…"perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice"

Nothing like having the answer for which you are assigned to develop proof. Now that’s AGW Science … unlike real science!

I remember that comment, VERY disturbing but at the same time it explains all the scientists running around making amazingly dodgy connections between all sorts of things and AGW/CAGW/CC/whatever-heck-their-title-the-week-is
Are these applications publically available? I think a survey would be interesting from an ethics, sociology and maybe even economics (my area of study) POV

According to East Anglia CRU’s Professor Tom Wigley, in 1990, “My organization has only one permanent university funded scientist — and that’s me. I have about a dozen research workers with PhDs who are working in the Climatic Research Unit and they’re all funded on so called soft money. Their existence requires me or us jointly to get external support.”
It’s in the fifth segment of a 1990 Australian documentary posted on The Dog Ate My Data

In Czechoslovakia 1977, some dissenters put together an announcement called “Charta 77”, asking our communist government to follow the human rights declaration, which we just signed in OSCE. Reaction of government was overly hysterical: newspapers churned hate against it, people at work were forced to sign the “Anticharta” which denounced Charta authors like traitors, imperialistic agents funded by West etc. Of course, nobody was allowed to read it.
but:
“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” — R. Reagan, First Inaugural Speech

The same instructions were given to peer reviewers?

Reminds me of”no bucks no Buck Rodgers…” From the “Right Stuff”
but that was the days when we funded to ‘Go Boldly” not to see if our
navel lint was toxic…

Paul always has valid and poignant commentary. His comment here is indicative of the primary reason science in general finds itself embroiled in this CRU controversy. Unless and until science rids itself of all traces of advocacy, it will merely be another branch of the body politic. We are indeed slipping into a very dark and unenlightened age.

It’s upsetting when the deluded puppets in the media ask persons skeptical of the ‘concensus’ to prove their position.
To do so proves they clearly understand so little.
Most of us with a smidgen of integrity knows that when we put forward a theory it is incumbent on US to prove it and not on others to disprove it.
Part of the wall of noise thrown up at the moment is to indirectly question the sanity of a skeptic by suggesting that for this ‘concensus’ to be ‘untrue’ there would need to be a global conspiracy!
And how absurd that would be!!
Commit this Tolstoi quote to mind and use it against all those fools who suggest such a thing.
Its not a conspiracy, it’s just human nature!
There is NOTHING new under the sun.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910)
Reminds you of anyone?
Perhaps Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones etc?

“Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.”
Why does that not surprise me at all? Those with agendas and deep pockets will use money as their tool of choice.

Distract and discredit. The mantra for proponents of agw. Just watch the arguments put forth on these very threads by promoters of the false theory. If looked at from this perspective it becomes patently clear what they are doing. Conspiracy theorist is just the latest. Unfortunately, it seems that they are successfully minimizing the damage that the e-mail leak should be causing by saying they are being taken out of context. That they are just e-mails amongst colleagues. Those of us that understand EXACTLY what is being said in those e-mails are not being heard by the public at large. Again they are praying upon “joe publics” lack of knowledge in this arena.

How do you suppose the wording of this grant influenced the application process?
http://www.merinews.com/article/nasa-climate-change-grant-goes-to-uga-professors/15790653.shtml#post
“it will allow undergraduate students a combination of classroom and field study to understand the impact of climate change on birds.”
“and teach students various aspects of climate change. ”
“NASA climate change grant will offer a unique opportunity to students to understand the complexities and challenges involved in predicting responses to climate change.”
They have the answer they are looking for, all they need is money and students.

Here’s one rfp that seeks to fund research applications which in one of the sub-areas deal with “Climate Change” (presumably understood to be global warming.
“ArcticNet is a Network of Centres of Excellence of Canada (NCE) that brings together scientists and managers in the natural, human health and social sciences with their partners in Inuit
organizations, northern communities, federal and provincial government agencies, and the private sector to study the impacts of environmental change and modernization in the coastal Canadian Arctic.
ArcticNet is seeking research proposals in the social and human health sciences for funding of projects to begin on 01 April 2010 and to be completed by 31 March 2011. The current call for proposals is open to all eligible Arctic researchers in Canada. New applicants and collaborators not previously engaged in ArcticNet are encouraged to apply. The list of targeted research themes in social and human health sciences includes (but is not limited to):
1. State of northern education (K-12 education, postsecondary education, and science & technology training) and strategies to improve it;
2. Traditional Knowledge in relation to research and policy;
3. Social research in the development of adaptation strategies to climate change;
4. Food and water security in the North;
5. Engagement of communities in economic development (e.g. fisheries, mining, oil & gas, tourism, shipping, etc.);
6. Human health impacts of environmental change and/or modernization;
7. Synthesis of results from recent human health surveys leading to policy and strategy development;
8. New and innovative research in the social and human health sciences that contributes to ArcticNet’s science objectives and Integrated Regional Impact Studies
For more information, see attached Call for Proposals, and ArcticNet website: http://www.arcticnet.ulaval.ca/research/call.php“

Walt The Physicist (07:52:08) :
That’s right. There is no conspiracy, there is well fed “consensus”. There was consensus against heliocentric model, against wave theory of light, against “jewish” science, against “genetics and cybernetics serving imperialism” and many other smaller scale “consensus…es”. But how in our time and our first world countries such “consensus” is possible?! May I suggest: the centralized government funding of science is the culprit. What’s instead?
I agree that it is the centralized government funding of science that is the culprit.A few people sitting on commitees of government agencies can corner the science, and affect the peer review system drastically.
The solution I have proposed sometime in this blog is that research funding should be given to institutions per capita of researcher/professor/lecturer, that is large universities get more than small ones, but the distribution of the funds should go according to the university rules internally. This will ensure healthy scientific competition, in my opinion. It is the way science used to work before it became so expensive that it needs government money.
Instead of having all these centralized agencies where bureaucrats sit that can be directly manipulated by a few in the politics scientists, the decisions on the scientific worth of a research project will be made by the peers within the university/research institute.
If the government wants specific research done , it should open bids to universities for the research, or something like that, not to individual scientists.

