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

We recently had a story about the UK Met Office putting out a petition amongst scientists (even non-climatologists) to prop up the image of the CRU. Some scientists said they felt “pressured” to sign.

This story explains how they might feel that way.

WUWT reader Norris Hall commented on this thread: Americans belief of global warming sinking – below 50% for the first time in 2 years

… it is possible that this is just a big conspiracy by climate scientist around the world to boost their cause and make themselves more important. Though I find it hard to believe that thousands of scientists…all agreed to promote bogus science …Pretty hard to do without being discovered.

To which Paul Vaughan responded as follows:

Actually not so hard.

Personal anecdote:
Last spring when I was shopping around for a new source of funding, after having my funding slashed to zero 15 days after going public with a finding about natural climate variations, I 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.

Follow the money — perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice.

Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.

From Planet Gore: This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.

New maxim: The Carrot Train

h/t to Planet Gore, who got it from Bishop Hill, who got it from comments here on WUWT

Sometimes there’s so much happening on WUWT, it is impossible to take it all in.

Thanks guys!

About these ads

227 thoughts on “…”perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice”

  1. While I have absolutely no doubt about the veracity of Paul Vaughn’s comment, it would be nice if people here would supply actual rfp announcements or funding application instructions that specify that researchers provide evidence for global warming or address the reality of it. I think I deleted one from my in-box the other day, and will scout around for it. Nice post explaining the “roots” of the “conspiracy”.

  2. 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

  3. 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

  4. I wonder where this movement comes from. Is it just the Baby Boomer generation trying to find something meaningful in saving the world? Or is there something being driven by some key players? Perhaps it is both. But the culture is what gives it the broad appeal.

    I will probably keep saying this; you don’t need “conspiracy” where you have “culture”. People have a psychology and blind spots, and cultures have psychologies and blind spots. I lived in South Africa for a few years, when Apartheid was still on, and it gave me a sense of how so many groups of otherwise smart, educated people, could all carry around a massive blind spot when it came to racism.

    The warmists accuse everyone else of having a massive blind spot—they claim we find it too “inconvenient” to accept the “reality”. Well I’ve never seen a warmist doing any soul searching into their own motivations.

    There is a quotation I’d like to post in a bit.

  5. 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

  6. 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?

  7. 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…

  8. 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.

  9. If we are currently charmed by calls to recover our humanism, sounded in various intellectual quarters championing our “courage” and our capacity for “caring”, we might do well to remember that courage and caring, by themselves, can be as life-stealing as life-giving, that every tyrant and tyrannical movement in human history draws energy not from fear alone but from the courage and caring of its adherents.

    — Robert Kegan, “In Over Our Heads, The Mental Demands of Modern Life”, 1994

  10. 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?

  11. “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.

  12. 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.

  13. I saw that comment in the original post comments too, and it it indeed jumped out at me. It’s what O’Reilly would call a “pithy comment”. :)

    Glad you highlighted it.

  14. Blood and sex create newspaper headlines. This AGW has neither.
    Fear creates a foundation for obtaining grants. With money scarce for research, any study taht includes drama in applying for research that can use or peredict dangerous outcomes for der Planette will have a small chance of success.

  15. Sorry I am skeptical of this being on the funding papers or whatever they are. While I can understand getting defunded if you do not tow the line I highly doubt you would not get funding to start the science. Please feel free to show me evidence otherwise but my skeptical nature kicks in when someone simply says this is what happened.

    I was at one point in time a telemarketer and would record calls all the time to help my staff. As their manager I would get complaints all the time that such and such an agent lied or swore or whatever. None of my agents ever did any of these things but people in their minds would actually argue with me about it. I had the recordings I listened to them not once was it true.

    It is part of the problem with communication. People hear what they want to hear. Or what they expect to hear even when you are saying the same thing OVER and OVER again and never deviate.

    I will not accept fault finding without evidence, regardless of my personal opinion on the the matter of AGW. Innocent until proven guilty. I am sad such an anecdotal story made it on WUWT. While it may be true it needs evidence before being posted on here.

  16. An error does not become truth by reason of multiplied propagation, nor does truth become error because nobody sees it.

    Ghandi.

  17. 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.

  18. Phillip and others:
    If Paul V doesn’t provide a pdf or whatever, you might be able to find one yourselves by going through the process of “shopping around for a new source of funding”.

  19. Here are three recent articles on CAWG on the “Spiked” site:

    Andrew Orlowski
    Why the Climategate controversy matters…

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7806/

    Brendan O’Neill
    Why Climategate won’t stop climate-change alarmism
    Those UEA scientists indulged in dodgy academic activity, but they did not invent the politics of global warming

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7805/

    Rob Lyons
    Turn the clock back to 1875? No thanks

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7816/

    Frank Furedi
    We don’t need another conspiracy theory
    [A critique of peer review]

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/7748/

    The Tyranny of Science

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/article/4275/

    Here’s Spiked’s Environment section, with links to many more such articles:

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C32/

  20. I get those solicitations for research into consequences of AGW (implicitly assuming AGW is occurring) all the time too but I’m not on my university email account right now so I can’t add their websites here this morning. BUT do a yahoo search on “impact climate funding opportunities research” and hundreds will show up. Someone might like to do that web search and start pasting the links here.

