Scientists Asked to Scrub References to Climate Change in their Grants

[doctormike]

.. a politically charged topic that they are convinced is merely a political tool of their rivals?

I can't tell what you really think about this, but evolution, gravity, climate change and decompression theory aren't political tools.

"Bowen's project will examine how environmental stressors, such as climate change, affect the ecology of saltwater marshes." Is there any reason to single out one possible stressor in the research title other than purely political? "Bowen's project will examine how environmental stressors affect the ecology of saltwater marshes" is much more appropriate. This title does not draw a conclusion before the research has even been done. With this level of bias built right into the grant request before the science is done it's no wonder at all that the topic has become controversial..

I don't think that this is an appropriate use of the term "bias". I mean, yes, including the words "climate change" in the title do imply that the author considers CC to be (1) real, and (2) and environmental stressor. You could certainly insist that the title be bias free, but then should they remove the phrase "saltwater marshes"? Maybe it is controversial in some circles whether or not saltwater marshes exist..

...all the politics being put into the science surrounding the topic has allowed lots of legitimate doubt on the topic

No, all the politics being put into the science has, by design, injected lots of fabricated doubt on the topic. So now we are to the point where people who self-identify with the anti-CC "team" politically will insist that it doesn't exist, reject actual expert opinion on the topic, and cherry pick any out of context data points just so that they can score a point for their team.

Can you imagine what this must be like as a climate scientist? Can you imagine if somehow it became trendy to think of a decompression obligation as liberal, and you had half of your non-diving facebook friends loudly and frequently saying how ridiculous it was to do deco stops, and pulling articles about people who blew off deco and survived, and lobbying for laws to prevent staged decompression?

Look, you can believe what you want, but there is only one side here politicizing climate science. And all of us will be dead before anyone actually sees how wrong it was to do that. Which is why it's easy to politicize. Something happening over a 50 year time span is instantaneous in terms of earth science, but for politicians, you can pretty much ignore stuff that's a problem beyond the next election.

 

[drrich2]

Look, you can believe what you want, but there is only one side here politicizing climate science.

I seem to remember talk of 'carbon credits,' and there was that thread awhile back about the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord. Whether you count such matters as 'politicizing climate science' or not, politics on both sides are definitely intertwined with the climate change issue.

Richard.

 

[doctormike]

I seem to remember talk of 'carbon credits,' and there was that thread awhile back about the U.S. pulling out of the Paris Climate Accord. Whether you count such matters as 'politicizing climate science' or not

I don't.

politics on both sides are definitely intertwined with the climate change issue.

Not sure what "intertwined" means in this context. Politicians will often make policy based on a scientific issue. That is very different from having politics influence the science itself, as was the original point of this thread.

 

[The Chairman]

Brave New World? 1984? More like Idiocracy!!!

Researchers would be wise to use terms that are not on any politico's bad list. It's a shame they have to even worry about it.