Here’s another one:
NSERC-related researchers
Information Meeting for the Tri Council/IRDC
International Research Initiative on Adaptation to Climate Change
Wednesday, November 25, 2009 at 2 p.m., YD1134
Contact: XXXXX.XXXX at ext. XXXX or XXXXX@XXXXXXX.XX
This Tri-Council (NSERC, SSHRC & CIHR) and IDRC initiative will support
the formation of multi-national teams from Canada and low income and
middle income countries, which will develop networks and programs of
research. Successful applicants will initiate multi-disciplinary and
multi-sectoral collaborations with researchers, communities,
practitioners and policy-makers in Canada and around the globe.
Please attend this meeting if you are interested in this funding
opportunity. Under the auspices of the XXXXXXXX International Office, it
is the University*s intention to identify the strongest XXXXXXXX-lead
groups for the initial Letter of Intent (January 7 2010).
Form more information on this initiative:
http://www.nserc-crsng.gc.ca/Professors-Professeurs/RPP-PP/IRIACC-IRIACC-eng.asp
When I clicked on this website, however, the link was no longer active

Wouldn’t it be easier (and less obviously unethical) to issue the request for grant proposals saying you want studies of climate change, then decide who gets the money based on what kinds of results they expect to get?

First of all, a conspiracy with a few thousands members is very comprehendable.
Secondly, most “climate” scientists, especially among the IPCC, are not even involved with the proving of man-made global warming (not climate change, because they weren’t trying to prove cooling) Most are invovled with the effect of a warmer world not the cause.
Lastly, we know that the data was manipulated and maintained by a rather smaller set of scientists. Methods of interpretation of data was handled by the same people. Anyone outside this group who doesn’t know the data was purposely bad, would come to the conclusion that the world was warming and man most likely was causing it.

Climate Change – has it been cancelled?

Off specific subject but will probably demonstate censorship of dissenting views.
Posted this at Surrealclimate- wonder whether it will be snipped?
Note no insults, just a statement of supportable facts.
All the GCM models that are used to make these projections rely on 2 basic premises.
1) That there is a positive water vapour feedback
and
2) as the Earth warms- causing further greenhouse gases to accumulate in the atmosphere, more long wave radiation (heat) will be trapped.
In fact Tropospheric water vapour levels are falling, or at best have remained constant. Whilst actual measurements of outgoing long wave radiation show increased amouts escaping into space.
These real-World observations seriously undermine the basis of GCM projections.

I am unbelievably disappointed with the scientific process if Paul Vaughan’s anecdote is true. Truly unbelievable.

To anyone who wants to look at the veracity of this claim just go to http://www.nsf.gov click on “funding” then “recent funding” or “find funding.” Search away. There’s now denying it – there’s piles and piles of projects and rfps there for everyone to see.

Can I plug Philip Stott here? He deserves an honourable mention for the good work he has done to rationalise debate. I may be preaching to the choir but if anyone hasn’t seen his website(s) you could start here:
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Clamour_Of_The_Times/Entries/2009/12/10_This_is_Not_Science.html
and search from there.
I may not agree with every thing he says but he is certainly way ahead of the game. He has clear ideals in my opinion, personally I think wind turbines are fine as they are completely takedownable should we in the UK solve the electricity crisis, but apart from that he is spot on.
http://web.mac.com/sinfonia1/Global_Warming_Politics/A_Hot_Topic_Blog/Entries/2007/12/4_Dimwits.html

“The separation between state and church must therefore be complemented by the separation between state and science.” Paul Feyerabend, Against Method (1975)

Was the application by Paul Vaughan made to a UK source?
If so, then I would say it is true.
An application form for our civil service would have questions like,
‘When did you stop beating your wife?’

In other news, our local village idiot competition winners are proposing a tax on banks to pay for Climate Change!

To ensure predictable and additional finance in the medium term to 2020 and beyond, we should make use of innovative financing mechanisms, such as the use of revenues from a global financial transactions tax and the reduction of aviation and maritime emissions and the auctioning of national emissions permits. We will work together on this.

Phillip Bratby (07:37:04) :
What is needed is actual pdfs of these funding application forms. Otherwise it’s just hearsay.
=======================================
I’ll work on that. Meanwhile, here’s a pdf for ya.
http://spreadsheets.google.com/ccc?key=0Ah4XLQCleuUYdFIxMnhMNnlXb2JQcDZUendjUXpWWUE&hl=en

Governments, and entities or programs, supported by governments, are reluctant to finance studies which render them obsolete. History teaches us that the science of the moment is usually in support of the entity in power. We would seldom finance our own demise.
Science of the future is often in opposition to the thoughts and powers of the moment. That is why any new science of yesterday was usually restricted in the moment, unless it could be shown to support or expand the powers that be.
New science is more often restricted, until the corruption of the old is exposed and or the old die off and allows the revolution of new ideas.
Stephen

In order to become a climate scientist in future, an oath will have to be signed.
“I hereby declare that I will do everything in my power to promote AGW and I pledge to make my findings conform to the understood majority view, that man-made emissions of CO2 are contributing to global warming. If I stray from the true path of enlightenment, I shall be chastised, all my equipment confiscated and be consigned to the nether world of Denierland. I shall not expect any funding from the great and benevolent Gods of AGW, ie the governments of the western world and various interest groups.”
Sign up son!! – or be damned and poor and be forever labelled an AGW heretic.

If this is a conspiracy, it is qualitatively very different from any previous conspiracy, real or imagined.
The JFK conspiracy as expounded by its adherents, supposedly involved a clique consisting of members of the establishment, planning something that was not only a capital offense, but also something that outraged the population at large.
The “moon landing filmed in Arizona” conspiracy supposedly involved the entire staff at Nasa as well as the Astronauts in an act which would have been extremely difficult to keep secret and which if discovered would have brought outrage from the American population and ridicule from the world.
One could go into more conspiracies, but I think they would all share the same crucial elements – a group of insiders taking on an inordinate amount of risk, possibly in the first case, risking their very lives, in order to carry out an act which the public would have been extremely hostile to in any case. If this is the benchmark of conspiracy theories that AGW is being measured against, then the benchmark is completely invalid.
In the AGW conspiracy, we have, at most, individuals who are arguably NOT breaking the law, who are ideologically motivated for the greater good, and for whom the public would presumably be in support of their attempts at “saving the planet.” This sense of “noblesse oblige” is enough to mark this group as not constituting a conspiracy in the normally understood sense. Indeed, in many eyes even yet, they are viewed as heroes, noblely battling the sabateours of “big oil” which alone vindicates my point that they are NOT in any sense assuming risk. Risk is there for sure, but the risk is outweighed by the rewards of public acclamation.
The previous point I alluded to was that they may not be breaking the law. There may well have been freedom of information laws broken, but these are minor issues compared to the data adjustments. Reviewing the work of people like Briffa, Jones and Mann, seems to suggest that they succeeded in convincing each other that what they were doing was good science. It may have been questionable to apply these techniques, but I am sure they did not see themselves as “cooking the books.” As long as they have assuaged their consciences that they were doing nothing wrong, then they are not knowingly assuming risk. And if they are not knowingly assuming risk, they cannot be categorised with traditional conspiracies.
A better label by far would be a self reinforcing group think.