  21. Successful candidates will:
    1) Demonstrate AGW.
    2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
    3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

    Scientists who are confronted with the above should reveal which funding agencies are including that criteria. That would provide one more smoking gun.

    NSF? DOE? NASA?…..Who???? This kind of requirement in a Request for Proposal shows a clear predetermination of the outcome of the research, or at best is acting as a filter to eliminate research activities which do not support AGW. Is that not censorship? ( I personally haven’t found such language at NSF..anyone??)

    Worse yet, what if your grant proposal was consistent with the requirements, but in the end, your conclusion simply could not conform…What do you do? “Fudge” the data? Perfrom a “Trick”??

    This is political science that places a researcher in between a rock and a hard place, meaning that the sources of this kind of requirement must be revealed. In fact, to me, this is so serious that if the sources aren’t revealed and confirmed by mulitple researchers, then I’m inclined to believe this is simply not true…..

    Any confirmations?

  22. Absent the so described funding application, this is simply a rumor!

    It is not helpful to post things like this without supporting evidence – it feeds the “those skeptics are conspiracy theory wackos anyway” retort.

    Post a PDF, and it’s a different story.

  23. 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

  24. 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.

  25. I also recall anecdotes about this from my wildlife management classes in Uni several years ago. The professor said the easiest way to get funding for any wildlife research was to come up with a way to link it to AGW.

    Of course, this is secondhand anecdotal ~= worthless.

    Copies of grant applications would be a good smoking gun.

  26. 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

  27. From a recent post on http://www.devilskitchen.me.uk/ :
    “In the meantime, take a look at the NERC Council, the body responsible for prioritising funding. Several of these are familiar names, and one or two have been ubiquitous in the media in recent weeks. For example:
    Bob Watson (of CRU fame)
    Andrew Watson (of CRU and “What an Asshole” fame)
    Julia Slingo (recently seen trying to drum up support for a pro-AGW letter signed by scientists)
    Mike Lockwood (well known to sceptics as the author of a rather questionable critique of Svensmark)
    Political scientists or honest brokers? You decide.”

    The NERC approves funding applications for UK research – now look at the group of “independent” scientists who signed the letter in The Times yesterday were from the following institutions (university abbreviated to Univ.):

