Soros foundation gave $720,000 to James Hansen to Politicize Science

Science • May 2009 • Views: 602

Here, in Soros Foundations’ annual report, is a direct connection to Hansen, along with an admission that “The campaign on Hansen’s behalf resulted in a decision by NASA to revisit its media policy.”

As is typical, a global warming obsessed media don’t find this newsworthy. Think they’d be so disinterested if this smoking gun involved an oil company giving money to a Republican official?

While you ponder, forward to page 143 (emphasis added):

note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

Recent Pages by MacGregor:
Could we be wrong about global warming? Unraveling the history of the vaccine-autism scare Storm clouds and Obama's doctrine: Speak loudly and carry a wimpy stick Administration blocks helicopters for Israel due to civilian casualties in Gaza How sand is transformed into silicon chips

Jump to bottom

9 comments

MacGregor Fri, May 8, 2009 1:33:55pm

Dumbing down our populace by bending science to match ideology is ultimately a national defense concern.

HelloDare Fri, May 8, 2009 2:13:04pm

Makes you wonder who Hansen was getting money from in 1971 when he warned of an impending ice age. [Link: newsbusters.org...]

Bagua Fri, May 8, 2009 7:26:34pm

If truly the "science was settled" as goes the mantra, then why the need for the overwhelming media bias and endless propaganda?

The case for Anthropogenic Global Warming, (or whatever the spin masters are calling it now) is being massively misrepresented in the media and politics. The case for this is overwhelming and blatantly obvious.

If even a fraction of this money was flowing from "big oil" to any scientist, legitimate or not, they would be labeled in the pocket and dismissed as irrelevant, yet when the money comes from a megalomaniac leftist financier we get silence. Either money corrupts science or it does not, selective use of this idea is unacceptable.

I ask one question you guardians of the true faith, why is it that with the hundreds of millions of dollars flowing into "Climate Change research" and the massive media attention, one never hears even one story of any possible benefit from warming and increased CO2? It is undeniably logical that some regions, some species, some populations of humans, plants or animals would experience benefit, even if others suffered, yet the "reports" and "studies" are always focused on the harm.

Bagua Fri, May 8, 2009 7:31:18pm

re: #2 HelloDare

Actually is was his colleague from the same institute touting the "impending ice age." Hansen took the ball and ran in the opposite direction.

Future generations will look back at this hysteria and faith based perversion of "science" with amazement and amusement.

bagua Fri, May 8, 2009 8:08:19pm

One exception to my prior comment, beneficiaries of warming are occasional reported, but only if they are regarded as a menace, for example, mosquitoes and a recent article complaining that Kudzu was expanding it range north.

MacGregor Fri, May 8, 2009 8:32:26pm

re: #4 Bagua

Future generations will look back at this hysteria and faith based perversion of "science" with amazement and amusement.

So a geologist is talking to an atmospheric scientist at the bar. One says "Did you hear about our ancestors that almost destroyed the human race?"

The other replied "Yes, they squandered their resources, knowledge, and reason by using science to tell people to self-flagellate or they would burn in hell. Whatever happened to those irresponsible creeps?"

"They froze."

simonml Sat, May 9, 2009 7:50:51am

note: The Strategic Opportunities Fund includes grants related to Hurricane Katrina ($1,652,841); media policy ($1,060,000); and politicization of science ($720,000).

The problem is that liberals think that science SHOULD be politicized. Anything for their gain is politicized and championed as scientific fact and anything for their detriment is derided as false, nonscientific, and exploitative.

Dan G. Sat, May 9, 2009 11:20:10am

re: #7 simonml

Dinged. These are leftists, not liberals. Jefferson and Franklin were liberals and most certainly wouldn't have any part of this nonsense.

MacGregor Sat, May 9, 2009 4:07:22pm

re: #8 Dan G.

Then the liberals/democrats must fix it as repubs/conservatives must fix the creationism issue. Problem is, Soros says he bought the democratic party and he did.

Auto

This page has been archived.
Comments are closed.

Jump to top

Create a PageThis is the LGF Pages posting bookmarklet. To use it, drag this button to your browser's bookmark bar, and title it 'LGF Pages' (or whatever you like). Then browse to a site you want to post, select some text on the page to use for a quote, click the bookmarklet, and the Pages posting window will appear with the title, text, and any embedded video or audio files already filled in, ready to go.
Or... you can just click this button to open the Pages posting window right away.
Last updated: 2023-04-04 11:11 am PDT LGF User's Guide RSS Feeds

Help support Little Green Footballs!