Here is one from U.S. Civilian Research & Development.
http://www.crdf.org/funding/funding_show.htm?doc_id=1014809
1.Climate Change Impacts
2. Climate Change Solutions
This is just one of many, many that a google search came up with and most if not all that I have read tell you what they want your research to show and answer. So why would it be improbable for Paul V. to run into this problem with funding. If all the funding is leading to one predetermined goal then I can see why A. Funding and B. Media don’t report on conflicting science. As far as they are concerned either there is none or there is no money to be made in it.
Last night I watched Ben Stein’s Expelled about Darwin Vs. ID. And as I sat there and watched it, it really reminded me of the very thing going on in Climate science and Climate Change. If you don’t support the line then you get ostracized from academia and there goes your funding. But then you will get labeled a “denier” and giving the identity of a nutcase or “unintelligent” which will also stop you from getting funding for contradictive research …Much like those in the Elite AGW are trying to do to those that have differing views and science about AGW.

Speaking of funding and research. I just got this via e-mail:

Make your voice heard!
We have been asked to relay to the broad scientific community the following opportunity to advise US government policymaking deliberations.
You can read the latest updates at: http://www.whitehouse.gov/open
The Obama Administration is seeking public input on policies concerning access to
publicly-funded research results, such as those that appear in academic and scholarly journal articles. Currently, the National Institutes of Health require that research funded by its grants be made available to the public online at no charge within 12 months of publication. The Administration is seeking views as to whether this policy should be extended to other science agencies and, if so, how it should be implemented.
The Office of Science and Technology Policy in the Executive Office of the President and the White House Open Government Initiative are launching a “Public Access Policy Forum” to invite public participation in thinking through what the Federal government’s policy should be with regard to public access to published federally-funded research results.
To that end, OSTP will conduct an interactive, online discussion beginning Thursday, December 10. The discussion will focus on three major areas of interest:
* Implementation (Dec. 10 to 20): Which Federal agencies are good candidates to adopt Public Access policies? What variables (field of science, proportion of research funded by public or private entities, etc.) should affect how public access is implemented at various agencies, including the maximum length of time between publication and public release?
Add your comments >>
You will want to read the “Terms of Participation” and will need to register a new account and log in using the link at the bottom of the page to comment. Tips on how to comment and moderate posts are listed in the right-hand column.
* Features and Technology (Dec. 21 to Dec 31): In what format should the data be submitted in order to make it easy to search and retrieve information, and to make it easy for others to link to it? Are there existing digital standards for archiving and interoperability to maximize public benefit? How are these anticipated to change?
* Management (Jan. 1 to Jan. 7): What are the best mechanisms to ensure compliance? What would be the best metrics of success? What are the best examples of usability in the private sector (both domestic and international)? Should those who access papers be given the opportunity to comment or provide feedback?
Each of these topics will form the basis of a blog posting that will appear at http://www.whitehouse.gov/open and will be open for comment on the OSTP blog at blog.ostp.gov.
Sincerely,
Alan I. Leshner, CEO, AAAS and Executive Publisher, Science

The National Science Foundation. “Where discoveries begin.”
Bingo!

Produce the documents!

Another one,
DOE National Institute for Climatic Change Research, http://niccr.nau.edu/forms.html
“Research should:
(1) answer important questions about potential effects of climatic change on the structure and functioning of terrestrial ecosystems within the 50 states or District of Columbia;
(2) evaluate or improve the understanding and prediction of potential effects of climatic change on the future geographic distribution of U.S. terrestrial ecosystems at the regional scale;
(3) use measurements of contemporary exchanges of mass and energy between the atmosphere and terrestrial ecosystems to answer important questions about possible effects of an altered terrestrial carbon cycle and/or surface energy exchange on global and/or regional climate; or
(4) use synthesis of existing experimental or observational data, or modeling, to answer important questions about potential effects of
climatic change on U.S. ecological systems and/or feedbacks from U.S. terrestrial ecosystems to climate at the regional scale.”

A better analogy might be, pigs at the trough. Here’s a picture courtesy of the UK govt. http://gallery.nen.gov.uk/gallery_images/0701/0000/0102/100_6563_mid.jpg :
Note it didn’ take a conspiracy to get these interests assembled. They got their of their own accord. And most look happy to be there.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/education/2007/jul/06/research.highereducation
“Researchers working on the social and economic impact of climate change will get more money “as a matter of urgency”, the council said.
More fellowships in this area will be funded to help researchers tackle the problems outlined by the inter-governmental panel on climate change and the Stern review.
The fellowships will cover the economics of climate change, securing effective international collective action, impacts of climate change on international development and poverty and how to change behaviour. A call for bids is due out shortly.”

I sympathize with Mr. Vaughan. He wanted to get his “experience out” in the public. However, in this “environment” we do need to produce “prima facia” evidence. (Such as PDF’s of grant application instructions which say something similar to the above.)
It would make Climategate^2
Please note how the ACTUAL SEGMENTS OF CODE from CRU not only betray the biases, fudge factors, manipulations to “get the result we want”..
BUT they also show how SHODDY the work is.
We can run with that and should.

Nation Science Foundation “Where discoveries begin”
http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10503/nsf10503.pdf (page 5)
At the system end of the continuum, emphasis will be placed on proposals that advance our knowledge of important arctic environmental processes, the relationships among the various components of the arctic system, and the changes occurring in the cycles of water, carbon and energy in the Arctic and their connectivity to similar processes in lower latitudes with priority on subjects relating to environmental change in the Arctic.