    Aberdeen Univ. – 30;
    Aberystwyth Univ. – 12;
    Anglia Ruskin Univ. – 1;
    Aston Univ. – 1;
    Bangor Univ. – 14;
    Bath Spa Univ. – 2;
    Bath Univ. – 1;
    Belfast Univ. – 1;
    Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland – 1;
    Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council – 6;
    Birkbeck, Univ. Of London – 2;
    Birmingham Univ. – 14;
    Brighton Univ. – 2;
    Bristol Univ. – 56;
    British Antarctic Survey – 39;
    British Geological Survey – 8;
    British Oceanographic Data Centre – 5;
    Brunel Univ. – 9;
    Cambridge Univ. – 52;
    Cardiff Univ. – 13;
    Centre for Ecology and Hydrology – 57;
    Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science – 4;
    Chairman, MPA Science Advisory Panel – 1;
    Co Chair Climate & Health Council – 1;
    Countryside Council for Wales – 1;
    Cranfield Univ. – 3;
    Durham Univ. – 32;
    Earthwatch Institute – 1;
    Edge Hill Univ. – 2;
    Edinburgh Napier Univ. – 3;
    Edinburgh Univ. – 84;
    Environment Agency – 6;
    Environmental Systems Science Centre – 3;
    Essex Univ. – 2;
    Exeter Univ. – 47;
    Faculty of Public Health – 1;
    Freshwater Biological Association – 1;
    Glasgow Univ. – 40;
    Gloucestershire Univ. – 1;
    Greenwich Univ. – 1;
    Health Protection Agency – 1;
    Hertfordshire Univ. – 8;
    Huddersfield Univ. – 1;
    Hull Univ. – 8;
    Imperial College London – 18;
    Institution of Environmental Sciences – 1;
    John Ray Initiative – 1;
    Keele Univ. – 1;
    Kings College London – 7;
    Lancaster Univ. – 23;
    Leeds Univ. – 56;
    Leicester Univ. – 9;
    Liverpool John Moores Univ. – 2;
    Liverpool Univ. – 20;
    London School of Economics – 1;
    London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine – 1;
    London Schoool of Economics Grantham Research Institute – 1;
    Loughborough Univ. – 13;
    Manchester Metropolitan Univ. – 7;
    Manchester Univ. – 40;
    Marine Biological Association – 3;
    Marine Laboratory Scotland – 1;
    Met Office – 204;
    Met Office (retired) – 2;
    National Centre For Earth Observation – 1;
    National History Museum – 10;
    National Oceanographic Centre Southampton – 59;
    Natural Environment Research Council – 4;
    Natural History Museum – 7;
    NERC Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements – 5;
    Newcastle Univ. – 10;
    NHS Sustainable Development – 1;
    North Wyke Research – 2;
    Northumbria Univ. – 1;
    Nottingham Trent Univ. – 1;
    Nottingham Univ. – 16;
    Open Univ. – 26;
    Oxford Univ. – 88;
    Plymouth Marine Laboratory – 13;
    Plymouth Univ. – 26;
    Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory – 15;
    Quarternary Research Association – 1;
    Queen Mary Univ. London – 7;
    Queens Univ. Belfast – 3;
    Reading Univ. – 81;
    Roehampton Univ. – 3;
    Rothamsted Research – 3;
    Royal Botanical Gardens Kew – 1;
    Royal Geographical Society (former Director) – 1;
    Royal Holloway, Univ. Of London – 6;
    Royal Meteorological Society – 8;
    Royal Observatory – 6;
    Royal Veterinary College, Univ. of London – 1;
    Rutherford Appleton Laboratory – 3;
    Salford Greater Manchester Univ. – 1;
    Science and Technology Facilities Council – 4;
    Science Museum – 1;
    Scott Polar Research Institute – 2;
    Scottish Association for Marine Science – 14;
    Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment – 2;
    Scottish Government Marine Lab – 1;
    Scottish Marine Institute – 1;
    Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre – 1;
    Sheffield Univ. – 27;
    Sir Allister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science – 4;
    Southampton Univ. – 16;
    St Andrews Univ. – 15;
    Stirling Univ. – 12;
    Surrey Univ. – 4;
    Sussex Univ. – 5;
    Swansea Univ. – 21;
    UK Climate Impacts Programme – 1;
    Ulster Univ. – 4;
    Univ. College London – 40;
    Univ. of East Anglia – 64;
    Univ. of Gloucestershire – 1;
    Univ. of Greenwich – 1;
    Warwick Univ. – 6;
    West of England Univ. – 2;
    Wolverhampton Univ. – 4;
    Worcester Univ. – 1;
    York Univ. – 33;
    Zoological Society of London – 16.

    Remeber if you control the grant funding mechanisms you control the direction of research – many of those who signed the Slingo letter are on sub-committees/review panels/peer reviewers for funding applications and therefore are able to determine the strategic direction of research – if you fall out with them you simply do not get your proposals funded!

  28. 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?

  29. Purpose driven funding perpetuates “scientific research”, not objective science. See:

    I Was On the Global Warming Gravy Train Mises Daily: Monday, May 28, 2007 by David Evans

    I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.. . .
    The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.

    I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!

    But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. . . .
    There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something.. . .
    Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.. . .
    The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.

    David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.

  30. 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.

  31. @JaneHM (08:20:24)
    First items on http://www.google.co.uk/search?q=impact+climate+funding+opportunities+research is –

    http://www.crdf.org/funding/funding_show.htm?doc_id=1014809

    The details of this US funded competition are:
    “Research projects eligible for this competition should be submitted to one of the two Focus Areas of this competition, Climate Change Impacts or Climate Change Solutions. All applications will be considered equally regardless of which focus area they are submitted to. Proposals eligible for Focus Area I: Climate Change Impacts should address the impacts of climate change on human and biological systems; ii) measure, monitor, and model the processes that will provide accurate future projections of climatic and environmental changes and/or iii) study regionally specific feedbacks associated with the climate change. Proposals eligible for Focus Area II: Climate Change Solutions should address solutions to climate change such as developing technologies in energy sphere, agriculture, and materials science and that may mitigate or reduce the impact of climate change.

    CRDF will accept applications related to climate change from all natural sciences.”

    My reading of the above is that the funding assumes Climate Change and therefore applications must be consistent with there being climate change!

  32. We do ourselves a disservice if describe AGW as hoax or a scam, let alone a conspiracy. There are some elements of all these in it, but this is true of all human endeavours. Most of all it is a collective delusion. Those who are baffled as to how it has taken such a hold on the human mind should read this book

    People believe what they want to believe, or what it is in their interest to believe. This is the perennial enemy of good science.

  33. 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.

  34. It’s a nice argument with a lot of merit, but I should point out that George Monbiot already has it convered by extending the conspiracy argument not just through space but through time as well. Monbiot rejects the conspiracy theory because it would have had to extend back “a hundred and fifty years.” I’m sure there’s a fallacy in his reasoning somewhere.

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

  36. Looks like sour grapes to me. I can’t imagine a funding agency (unless private) being so brazen about its pre-determination. WUWT may have entered a spin-cycle, bummer.

