NSF grants $700,000 for theater production on climate change

The ecochondriacs seem to have given up on using scientific arguments. It’s all propaganda from here on out.

It’s worse than we thought……….a lot worse!

Let’s hope the NSF cheque is returned NSF.

“An Inconvenient Truth” sequel? Yet another steaming heap of horse manure.

Survival on a grand scale equals entertainment????

This is very frustrating. $700,000 of OUR money wasted on a theatrical production (is it kabuki?) concerning something that may or may not be a problem. I believe most of us could do more good in this world with $700,000.
Think about the size of that amount of money for a bit. That is a LOT of money to give for a theatrical production from a science organization. The most infuriating thing to me is that it is for what amounts to indoctrination, not education. Under what authority does the NSF fund theatrical troupes? For that kind of money I could provide several children with a college level education in the sciences which would do this country more good than a play.
This is theft of the taxpayer’s money plain and simple.

Can’t wait for the number:”Springtime for Pachauri “. Or “Bombs over unbeleivers.”..

What a hoot! Roger Sr is having problems getting grants from the NSF but Andrew Lloyd Webber would be a shoe in.

I’m waiting for the stage adaption of this 10:10 video spoof. The scary thing is that far too many of THEM think along these lines.

NSF grants $700,000 for theater production on climate change
Why no funding to an opposition theatrical production?
I mean, if they’re gonna fund ‘Springtime for Hitler’ (from the film The Producers†), then why not fund an equally oppositional production?
† http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K08akOt2kuo

Stumbled across this wee gem today,
It’s O/T, but wanted to share.
Unfortunately I don’t know who the author is so I can’t hat-tip them.
………….
Moderator; Welcome to the 25th annual global warming debate. The score now stands at 17 wins for the warmists, and 8 for the sceptics, though I must note that the sceptics have won the last 5 in succession. As as a gesture of goodwill, given they lost the the last round, first comment goes to the warmist side.
Warmist; CO2 emissions are causing the earth to warm up. The physics of this process are well known, and the result is that the planet’s temperature will continue to accelerate upwards, causing a catastrophe unless we act immediately to curb emissions.
Skeptic; The well known physics of CO2 includes the fact that the warming effect of CO2 is logarithmic, and so subject to the law of diminishing returns. The amount of CO2 required to cause catastrophic warming is many times what we are capable of producing.
Warmist; But the effects of CO2 are tripled or worse by positive feedback from water vapour.
Skeptic; If that were true, the earth would have experienced catastrophic warming multiple times already, and it hasn’t. You are ignoring the negative feedbacks while extrapolating positive feedbacks for which there is no evidence.
Warmist; The evidence of catastrophic change is already upon us, polar bears for example are going extinct.
Skeptic; The polar bear population has tripled in the last decade…
Warmist; Just because their population is increasing doesn’t mean they’re not going extinct. And warming has already caused increases in sea level that are swamping island atolls.
Skeptic; Island atolls float. The only reason they are being swamped is the amount of buildings being constructed on top of them.
Warmist; Sea level rise will only get worse as the warming accelerates, which it is. Consider the historical temperature record in this graph…
Skeptic; That graph? The one based on 7 trees from Siberia with 50% of the weighting from just one of them? I have 51 reconstructions from around the world, each based on dozens of samples or more, that show a completely different picture.
Warmist; Those 51 reconstructions were debunked by this reconstruction which appeared on the front cover of the prestigious IPCC AR4 report.
Skeptic; Isn’t that the one where the researchers replaced part of the reconstruction with thermometer readings instead of tree ring data because the tree rings diverged from the theory? How is it that you can dismiss the last 60 years of tree ring data as being faulty while claiming that the other 1000 years are accurate?
Warmist; You clearly don’t understand science. The temperature record from GISS clearly shows the earth has never been warmer.
Skeptic; Can we see the raw data that went into that temperature record along with how the values were adjusted and the final results arrived at?
Warmist; No.
Skeptic; Why not? What have you to hide?
Warmist; As I said before, you clearly don’t understand science so there is no point showing it to you.
Skeptic; Well we departed from actual scientific discussion when you brought up polar bears extinction…
Warmist; Exactly my point. Studies indicate that people with skeptic viewpoints are lacking in education, are intellectually deficient, or are psychopaths who care little about humanity, so you keep dismissing the graphs and charts on flimsy excuses.
Skeptic; Flimsy excuses? You are proposing that we constrain the world economy, endanger the food supply, and sink the global standard of living to levels that will most certainly result in the death of millions based on data you won’t show me, anecdotal stories about polar bears that upon investigation are completely false, and reports that I dismiss because they are based on ridiculous notions like the worldwide temperature being represented by a single tree in Siberia, and you accuse me of flimsy excuses?
Warmist; Precisely. You are psychologically incapable of evaluating the science objectively due to your defective upbringing and education. There may even be a genetic component to your psychosis, though evidence that skeptic views are increasing amongst the population suggests that these traits are more wide spread than previously thought. In order to safe guard humanity, it may be necessary to take steps to control sceptics in order to prevent them from destroying the rest of us.
Skeptic; Uhm… that sounds like a threat.
Warmist; Being defective in terms of upbringing and intelligence, it is not a surprise that you perceive a threat where none was made.
Skeptic; Fine. Then explain to me what you meant.
Warmist; Well, we’ve invented this little grey box with a red button on top (shows box), and when we press the button (presses button)
Skeptic; (explodes, spattering blood and gore across the stage)
Moderator; Oh my!
Warmist; Having presented a robust scientific explanation of the effects of CO2, backed up by robust studies demonstrating the correlation with accelerating temperatures which will have catastrophic effects on humanity according to a myriad of robust scientific models, which sceptics are psychologically incapable of understanding, and have failed to rebut in this debate, the science is settled, and culling of the human population by those of us who do understand is required in order to save us from ourselves.
Moderator; But…
Warmist; (brandishes little box with button)
Moderator; (hastily) I declare the debate resolved in favour of the warmists. This is a victory for science.
Warmist; (brandishes little box)
Moderator; (gulps) I meant a ROBUST victory for science. There is no further need for debate.[10/10]

“Drawing on interviews with botanists, paleontologists, climatologists, indigenous community leaders, polar bear tour guides and trappers, “The Great Immensity” gives voice to people whose stories make the reality of the present crisis accessible in fresh and compelling ways.”
So they’ll be scouring the planet looking for anyone who has experienced a drought, a flood, a melting glacier or anything else. Every time there’s a dead polar bear, they’ll trot someone out to show the ravages of climate change – sorry climate disruption. No bit of ice that melts, nor heatwave, nor drought, flood, earthquake or solar eclipse will escape their notice. Be prepared for a flood of alarmist anecdotes, and a drought of common sense.

Maybe NSF funded “Avatar”.