|
wrt university funding: research is supposed to be as dispassionate and objective as possible (but bias is everywhere). "Applied" research and corporate strings increase the pressure for bias. In addition, universities traditionally have focused on basic research which corporations generally *do not* fund for a variety of reasons.
As for the film...all films have a POV and bias. To think a documentary is "objective" is ridiculous. Wrt including it in the school curriculum, using films in class has been around since film has been around. The question lies in the usefullness of the content. Some content is appropriate for schools based on the quality of the materials, others for the POV that it presents (in order to stimulate discussion).
wrt the science, my take is that a majority of the scientific community thinks that global warming is real, and is increased by green-house gasses. Of course there is dissent...that's the nature of science. There are researchers that argue that HIV doesn't cause AIDS too...that doesn't make them right.
The evidence seems to indicate that greenhouse gases have an effect. Further study might disprove the cause/effect. But until that time, I would think we'd want to try and minimize the impact, especially if it can be done without catastrophic results to the economy.
|