  37. 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.

  38. kdk33 (08:24:27) :
    Absent the so described funding application, this is simply a rumor!

    It is not helpful to post things like this without supporting evidence – it feeds the “those skeptics are conspiracy theory wackos anyway” retort.

    Post a PDF, and it’s a different story.

    Ditto. These are serious charges, and should be documented. Otherwise, it’s just hearsay.

    /Mr Lynn

  39. It is a combination of the carrot and editors saying “The debate is over” I have heard this repeatedly, like at the AAAS meetings. It just takes a handful of editors to pronounce the “debate is over” to gain control of the journals like has happened at Nature. The MSM repeated “the debate is over” over and over. LIke a virus it became the meme of science despite being antithetical to the foundation of science. Departments seek professors who will act together. Groupthink gets stronger . Editors and grant administrators are picked from those very same departments. It would be suicide to go against all of that, unless you are at a maverick institution.

  40. One of these CRU emails said something like:
    “Will attend a climate congress in Tahiti next week.
    Hard to resist such an invitation.”
    Nice carrots, paid by all taxpayers.

  41. 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

  42. Hang on a fricken minute, here we are in the middle of the worst financial crisis in years and Gordon brown can pull £1.5 billion out his backside for this fraud? He’d already budgeted for it? Huh?

  43. 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?’

  44. Of course there’s a conspiracy, if one is to believe the climatologists that is.

    But alas we deny that too. :p

  45. 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.

  46. Pamela: I’ve written previously that CAWGery isn’t synonymous with core left values. It’s more of a combination of a fad / PC pressure group / “scientism” (over-confidence that the scientific “net” can realistically capture reality) / sentimentalism / etc. A terrific London-based website cum weekly news-magazine that has been harshly critical of warmmongering from a leftist perspective is Spiked, which I mentioned a few posts above. Here’s a link to its Environment section. (Pam and other leftists might like the other sections too. I haven’t checked them myself,)

    http://www.spiked-online.com/index.php/site/issues/C32/

  47. 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

  48. Could not possibly be true! Scientists do AGW research because that is what gets funded? Nah.

    But seriously folks, I too, would like to see the documents before getting too carried away with this.

  49. 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.

  50. Anna, university faculty departments are nothing if not political. Galileo ran up against the academic establishment’s Ptolomaic paradigm and political power when he insulted his chief supporter and lost his political protection (that would be the Pope) Things haven’t changed.

  51. 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.

  52. 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.

  53. 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

  54. The UN charter for the IPCC states specifically that their mission is find evidence of human caused climate change.

    Now how far would I get with my grant application if I were to say, “…..to discover whether, and to what extent, man has an impact on global climate.

  55. I would think that the funding agencies are very careful as to how they define the applicable research topics. They can use “climate change”, “adaptation to climate change”, “global warming” or even “climate model development”. These are all normal topics to do research in since they could also be of natural occurrence.

    The decision to fund this or that researcher depends on people. Unfortunately, if those people have an agenda to promote AGW over Natural Global Warming (NGW) or Natural Climate Change (NCC), they would surely favor those with such proposals. In any case, if they do have an agenda to promote AGW, the second round of research will surely be affected by the results and conclusions of the first round.

    What would be needed is another whistleblower that would release such correspondence from people making the decisions to grant or no-grant.

  56. 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.”

  57. personally I think wind turbines are fine as they are completely takedownable should we in the UK solve the electricity crisis, b

    Except for the million pounds or so of concrete and steel at the base.

  58. CERN:
    Exact the same story here.

    first part
    “By National PostFebruary 23, 2007

    Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he’d be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun’s role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays “will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

    Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby’s path-breaking experiment — seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal– was put on ice.

    Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.” http://www.canada.com/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684 (more klik link)

    The research is now years later underway en the found :
    correlation between cosmic-ray intensity and amount cloud cover http://public.web.cern.ch/public/en/Research/CLOUD-en.html
    J. Kirkby 2009 de slides bij de CERN video http://indico.cern.ch/materialDisplay.py?materialId=slides&confId=52576 and CERN talk

    http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1181073/

  59. 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.”

  60. Walt The Physicist (07:52:08) :

    May I suggest: the centralized government funding of science is the culprit. What’s instead?

    Independent research.

    Oh noes! Lack of common standards! Open peer review! Relativism!!

    The HORROR!!!

    :-)

  61. 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.

  62. Intergenerational justice?

    “Two ESRC Funded Studentships on Equity and Climate Change

    Applications are invited for two fully funded 3 year PhD studentship based in the Department of Politics and International Relations to begin in October 2009. The students will be supervised by Professor Simon Caney. The subject-matter of the two studentships is as follows:

    * ‘Intergenerational Equity and Climate Change’. This studentship examines the question: What principles of intergenerational justice should be adopted in the case of climate change? Climate change has considerable long term implications and as such raises a number of important questions of intergenerational equity. Relevant questions include: What is the nature of the claims of future generations? Do future people have rights? Is it legitimate to discount the interests of future generations and if so why? How should current generations balance the interests of the contemporary global poor in development and the interests of future people in not suffering from climate change?”

