[lern_too_spel]

This is a gross misunderstanding of my comment. Once more, do you believe that Twitter is hindering actual useful scientific findings? Of course not. The people who are funding useful research demand that the results be accurate. They are paying for it.

Governments can save a lot of money if it turns out climate change has no anthropogenic cause. On the other hand, if it does have an anthropogenic cause, they can save a lot of money if they understand that and take action. It doesn't matter what the Twitter mobs say.

[muh_gradle]

I have no idea why you're so fixated on Twitter. The people you're responding to are obviously saying that K-12 education, college admissions, and as a result, science is being politicized.

[lern_too_spel]

The people I am responding to are fixated on Twitter. If you want to change the subject, I'm happy to oblige.

K-12 education is being politicized in as far as believing climate science was politicized.

If you think that college admissions are being politicized, you must have no idea how graduate school admissions work. It has not changed in decades. Whether changes to undergraduate admissions has an effect on scientific output is a statement that requires evidence. Until I see evidence, I consider the alternate hypothesis that increasing admission rates in communities that have few college graduates could decrease crime and increase general academic achievement and scientific progress to be just as likely.

[muh_gradle]

My goodness, are you always so argumentative with people who have no interest in arguing with you? Please proceed to shout into the wind further though if it makes you happy.

[lern_too_spel]

If you have no interest in arguing a point, what are you doing here presenting arguments?

[muh_gradle]

Point out where I made an argument. Go ahead. Do it.

[lern_too_spel]

"The people you're responding to are obviously saying that K-12 education, college admissions, and as a result, science is being politicized."