "Science is not what ____________ is about!"


And, of course the proof comes from the warmist 'scientists' themselves...

Mike Hulme is Professor of Climate Change in the School of Environmental Sciences at the University of East Anglia (UEA), [http://mikehulme.org/] and was good enough to reveal the truth in the Guardian, 2007: “…this particular mode of scientific activity… has been labeled "post-normal" science. Climate change seems to fall in this category. Disputes in post-normal science focus as often on the process of science - who gets funded, who evaluates quality, who has the ear of policy - as on the facts of science…. Self-evidently dangerous climate change will not emerge from a normal scientific process of truth seeking,… scientists - and politicians - must trade (normal) truth for influence. If scientists want to remain listened to, to bear influence on policy, they must recognise the social limits of their truth seeking and reveal fully the values and beliefs they bring to their scientific activity…. Climate change is too important to be left to scientists - least of all the normal ones.” The appliance of science | Society | The Guardian.