    And don’t forget Big Oil, always funding those deniers…

    http://www.shellspringboard.org/

  63. 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.

  64. There has been anecdotal evidence of this happening for years. You cannot study the mating habits of the lesser-spotted three-toed wavy-crested newt, without adding ‘and its affect on Global Warming’.

    It would be nice to have actual incidences of this happening.

    .

  65. 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.

  66. Note: The above links I posted line wrap which breaks the link, to navigate to the grant proposal, highlight and copy both lines then paste them into your browser.

  67. 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]

  68. Having browsed around a fair few research offers, it’s not so much that they’re offering money for people to prove AGW, but rather that AGW is taken as given and they’re offering people (lots of) money to investigate the consequences. Or even where they are researching basic science, it’s still firmly under this umbrella assumption.

    A good example might be http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/rapid/rapid.php

    Nobody would quibble at an attempt to improve our understanding of the effect of Atlantic circulation on climate. But put in a context of “The programme aims to improve our ability to quantify the probability and magnitude of future rapid change in climate” one gets a quite different impression of the overall research objective – especially when it’s all lumped under a programme title of “Rapid Climate Change”.

    This is where the money is – lump it in with “gatekeepers” on the peer review process and it’s no wonder they can pretend there’s a “consensus”.

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

  70. Just look at the list of people on this web page and you see the money to be made. I have one question: why are there investment bankers on the list?

    http://www.areday.net/areday2009.html

    Yep. Lots of green to be made. I’m not hearing much from these folks lately except the science is settled. When was it settled? What settled it? Hmmmm.

  71. Nation Science Foundation “Where discoveries begin”

    http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2010/nsf10512/nsf10512.pdf (page 3)

    “The need for public literacy in the geosciences has never been more critical. Daily, Americans learn about threats to the Earth,such as the peril of global climate change and the increasing frequency of natural and manmade hazards.”

    This is in their instructions for submitting a grant proposal.

  72. 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.

  73. The interview with professor Bob Carter was exemplary! The interviewer did and excellent job asking relevant questions and did an outstanding job just shutting up and letting professor Carter answer his questions.

    I think Professor Carter is the one scientist who should be on point for blowing up the “consensus on AGW” dogma. I would love to see him discuss AGW science with the likes of Mann, Briffa, Watson or Schmidt. His measured, yet animated and very scholarly demeanor with his incredible grasp of the science would DESTROY the aforementioned prima donnas.

    I would pay good money to attend professor Carter’s lectures.

    If you missed it: [url]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hgaeyMa3jyU&feature=player_embedded[/url]

  74. Oops Typo there. I meant FOE (Friends of the Earth) not FOF and, on reflection, I should have used the phrase- demolishing the case for AGW – rather than disputing.
    He gives a fantastic example of how “Group Think” has been used before in Science to create a consensus that was later brought into disrepute but only after much damage had been done.
    Many of his academic readers are apoplectic with rage!

  75. JaneHM (08:20:24) :
    I get those solicitations for research into consequences of AGW (implicitly assuming AGW is occurring) all the time too but I’m not on my university email account right now so I can’t add their websites here this morning. BUT do a yahoo search on “impact climate funding opportunities research” and hundreds will show up. Someone might like to do that web search and start pasting the links here.

    Nice search string.

    Related: 2005 Marshall Institute study of climate funding. Doesn’t examine whether support of climate change ideas is required. Mostly dollar amounts and participants.

    From the first few pages of search results…

    http://www.crdf.org/funding/funding_show.htm?doc_id=1014809 (I think someone posted it above)
    http://www.niccr.nau.edu/forms.html – 2010 RFP
    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/house-climate-funding/ – Congress plays the game of funding based upon”the reality of global warming climate change “.
    http://www.edf.org/pressrelease.cfm?contentID=9398 – Peer reviewed research where someone says more funding is needed for preparing for climate change. Maybe they have a list of the kind of research which has happened which meets their requirements.

    http://www.epa.gov/ncer/rfa/2005/2005_hsa_impacts_research.html#FUNDING

  76. “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.

  77. Just tell me folks where is that “tipping point” and I’ll be there…How many hockey stick you said you needed? or just want some good hiding place for whatever declines you could have…got some tree rings too…

  78. National Science Foundation “Dear Colleague Letter: Climate Change Education”

    http://www.nsf.gov/pubs/2009/nsf09058/nsf09058.jsp?org=NSF

    Investigators who have appropriate proposals already submitted to one of the programs above that are still under review for FY09 funding should request that they be identified now as CCE [Climate Change Education], by notifying the cognizant program officer for the program by July 24, 2009.