Man Made global warming – Man made climate change – The latest urban legend.

Isn’t it odd that AFTER a conspiracy is EXPOSED, the defenders of the conspiracy say it can’t be a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people because, if it was a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people, it would be EXPOSED.
Hmmm, I think the premise just ran into itself.

Anthony,
I cam across this well-written article in the Jerusalem Post. I thinks it’s well-worth reading.
Think Again: Beware of religious fanatics
Dec. 10, 2009
Jonathan Rosenblum , THE JERUSALEM POST
Excerpt:
– “BENJAMIN FRANKLIN once said that two things should never be viewed in production – sausage and the news. We can now add to that list scientific consensus. An Internet hacker recently released thousands of e-mails to and from researchers at the University of East Anglia’s (UEA) Climate Research Unit (CRU), one of four official repositories for world temperature data.
Scientific consensus, the e-mails reveal, is a tautology: According to global warming alarmists, anyone who expresses any degree of skepticism is by definition not a serious scientist.
In one released e-mail, Phil Jones, head of the CRU, and Michael Mann, the lead author of the third report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), discuss ways to delegitimize Climate Journal, whose editor has published peer-reviewed articles by global warming “skeptics.” Jones assures Mann that one way or another he and a colleague will prevent two such articles from appearing in the next report of the IPCC, “even if we have to redefine what the peer-review literature is.”
Science depends on a willingness to continually retest hypotheses against the available data. Yet the UEA researchers did everything possible to prevent such testing, including destroying the raw data. The CRU’s temperature data is “adjusted” to account for different means of collection at various stations around the world. When researchers sought the raw data to examine those adjustments, Jones and colleagues first resisted and eventually destroyed much of the data. Other e-mails speak of deleting all correspondence related to the preparation of the fourth IPCC report.
One e-mail speaks of “trick[ing]” the data to hide the lack of global warming since 1998, despite the continual rise in carbon dioxide emissions. In an e-mail from UEA, a researcher laments, “The fact is that we can’t account for the lack of warming at the moment, and it is a travesty that we can’t.” But no such doubts about the climate models, upon which predictions of catastrophe are predicated, were ever expressed publicly. Another e-mail discusses strategies to obscure the uncomfortable fact that for long periods within the last thousand years, way before any human industrial activity, the earth was far warmer than today.
THE E-MAILS, opined The Sunday Times of London, constitute not a “smoking gun, but a mushroom cloud” in terms of the doubts cast on the so-called global warming consensus. The chicanery revealed does not disprove the theories of the global warming alarmists, but it makes a mockery of the notion that there is a scientific consensus. Yet with the exception of Fox News, the UEA e-mails went unmentioned for days by America’s mainstream media. When The New York Times was finally forced to do so, it adopted the stance of the “wizard of Oz” telling Dorothy to ignore the man behind the curtain manipulating the dials.
Such efforts to create a consensus by diktat are old hat. In 2001, when Cambridge University Press published Bjorn Lomborg’s The Skeptical Environmentalist: Measuring the Real State of the World, the scientific establishment went into overdrive to discredit the work. Lomborg argued that the dangers of global warming were vastly overstated, and the costs of the measures proposed to reverse it drastically out of proportion to any danger.
Nature, Science and Scientific American published scathing editorials denouncing the book. Only Nature permitted a letter to the editor (not from Lomborg himself) responding. Science and Scientific American initially refused to publish any responses, and Scientific American threatened legal action if Lomborg continued to post its review and his response on his Web site. Though Skeptical Environmentalist had been peer-reviewed by three leading earth scientists prior to publication, one leading scientist demanded the firing of the Cambridge University Press editor responsible for the book’s publication.
David Schoenbrod, a law professor and former attorney with the Environmental Defense Fund, reviewing the Lomborg controversy in Commentary (September 2002), concluded that Lomborg had refuted seven out of the nine allegations of factual error made in Scientific American’s scathing review, and that the other two were trivial and had no impact on his conclusions. Indeed, the 11-page Scientific American review had more demonstrable factual errors than Lomborg’s 500 page book.” –
[url]http://www.jpost.com/servlet/Satellite?cid=1260447408290&pagename=JPost%2FJPArticle%2FPrinter[/url]

Has anyone thought about bombing the antarctic to break off the ice so it floats around the world cooling the planet?

John Bowman (08:49:35) :
This essay in Time Higer Education is a must read.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
You’re right John. Martin Cohen an editor of the Philosopher and an environmental activist (FOF) has produced one of the clearest articles disputing the case for AGW that I’ve ever read!
This is a must read.

Shawn Sene (08:42:35) :
First of all, a conspiracy with a few thousands members is very comprehendable.
Secondly, most “climate” scientists, especially among the IPCC, are not even involved with the proving of man-made global warming (not climate change, because they weren’t trying to prove cooling) Most are invovled with the effect of a warmer world not the cause.
Lastly, we know that the data was manipulated and maintained by a rather smaller set of scientists. Methods of interpretation of data was handled by the same people. Anyone outside this group who doesn’t know the data was purposely bad, would come to the conclusion that the world was warming and man most likely was causing it.
Exactly right. Most AGW/Climate Change is not involved in the actual causes of climate change. The cause is presumed. They take the projections creating elsewhere and then make educated guesses on what the consequences will be.

Is God trying to send a message?
The forecast for Copenhagen:
http://www.worldweather.org/173/c00190.htm

While you are searching for examples of grants, also read the following critique of the system for awarding grants:
The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation?
Written by Donald W. Miller, Jr., MD
Monday, 21 April 2008
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/reprint/gov_grant_system_truth_or_innovation.html

“Michael (10:38:19) :
Has anyone thought about bombing the antarctic to break off the ice so it floats around the world cooling the planet?”
We could also attach tug boats to those ice cubes we bomb off, to bring them to higher latitudes so “Operation Crushed Ice” works better.

