Posted by dahsdebater on 5/4/2016 2:57:00 PM (view original):
It's so sad that you are so easily swayed by bullshit.
I just looked this guy up. I wanted to know how long he's been receiving NSF funding. The answer is since the Bush administration, by the way. So there's that. More importantly, the vast majority of his publications are on the relationship between climate change and glacial geographic changes in the Andes and modelling historical climate change from the geological record of glacial growth and retreat. Only about 10-20% appear to even address cultural factors.
The final and most glaring problem with you buying into this bullshit is that since the Clinton administration, the Republican party has been far, far more supportive of science funding (via NSF, DOE, NASA, etc.) than the Democratic party. Republicans seem to link science funding in with the No Child Left Behind initiative to improve education and scientific output, while Democrats seem to view it as something they can afford to cut to fund their social programs. So at the end of the day, a critique of NSF spending is far more a critique of House Republicans than Democratic executive who have nothing to do with the budget except signing it.
When Rush feeds you these things, he's being intentionally misleading. But I think you're mostly just ignorant. So once in a while I feel like it's worthwhile to at least give you a chance to try to grasp a little bit of reality. FWIW, I am a scientist, and have been paid alternatively by money from NSF and DOE for the past 6 years. I'm using that money to study, primarily, lithium ion batteries and their components. But I'm a big proponent of funding for NSF, and it's one reason I've continued to vote primarily Republican. However, dissatisfaction with how the NSF is spending money should not be a Republican talking point. Rush is really taking advantage of the fact that most of the people who could call him on his bullshit don't listen to his show, and even if they did they'd have no vehicle by which to communicate with most of his listening audience.
WELL THAT'S JUST GREAT! Glad to hear from you again. Sup?
Now, first I must say I wish you had posted my original but it's OK. No big deal.
I'm sorry you are so angry. I hope I didn't make you angry. I'm also sorry for your hate. I hope you feel better soon.
I ALSO WOULD LIKE TO THANK YOU for backing me up here. Although I don't think words like bullshit or ignorant were necessary, it is understandable as you are a scientist receiving monies from the government. We all protect our Ox.
I have also looked at Mr. Carey and although I support some of his research, primarily his study of how glaciers changed the world over the past 2 centuries, I am less than enthralled by the bulk of his work since then. His Andes project has "some" merit. And therein lies the problem. This latest endeavor, like earlier ones including his Andes project, delves into social issues. He has no business inserting his personal social or political beliefs into a paper. We come into his writings with the knowledge they will be tainted by all human frailty including the economic factor, but Mr. Carey has stepped way over the line and a short study of his history, and more importantly, his latest interview with fellow historian/scientist Carolyn Grambling, proves the point.
But back to the original, briefly, if I can. I WANT TO THANK YOU for agreeing with me and backing me up. As you know, the original post referred to the term FEMINIST GLACIOLOGY. Here Carey is concerned with "GENDERED VULNERABILITIES" of more men that women in his field. (AND INTERVIEWED BY A WOMAN AND PERSONAL FRIEND IN HIS FIELD---no hardball questions here) Then came the blah blah……..
THEORY of "merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology"
possibly leading to "more just and equatable science and human-ice interactions."
In case you didn't know, this guy is not a Republican. He's an apologist for the flat earth junk science global warming climate change crowd. And for all I know, you're a part of it.
In closing….I don't have the information that would allow me to give this guy a 10% or 20% tag as to what he has addressed anything. Furthermore they are separated by time and subject and…yes…money. He started out great with glacial history. Should have stopped there and gotten a job until the next brain flash came.
Sorry. I can't reach that far. Carolyn Grambling. Feminist Glaciology. He sounds like a lifer.
Thanks for keeping my back though.