  79. 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.

  80. Michael: “Has anyone thought about bombing the antarctic to break off the ice so it floats around the world cooling the planet?”

    Funny you suggest that. When my brothers and me were researching a canoe trip to the Ungava crater in northern Quebec way back in 1988, we came across an article in Mechanix magazine (May 1946) that proposed using nukes to “defrost” the Arctic and get rid of the pesky ice to make it and the world more temperate. It concludes, “but the two great developments of the World War—the control over nuclear energy and the creation of the United Nations Organization—may yet be linked in the spectacular job of melting the Arctic ice.”

  81. 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?

    Brilliant ! Let us bomb [snip] the antarctic so it will eventually cool down the planet :)

    Good thinking outside of the box sometimes :)

  82. 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 …

  83. Phil A (10:14:30) :

    Justice is big.

    http://www.state.nj.us/dep/seeds/njcee/grants.htm

    In addition to the traditional criteria, EPA is encouraging applications that address the disproportionate impacts of climate change in communities by emphasizing climate equity, energy efficiency, renewable energy, local green economy, and green jobs capacity building.

    And more along the lines of what others are seeing.

    http://www.nevada.edu/epscor/oldsite0508/programs-nsf.html

    The project will create a statewide interdisciplinary program that will stimulate transformative research, education, and outreach on the effects of regional climate change on ecosystem services (especially water resources) and support use of this knowledge by policy makers and stakeholders.

    Now do you think they really would entertain results that say “there are no effects of regional climate change on ecosystem services”?

  84. @Vincent

    ‘If this is a conspiracy, it is qualitatively very different from any previous conspiracy, real or imagined.’

    My personal reflection is that it more looks like a flash mob, but reinforced by lots of carrots. The few who joined into the fray in a spur of the moment are only those that already had the same type of belief in that something had to be done to save; the polar bears, the dolphins, the rain forest, the inner city pollution, the world from nuclear power plants, the earth from going under [from a modern doomsday version] , or just that the next flood will come from Greenland….

    However a flash mob never last for very long, people tend to snap out of the fun, or fear, sooner or later.

  85. 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?

  86. Steve Schaper (09:23:26) :

    Anna, university faculty departments are nothing if not political. Galileo ran up against the academic establishment’s Ptolomaic paradigm and political power when he insulted his chief supporter and lost his political protection (that would be the Pope) Things haven’t changed.

    People are people. But by distributing the funds evenly different schools of scientific theories can survive and compete with each other in the interpretation of data. So each institution might be influenced by the pecking order within, but it will be a different and variable pecking order for each institution and worldwide lockstep would be improbable.

  87. “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.”

  88. Office of Science
    Financial Assistance
    Funding Opportunity Announcement
    DE-PS02-08ER08-05
    Abrupt Climate Change Modeling:
    Climate Change Prediction Program

    http://www.science.doe.gov/grants/FAPN08-05.html

    A one-sentence description of the main expected outcome of the research should be included.

    SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    DOE BER is a member of the interagency U.S. Climate Change Science Program (CCSP), focusing on understanding the principal uncertainties of the causes and effects of climate change, including the possibility of abrupt climate change. The Climate Variability and Change Interagency Working Group of the CCSP has identified Abrupt Climate Change as a priority focus area for FY 2008.

    Technically, an abrupt climate change occurs when the climate system is forced across some threshold, triggering a persistent transition to a new state at a rate determined by the climate system itself and faster than the cause (Abrupt Climate Change: Inevitable Surprises, National Research Council, 2002). DOE interest is on events where large (i.e., subcontinental) and widespread change occurs within a short period (i.e., a decade). The DOE Abrupt Climate Change Modeling activity is focusing on examining both attribution of recent past abrupt climate change, as well as potential future abrupt climate change based on climate change projections using dynamical coupled climate models. Abrupt climate modeling applications prior to the Holocene are not encouraged under this announcement

    Proposed research should include the following activities: articulating the thresholds, nonlinearities and fast feedbacks in the climate system with a focus on abrupt climate change, incorporating causal mechanisms into coupled climate models and testing the enhanced models against observational records of past abrupt climate change. Examples of abrupt climate change of interest to DOE are mega droughts, rapid changes in Arctic sea-ice extent and duration, and potential rapid increase in sea level rise.

  89. 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…

  90. We all know that the climate can change, the climate is not a constant. We don’t deny that the climate is not changing or that the earth has not been warmer since the LIA. It has. Where we argue, and rightly so, is on the cause and if it is all, in part, or not at all from anthropogenic emissions.

    Doing research on the impact of climate change on whatever is under the sun is not bad research since we know the climate changes anyway and will give us technology and adaptation strategies anyway. In any case, we always said that the debate was not over…

    As I said previously, it is not the research topics that is at fault, it is the people making the decisions of funding or not.

  91. 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?