Solar wind
speed: 251.9 km/sec
http://spaceweather.com/

Weir in Space and Dimmed Sun Creates 200-Million-Mile-Long Lab Bench for Turbulence Research
http://www.physorg.com/news179749839.html

Neo (09:35:31), thanks for the link. I especially like the quote from an unnamed commenter:
“None of the scientists who have ‘come out’ as climate skeptics allege a massive conspiracy by scientists, any more than there is a massive liberal conspiracy in Hollywood. What you have is a self-emergent, self-organizing bias.”
The CAGW Echo Chamber.

Would it be possible to secure a grant so I could buy a Ferrari and study the effects on the climate and my sex life?

WSJ
The EPA’s Carbon Bomb Fizzles
http://online.wsj.com/article/SB20001424052748703514404574588120572016720.html

And let’s recall that in the real world, even if it isn’t spelled out in b&W, explicitly calling for evidence of X, it’s pretty easy to :
A. Write “between the lines” so everyone inthe field knows what’s expected but the deniability is preserved to lawyers and the naive.
B. Simply deny funding to anyone not willing to play by the unwritten rules. ” Wasn’t a good proposal.”
It’s a form of prior restraint. Also, Skeptics won’t even BOTHER to apply to certain sources because they’d know it’s a waste of time. In fact smart ones will leave the field to find a field of research more congenial.
You all know thre are people who earn a living writing grant proposals , right? Ya think maybe they know how to phrase proposals to appeal the bias of the funding sources and reviewers? I know, I’m so cynical. Sorry.
I remember speaking to a drunk bureaucrat , in another field, about how he could manipulate things. He’d give “research” travel grants to journalists who said the right things (Let’s visit sunny country Y in December to see how Z is working out.) , “lend” an office overseas, provide “pre-written” articles, access to people, etc… Say the wrong thing and suddenly you’d never get a grant, office, “leak”, would have to fight for months for the smallest scrap of information …

This must be the agency that is in charge of making certain all research and conclusions are traveling in the same direction:
http://www.globalchange.gov/

I have an idea for a PhD project:
“The influence of the theory of anthropogenic global warming’s influence on the beliefs in anthropogenic global warming being true and the general publics’ ability to discern real science from social hysteria.”
Too complex?
Any funds available?

“The influence of the theory of anthropogenic global warming on the beliefs in anthropogenic global warming being true and the general publics’ inability to discern real science from social hysteria.”

Im no scientist as i shortly hope to demonstrate! 🙂
As i understand it, water freezes at 0 degrees C.
Sea water is obviously saline so it freezes at around -2 degrees C.
If its -30 degrees c outside on the floes, wouldnt the ambient temperature have to be approaching -2 degrees C before any melting of the ice caps takes place?
those poor polar bears…

CNN World
Tracking down the ‘Climategate’ hackers
http://www.cnn.com/2009/WORLD/europe/12/11/hacking.emails.climate.skeptics/

STEPS Institute Grants and Awards: RFP announcement 4/22/09
Request for Proposals:
The 2009 Hammett Fund Student Research Grants
*Due May 30, 2009*
In 2008, community leaders Benjamin and Ruth Hammett made a generous gift to the STEPS Institute to fund research for UCSC students working on climate change and issues related to climate change and water. Dr. Hammett has generously renewed this gift for 2009. As a result of this generosity, the STEPS Institute is pleased to announce the availability of research funds for a second year to support research focused on these critical issues. We offer our grateful appreciation to the Hammett Fund for its continuing commitment to environmental research.
Intent: These funds are intended for research projects focused on climate change and/or the interplay between climate change and water issues. Proposals from any academic area are welcome, and interdisciplinary projects are encouraged.
Amount: Typical awards for graduate support will be up to $1,000. Undergraduate awards will be up to $500. Requests may include travel, equipment, supplies, and/or stipends as these costs relate to the funded student research projects. The budget page should itemize specifically how the funds will be used.
Criteria:
1. These awards are merit-based, and proposals will be evaluated by a subcommittee of the STEPS Advisory Board.
2. The proposal should state explicitly how the research relates to climate change or climate change and water issues.
3. Projects with an interdisciplinary component are encouraged.
4. The proposal should state a clear major research question and plan
5. For undergraduate research proposals, a letter from one faculty sponsor is required, indicating that the faculty member will work closely with the student to oversee the project.
http://www.steps.ucsc.edu/grantsRFP.html
[samples of the grants]:
Recipient: Nicholas Shikuma
Department: Environmental Toxicology
Research Project: Effects of global warming on a water-borne pathogen: genetic responses of Vibrio cholerae to environmental change
Recipient: Brian Petersen
Department: Environmental Studies
Research Project: Identifying and overcoming obstacles to addressing climate change
STEPS Research Grants for 2005
Brian Gareau
Dept. of Sociology
Faculty Advisor: Walter Goldfrank
Politics, Economics and Scientific Knowledge in Ozone Diplomacy: Further support for research on the Politics of Methyl Bromide and the Montreal Protocol
http://www.steps.ucsc.edu/grants_grad05.html

” kept running into funding application instructions of the following variety:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.”
Hard to believe. From one goofy interest group, yes, but “kept running into”?
If true, heads would roll. This would be a smoking cannon of perhaps greater magnitude than CRUs Climategate.

Response to;
Sean Peake (11:10:13) :
AdderW (11:16:28) :
ie
““Michael (10:38:19) : wrote
Has anyone thought about bombing the antarctic to break off the ice so it floats around the world cooling the planet?”
We could also attach tug boats to those ice cubes we bomb off, to bring them to higher latitudes so “Operation Crushed Ice” works better.”
We could also use Nuclear powered air craft carriers to tow the mammoth ice cubes. Don’t worry about the loss of ice, the Antarctic will make more.

