That's not an indication of politicisation at all.
For those of us playing the home version, would you expand you thoughts as to why you disagree?
The implication appears to be that political interests drive the scientific consensus on climate change. James Hansen's activism started long after he began publishing, and lots of his peers in climate science are not politically active. It's just a poor argument.
Gotcha. I appreciate you coming back after 4 days to explain what you meant. I've been frustrated by the increasing tendency to consider tainted any research or facts put forth by people who also want to take a stand on issues. Granted, that can be problematic, which is why transparency is so important.
Nothing. Politicians ignoring high-quality research in order to make fossil-fuel companies more profitable is the only "politicized" issue.
Its not. Its probably more accurately described as "science which has political implications" rather than "politicized science."
Because they refuse to admit it's a Chinese hoax. For clearly political reasons.
He's moving it to NOAA. Seems like a better fit, NASA can focus on the solar system and beyond while other agencies handle the earth.
I assume that the people who voted for Trump just don't care about and even actively hate their children, so they will be happy with this quite expected news.