    There’s really no need for such action. If you look at this graph from CT

    you will note that Antarctica already sheds, on an annual basis, an area of ice 1.5-1.75 times the size of the lower 48 of the USA. If you add in the ice lost annually in the Arctic, a great deal of which doesn’t actually melt until it has moved south of Greenland, you’ll see that the polar regions have always been doing their bit to keep the planet cool.

  92. 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

  93. In response to the CNN video;
    If anything, Hacking has taught us, it can be very beneficial to humanity. I encourage hackers to continue with their great work of all government agencies and organization in order to bring truth to the light of day.

  94. ” 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.

  95. 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.

  96. “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.

  97. April E. Coggins (10:42:03) :

    Reads similar to the ISE (Informal Science Education) grant app I read 2 years ago.
    There is a buzzsaw at work in the educational system: School budgets are getting butchered all day long. The first things to go are Art & Science. NSF is hoping to get things going on an informal or community level to the masses, who have been increasingly dumbed down to science in the public educational system. Hoping to garner interest by tying in geoscience to climate change only works if the climate is changing according to AGW predictions that are visisble to everyone. They are not.
    Go to the beach. Has it visibly risen? No.
    Was last summer a scorcher everywhere? No. Gardens failed, crops yields fell.
    Is this winter mild and pleasant? No.
    Do people generally believe that Global Warming causes Global Cooling? No.
    What do people generally remember most about the current year of weather? How hot or cold it got. Whichever is greater or made them the most uncomfortable, that is what they remember.

    You’d better have a darned good carrot and one heck of a sales pitch ready.

  98. 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

  99. I wonder what would be revealed if someone was to hack the IPCC and expose what they are saying behind the curtains.
    (Wiz of Oz reference).

  100. 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.

  101. Vincent (08:54:05) :
    It’s a nice argument with a lot of merit, but I should point out that George Monbiot already has it convered by extending the conspiracy argument not just through space but through time as well. Monbiot rejects the conspiracy theory because it would have had to extend back “a hundred and fifty years.” I’m sure there’s a fallacy in his reasoning somewhere.
    __________________________

    Monbiot’s 150 year reference tracks back to the development of the Greenhouse Effect. By one account which seems historically accurate even if I otherwise disagree with the author – http://www.oneclimate.net/2009/03/30/myth-co2-can%E2%80%99t-harm-us-because-there%E2%80%99s-so-little/ – this started in the form of a puzzle by Fourier in the 1820’s (i.e. why isn’t the earth an ice cube?), which was then solved some 50 years later by Tyndall, who demonstrated in a lab that oxygen and nitrogen did not show a temperature reaction to IR, while other types of gases (methane, water vapor, CO2) cause air to warm under the presence of CO2. Essentially, Tyndall is the father of greenhouse gas theory and most likely who Monbiot is referring to.

    So from a scientific standpoint, what we *REALLY* know is that in a lab/closed-system environment “greenhouse gases” increase in temperature by a predictable rate when exposed to IR. What we don’t know, and is at the root of the dispute between the Orthodoxy/Consensus/AGW/CAGW’ers and the non-believers/deniers/skeptics/heretics, is how this relates to an open system like our climate. The interesting part here to me is that even after 150 years, a conclusive causal link from higher CO2 levels to higher temperatures has still not been proven. If you listen to the guys from RC they’ll point to the models and/or say they can’t explain the warming without pointing to CO2 as their “proof”.

    This says nothing, mind you, of the enhancements added by the CAGW’ers that imply tipping points or that, for example, a CO2 increase that should result in a 1 degree increase per the physics discussed above will be amplified by our climate system to become a 5 degree increase.

    This does not necessarily imply conspiracy, but you can’t rule out financial incentives, group-think mentality, and ego when looking at the story presented by RC and the IPCC (do we really have to distinguish between those two anymore? ;) and their basis in solid science

    My background is in Economics and, in my mind at least, there is no better corollary for Climate research than Economics. Rule #1 of Economics… Correlation is NOT Causation. Rule #2, even if you can surmise a causal relationship between two variables it will most likely go out the window when it’s seen in the wild due to other variables in play. Rule #3, modeling is useful for research but not much else – if ever there was a single area where endless piles of money and brain power have been directed it is in the modeling of financial systems and still, a monkey throwing darts at the WSJ can pick as good or better (especially once management fees are applied) of a stock portfolio as the best analysts and technical analysis programs. Rule #4, trend fitting of past data is an absolute waste of time for predicting the future

    Current “consensus” thinking on Climate violates everything I was taught in Economics. Anyone who says they can predict a complex system like Financials or Climate is either the smartest person alive, deluded, or lying. That’s my $0.02 at least

  102. 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.

  103. Another physics “trick” in order to cool the planet would be to rapidly lower the pressure of the entire atmosphere.

    This could be accomplished by compressing air and store them in enormous amounts of diving bottles.

