Climate Quotes 
Jan 17, 2011
The National Science Foundation (NSF) launched a program in 2010 called Climate Change Education Partnership (CCEP). In this program they funded different opportunities to educate about climate change by giving funds (awards) to colleges who drafted proposals on how they would spend the money. One such proposal caught my eye. The program is entitled “Making the Global Local – Unusual Weather Events as Climate Change Educational Opportunities” and it is taking place at George Mason University (GMU). Here is the program description:
This project will focus on establishing a national network of on-air broadcast meteorologists, climate scientists, university research programs, and key climate and weather science organizations, to engage, train, and empower local broadcast meteorologists to educate and inform the American public about climate.
Training meteorologists to educate the American public about climate change? That sounds strange, but I was prepared to give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps they simply want meteorologists to give the facts without any pre-conceived position on the subject. However, I dug a little further and found a job description  for this program. I’ve taken a screen capture, take note of the highlighted area (click if needed):
Did they really just say that? Let’s look again:
The project will integrate informal learning, mass communication, and experiential learning theories to develop and test new pedagogical approaches to informal science education through frequent mass media exposure, linked to realworld experience (i.e., the local weather). It will also adapt and test conflict resolution theory and practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus and climate scientists in constructive dialogue.
Adapt and test conflict resolution theory? Practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus?
This is taxpayer’s money funding this stuff. Taxpayers are funding a program to “practice to engage meteorologists who reject the scientific consensus”. I contacted Anthony Watts and he wrote this post  about it. I also contacted Joe Bastardi for his opinion. To paraphrase, he stated that the he believes that the data will prove the research correct and worrying about funding is only a distraction from forecasting. John Coleman has not yet responded.