“The Copenhagen Diagnosis” is the introductory paper for COP 15. This is the list of the 26 authors involved in preparing it
Allison, Ian
Ian Allison is leader of the Ice Ocean Atmosphere and Climate program in the Australian Antarctic Division, a Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and the President of the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences.
Bindoff, Nathan
Nathan Bindoff is Professor of Physical Oceanography at the University of Tasmania, Australia, and a Coordinating Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Bindschadler, Robert
Robert Bindschadler is Chief Scientist of the Laboratory for Hydrospheric and Biospheric Processes at NASA Goddard Space Flight Center, USA, a Senior Fellow of NASA Goddard, an AGU Fellow and past President of the International Glaciological Society.
Cox, Peter
Peter Cox is Professor and Met Office Chair in Climate System Dynamics at the University of Exeter, UK, and a Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
de Noblet, Nathalie
Nathalie de Noblet is a Research Scientist at the Laboratoire des Sciences du Climat et de l’Environnement (LSCE), Gif-sur-Yvette, France.
England, Matthew
Matthew England is an Australian Research Council Federation Fellow, Professor of Physical Oceanography, and joint Director of the UNSW Climate Change Research Centre (CCRC) at the University of New South Wales, Australia.
Francis, Jane
Jane Francis is Professor of Palaeoclimatology at the University of Leeds and the Director of the Leeds University Centre for Polar Science.
Gruber, Nicolas
Nicolas Gruber is Professor of Environmental Physics at ETH Zurich, Switzerland, and a contributing author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Haywood, Alan
Alan Haywood is Reader in Palaeoclimatology at the School of Earth and Environment, University of Leeds, UK, and a recent recipient of the Philip Leverhulme Prize.
Karoly, David
David Karoly is Professor of Meteorology and an ARC Federation Fellow at the University of Melbourne, Australia, and a Lead Author of the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports.
Kaser, Georg
Georg Kaser is a glaciologist at the University of Innsbruck, Austria, a Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and the IPCC Technical Paper on Climate Change and Water, and the Immediate Past President of the International Association of Cryospheric Sciences.
Le Quéré, Corinne
Corinne Le Quere is Professor of Environmental Science at the University of East Anglia, UK, a researcher at the British Antarctic Survey, co-Chair of the Global Carbon Project and a Lead Author of the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports.
Lenton, Tim
Tim Lenton is Professor of Earth System Science at the University of East Anglia, UK and the recipient of the Times Higher Education Award for Research Project of the Year 2008 for his work on climate tipping points.
Mann, Michael
Michael E. Mann is a Professor in the Department of Meteorology at Penn State University, USA, Director of the Penn State Earth System Science Center, and a Lead Author of the IPCC Third Assessment Report.
McNeil, Ben
Ben McNeil is an Australian Research Council Queen Elizabeth II Research Fellow at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia and an expert reviewer of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Pitman, Andy
Andy Pitman is joint director of the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, and a Lead Author of the IPCC Third and Fourth Assessment Reports.
Rahmstorf, Stefan
Stefan Rahmstorf is Professor of Physics of the Oceans and department head at the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research in Germany, a Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report and a member of the German government’s Advisory Council on Global Change.
Rignot, Eric
Eric Rignot is a glaciologist and Senior Research Scientist at NASA’s Jet Propulsion Laboratory, USA, a Professor of Earth System Science at the University of California Irvine, and a Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Schellnhuber, Hans Joachim
Hans Joachim Schellnhuber is Professor for Theoretical Physics and Director of the Potsdam-Institute for Climate Impact Research, Germany, Chair of the German Advisory Council on Global Change (WBGU) and a longstanding member of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Schneider, Stephen
Stephen Schneider is the Lane Professor of Interdisciplinary Environmental Studies at Stanford University, an IPCC Lead Author of all four Assessment and two Synthesis Reports, and founder and Editor of the Journal Climatic Change.
Sherwood, Steven
Steven Sherwood is a Professor of atmospheric sciences at the Climate Change Research Centre at the University of New South Wales, Australia, and a contributing author to the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Somerville, Richard
Richard C. J. Somerville is Distinguished Professor Emeritus at Scripps Institution of Oceanography, University of California, San Diego, USA and a Coordinating Lead Author of the IPCC Fourth Assessment Report.
Steffen, Konrad
Konrad Steffen is Director of the Cooperative Institute for Research in Environmental Sciences (CIRES) and Professor of Climatology at the University of Colorado in Boulder, USA, and the Chair of the World Climate Research Programme’s Climate and Cryosphere (CliC) project.
Steig, Eric
Eric J. Steig is Director of the Quaternary Research Center, and Professor of Earth and Space Sciences at the University of Washington, USA.
Visbeck, Martin
Martin Visbeck is Professor of Physical Oceanography and Deputy Director of the Leibniz Institute of Marine Sciences, IFM-GEOMAR, Germany, Chair of Kiel’s multidisciplinary research cluster of excellence “The Future Ocean” and Co-Chair of the World Climate Research Programme’s Climate Variability and Predictability (CLIVAR) Project.
Weaver, Andrew
Andrew Weaver is Professor and Canada Research Chair in Climate Modelling and Analysis at the University of Victoria, Canada, a Lead Author of the IPCC Second, Third, and Fourth Assessment Reports and Chief Editor of the Journal of Climate.
If you cross check this list to the CRU emails, I believe you’ll find at least 12 names in common. It doesn’t have to be massive to be effective.

To see how research grants and research in atmospheric science is being influenced by selective invitations to participate in postdoctoral career development, “a collegial peer network,” note the identities of the “mentors”, their affiliations, and roles in the UN-IPCC and related Alarmist activities:
Postdoc Session on Climate Change Research and Adaptation
26/07/09 17:54 Filed in: Research | Conference
The Dissertations Initiative for the Advancement of Climate Change Research (DISCCRS, pronounced discourse), connects natural and social scientists engaged in research related to climate change, impacts and solutions. The goal is to broaden perspectives and establish a collegial peer network to address climate challenges at the interface of science and society. […] Confirmed mentors include Julia E. Cole (University of Arizona), Jonathan T. Overpeck (University of Arizona), Billie L. Turner (Arizona State University), and David A. Randall (Colorado State University). Program Officers from the National Science Foundation (NSF) and from the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (NASA) will also be on site.
http://climatechangewater.org/page3/files/archive-jul-2009.php

Along with other posters here, it’s harder to call AGW a conspiricy than it is to call it deluded belief.
When Saul of Tarsus was trotting around the Mediterranean following his ‘revalation’ on the road to Damascus, he was armed with nothing but unshakeble faith. By itself, tht may have convinced maybe a few people but the time was right for a new religeon to take root. Many of the ideas of Christianity existed before Saul got to a city; so hw was able to focus these people’s thoughts onto his vision, with the added weight of th efollowers he left behind.
The movement he started is still with us today.
Conspiracy? No.

John Galt (11:01:36) :
Who is John Galt, and why are you using my handle?
———————————–
Your namesake is a hero in the Ayn Rand novel, Atlas Shrugged.

Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists? – Part 1

Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists? – Part 2

Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists? – Part 3

[snip – thanks but way off topic for this thread]

Thirty-five years ago, the funding application for climate science looked something like this:
Successful candidates will:
1) Demonstrate AGC.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGC.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

Too funny
http://www.examiner.com/x-9111-SF-Environmental-Policy-Examiner~y2009m12d11-Global-warming-loyalty-oaths-and-Climategates-smoking-gun
“However we have a winner in the Dim Bulb category for stupidest reaction to Climategate, the UK’s Met Office. One week after doing an absolutely brilliant thing–announcing they will essentially rebuild the temperature records to eliminate doubt that the Climategate scientists had corrupted or lost it, they throw away all their brownie points by circulating a petition supporting the global warming position and asking scientists to sign it.
They decided to repeat the behaviour they criticize in skeptics, by gathering signatures from people who are not climate scientists and using them to pad the total number of those ‘on board.’ But, as one scientist remarked, “The Met Office is a major employer of scientists and has long had a policy of only appointing and working with those who subscribe to their views on man-made global warming.” This effectively turns the exercise into the equivalent of Joseph McCarthy’s loyalty oaths.
The even more important story of yesterday, however, was Climategate’s bete noire, Steve McIntyre, who published a post on his weblog Climate Audit. For more than two weeks we have heard the establishment scientists saying that the leaked emails were take out of context. Unfortunately for them, putting them in context makes it even worse, as McIntyre shows with one series that should have district attorneys dusting off the definition of RICO statutes. The emails show collusion to place inaccurate and incomplete data into public evidence for policy makers charged with enacting appropriate legislation to evaluate and deal with climate change.”

I don’t believe one needs a conspiracy to arrive at the scientific fraud we are seeing. We don’t even need interest in funding – though that doesn’t hurt. All that is required is a noble motive: saving us from ourselves. The CRU emails show the climatologists there believing they were engaged in something bigger than science – they were the good shepherds, bringing us out of our darkness.
See “Climategate: The good shepherds”:
http://vulgarmorality.wordpress.com/2009/12/06/climategate-the-good-shepherds/

Correction:
In the article above, I am incorrectly quoted as follows:
“This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.”
These words, which have been attributed to me, are not mine.
The closing sentence should read as follows:
“Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.”
Best Regards,
Paul Vaughan.
REPLY: Missing indent – that line was from the planet Gore Post, fixed and made clearer, thanks for pointing it out. -A

I sometimes wonder if “has increased public awareness of the dangers of global warming” might be a line-item in the periodic performance reviews of some news media personalities.

Mapou,
I think if you hang around for a bit (my apologies if you’re a regular and I didn’t recognize the name) that most of us here are not opposed to conservation and proper treatment of the earth. Mr. Watts, while a skeptic, probably has a smaller carbon footprint than either of us. Imagine, for a moment, if we took a fraction – any fraction be it a 1/10th to 1/100th – of what is being contemplated in Copenhagen or the various Cap and Trade bills and put it to what we verifiably know is affecting our planet – land use, “real” pollution
We probably aren’t so different

When the UN is involved, follow the money!
Please read this incredible story and find out how the loss of 1.700 jobs in Europe benefit the Chairman of the IPCC.
How crooked and corrupt is the web called AGW!
http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2009/12/when_the_uns_involved_follow_t.html

Early in this thread there were many who expressed doubt in the claim that research money was being purposely manipulated to reward pro-AGW studies. The doubters were demanding proof by way of online .pdf’s. Are the doubters satisfied? I could be wrong, but I don’t think any of them have returned to acknowledge the many posts that link to exactly what they were demanding.

Would it be possible (in these current times) to win a grant for determining the CO2 emissions of insects? Or polar bears? Or migrating birds? Or any non-human source of CO2?

I found this great website WUWT and the DVD “The Great Global Warming Swindle (DVD)” on junkscience.com. The DVD, after first exploring some of the real science that exists about climate over the long haul, explores several ideas that built the Global warming scare to what it is. One big driver is “follow the money” researchers getting grants for AGW research, actual “journalism degrees” in environmental journalism, and of course if it bleeds it leads. One of the founders of Greenpeace, who is no longer a member, stated that once people started recycling, and cleaning up rivers etc…, those organizations needed to drum up scares to keep the money coming in. It was pointed out that after the shortfalls of communism were exposed by the fall of the Soviet Union, the supporters of communism switched their energies to finding other ways to kill capitalism.
Not a complete cloak and dagger conspiracy, but different groups using “Global warming” to further their own interests. With a willing press and Hollywood to keep repeating the lies of AGW, and with most of the general population not seeking other sources of information, this is how we ended up where we are. Hopefully the facts will save us, before the entire cap and trade laws are passed, and our technology advancements and way of life are ruined.

Mapou (15:36:26) :
You have the same dismal outlook as the Gnostics.
Some of us are not evil, just wrong.

RoyFOMR (10:40:48) :
John Bowman (08:49:35) :
This essay in Time Higer Education is a must read.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
You’re right John. Martin Cohen an editor of the Philosopher and an environmental activist (FOF) has produced one of the clearest articles disputing the case for AGW that I’ve ever read!
I agree with both of you that “This is a must read.” It really exposes the generation of group-think and cultural attitudes. Cohen also argues that the key problem that has led to what he and some of the commenters refer to as the largest scandal in the history of science (I agree) is the devaluation of critical thinking in institutions of higher learning. This article is highly relevant to this thread, but perhaps deserves a thread of its own for its excellent social analysis.

Squidly: Do you think your father’s bias might be because he is in denial of the corruption that has now overtaken the institution of science? Trusted people are now claiming AGW to be fact. A hated sports analogy, but isn’t it also hard for football fans when a favorite, explosive player turns out to be a criminal? Yet honest fans will defend them. We don’t want to believe that our hearts have been in the wrong place. People don’t like being wrong.

April E. Coggins (22:02:23) :
Yes….and ultimately this becomes a psychological and anthropological argument.
One studying “group-think” and mass deception.
There really is no easy explanation except that humans, for all their evolution, are subject to crippling amounts of cognitive dissonance.
That dissonance completely erases all rational thought…even in high IQ MIT grads.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

This wont appear as a ‘proof’ of course… but
Anyone who spends any time attempting to get funding for any research knows
(not me but my ex-wife [and ag scientist, but still an applicable example])
The funding body decides what funds will be spent on what research.
They do not fund research they are not interested in.
If the funding body is Govt. (and in science these days it mostly is) and that Govt. has a stated position on the topic of the research then If your research will fit into that position, you will
get the funding, if it does not fit that stated posisition then you will get a rejection letter (no matter if its a worthwhile research project or not.)
So in the current climate (ha ha) any one looking for funding to investigate other possible causes of GW/CC will Not get funding from a funding body that is in favour of AGW. (seems obvious)
Greenpeace presumably would not fund research into how good whales are to eat… (even though the Japanese seem to think they are really nice).. no matter how well you present your application.
Just a thought..
cheers all
Jim

Several years ago, I made a proposal (in Japan) in which I claimed the importance of examining the effect of solar magnetic activity changes on the climate. The main reviewer (a famous biologist, who recently passed away) said to me “There is no time to do such a research.” He seemed to believe in AGW. It would have been rather easy for researchers to be funded if they proposed to reveal the effect of climate changes on biodiversity, society etc.

savethesharks (22:13:08) :
April E. Coggins (22:02:23) :
Yes….and ultimately this becomes a psychological and anthropological argument.
One studying “group-think” and mass deception.
There really is no easy explanation except that humans, for all their evolution, are subject to crippling amounts of cognitive dissonance.
That dissonance completely erases all rational thought…even in high IQ MIT grads.
Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA
For over thirty years during my active time in particle research I worked in large groups, 50, 300, 2000 people in a position where I could both observe and try to influence scientific policy. Being of the generation of the “feminine mystique” etc age, my sociological antenas were tuned from those readings, and yes, I soon came to the conclusion that even in a gathering of scientists, a sociologist was needed to reason out the decisions and the policies. Maybe even psychologists and psychiatrists ( this is from an inside story in which I was not directly involved, but certainly a psychologist would have had a field day in the group meetings of that group, from the descriptions I had).
Scientists are people, and group behavior is a survival trait in human societies, thus in groupings of scientists too. It is inevitable that a Lysenko will impose his view on all science if he is given the centralized power because of group think even in large groupings. Scientists are forced into one grouping by centralized planning.
As I said above, the only solution is to have decentralized decision making on which scientific track to pursue, and this can only happen when the universities and institutes become independent of the centralized government planning, the way they were in the beginning of the twentieth century. This will generate competition between scientific groups which is also a human survival trait.

I find this thread interesting because I have been bothered by the deployment of the arguement that “all those scientists cannot all be in some big conspiracy, it just makes no sense”. It is a powerful refrain that is being used since teh breaking of climategate as an excuse to avoid investigating arguements against GW. This thread does begin to give some answers to how it has happened.
As a non-scientist I tend to use words like “hysteria” and “group think” useful but insufficient, but I find the point that the (subliminal) language in applications for grants is contributing to the results obtained a more convincing arguement. I think this needs more investigtion and is an important line of research.

The only people to blame for the mess the world is in is ourselves. We ( 60% of we ) voted the idiot class into power, who put a medical Dr. in charge of the transport ministry, and a ex truck driver in charge of health and welfare.
Only about 0.001% of the worlds politicians can truthfully say that they were a success at something before entering politics, we are being led into doom by a bunch of people with diplomas in ignorance, and to prove they are right they pass laws to make us more ignorant than them, this is not the first time in the very short human history that this has occurred, the intelligent profits of old foretold of this problem but it still has not entered into our culture.
Plato:
”Those that are to intelligent to enter into politics are punished by being governed by idiots”

I secured 30 grand for a one-page alarmist proposal in the mid-90s.
If you are going to secure funding, you usually get the green light before you apply.
I’ve never been refused funding. If I don’t get the green light in advance (verbally – administrators don’t always appreciate paper trails), I don’t waste my time applying.
You don’t necessarily need to do the research the way you propose. Institutions know this and will recruit people with money and then attempt to “redirect” their focus.
You have to have a sense of humor when dealing with ivory tower admins. (Then it can be good fun for all involved, including them.)
It is important to realize that we are in a massive backlash arising from inappropriate resistance to pollution control many decades ago.

Paul Vaughan (02:41:33) :
It is important to realize that we are in a massive backlash arising from inappropriate resistance to pollution control many decades ago.
It is also important to realize that some of that resistance was to the inappropriately-draconian measures that were being proposed — and enacted — in the name of pollution control.

observa (06:20:54) : I simply Googled- ‘Successful candidates will demonstrate climate change’ and returned 503,000 entries…
Nice, simple pebble to Goliath there
Hunter (00:17:50) : Just who is Paul Vaughan? I cannot find any publications in climate-related fields by anyone of that name. I cannot find any evidence that would support his claims to have been, or to currently be, a researcher in a climate-related discipline. To see a fictitious anecdote so uncritically accepted is depressing indeed.
Hunter, I think you need to look in the mirror – at your own powers of observation of the interesting, varied, and certainly not uncritically accepting material this thread has produced. Also, Paul’s value stands by what he says here – and his research elsewhere, which is excellent, but not very pig-trough stuff.

Investigation unnecessary? Of course—Choo-choo Pachauri wants to keep driving his gravy train.

I’d like to see Paul Vaughan prove his comment is true. I’d like to see links to such instructions so I can read them with my own eyes and share them with others. I don’t know Paul Vaughan, so it’s not enough to tell people, “This guy on a blog said the following was true.” Paul’s comment would be a smoking gun of sorts to prove much of what skeptics postulate: that funding dictates a pro-AGW stance.

I googled the exact phrases (using advanced search):
1) the successful candidate will demonstrate climate change
2) the successful candidate will demonstrate global warming
3) the successful candidate will demonstrate AGW
4) successful candidates will demonstrate climate change
5) successful candidates will demonstrate global warming
6) successful candidates will demonstrate AGW
and got zero hits.