  104. Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists? – Part 1

    Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists? – Part 2

    Climate Sceptics or Climate Realists? – Part 3

  105. Those who oppose the idea of AGW should avoid the word “conspiracy”. It makes you look like cranks. Sorry, but the word is too loaded, even if true.

    There is no need to cite a conspiracy when self-interest and group think will suffice. A conspiracy involves active collusion, which is just no present.

    There are plenty of examples of group-think off the rails in the world, and they present themselves frequently when three forces collide:
    – financial incentive to believe,
    – a lack of accepted alternative theories,
    – contradictory evidence, that can work many ways with a bit of work.

    We see it all the time in the financial world. Economists develop models that seem to work, everyone joins in and it becomes the paradigm. Only a crash is usually enough to wake them up. At present we see the world’s economists in a total tizzy because without their grand models of how banks work they are lost as to how to make banks work. Soon another paradigm will come along, the vast bulk will join in, and it will be a self-fulfilling prophecy. Until the next crash.

    If CRU etc scientists abandon CO2 warming they will be totally lost. They will have no theory to work with, and no idea what is happening. For many it will be the intellectual ruin of their entire careers. There is no way they are going there voluntarily.

  106. David Ball (08:02:51) :

    “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.”

    They said the exact same thing about Obama’s nutbag pastor – that he was taken out of “context.” Of course, then that screwball got up at the National Press Club and proved that he was very much the person portrayed in those videos.

  107. Since all this money is suddenly (magically) available why don’t they start building desalination plants along the entire coast of Africa and wherever water is needed as to provide people with clean drinking water and water for irrigation?

  108. Speaking of Antarctic ice cubes: http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20091211/wl_afp/australiaantarcticaiceberg
    There’s one 2x the size of Manhattan (now that’s robust!) lurking about 1,000 mi. from Australia, and drifting ever closer. They figure one that size probably hasn’t been seen since the era of the clipper ships, meaning the end of the LIA. Glaciologist Neal Young “described the icebergs as uncommon, but said they could become more frequent if sea temperatures rise through global warming.” So, in the mid to late nineteenth century, when it was much colder than now, there were giant icebergs floating about, and now that it is warmer we’re starting to see them again, and will be seeing even more as it gets warmer. Now that’s what I call Warmlogic.

  109. anna v (08:32:50) :
    Walt The Physicist (07:52:08) :
    That’s right. There is no conspiracy, there is well fed “consensus”…

    This from Tom Fuller, through Bishop Hill”

    Tom Fuller writes an interesting piece in which he considers whether there is evidence of an international conspiracy to create a “global warming scam” in the CRU emails. He concludes, correctly in my opinion, that there isn’t. There is, however, enough bad stuff in there that we should still be worried:

    I think that they had an informal conspiracy going to pump each others’ careers up, peer review each others’ papers, and slam any skeptics or lukewarmers who wandered within punching range – and later, after they realised how badly they had acted, they conspired to evade the Freedom of Information Act.

    Anyone who has had an honest review of the emails will find this very hard to argue with.

  110. Ed Scott (12:24:46) :

    A very good set of videos. I liked that they repeatedly focused on the key argument, that I’ve tried to make many times, that no matter what you choose to embrace regarding the science of this, the solutions being proposed and pursued don’t make any sense.

  111. At first I was annoyed that the Tiger Woods revelations were usurping attention for a much more important Climategate. But then again, they are both stories about the same thing. People carefully crafting public perceptions that differed from reality, while close associates remain quiet. It is certain that many people knew of Tiger’s “other life” but remained quiet. Tiger gets much more attention than Mann or Jones, so why should it be hard to believe that there were scientists who knew what Mann and Jones were doing? From the emails it seems Briffa is a struggling soul fighting between good science and public perception.

  112. Mike (08:57:35) : “…just go to http://www.nsf.gov click on “funding” then “recent funding” or “find funding.”

    Thanks, Mike. Did that. Of course, it’s not necessary or prudent to put out blatant calls for prejudiced research. Every scientist and Copenhagen whore by now knows what she has to include in her pitch. Perhaps a better thing to look for is where is the money actually going. There’s a nice form to search for active awards by text terms here:

    http://www.nsf.gov/awardsearch/progSearch.do?SearchType=progSearch&page=2&QueryText=climate+change&ProgOrganization=&ProgOfficer=&ProgEleCode=&BooleanElement=true&ProgRefCode=&BooleanRef=true&ProgProgram=&ProgFoaCode=&RestrictActive=on&Search=Search#results

    Have some fun. Here’s what I found:

    (searching active awards only):
    happy ending: 2
    acidification: 93 (just for reference)
    methane: 216
    global warming: 666 (hmm…)
    around the world: 739
    take it all: 830
    interactive: 1385
    robust: 1882
    research: 2000 (= apparently anything over 2K)
    climate change: 2000 (or more, apparently)

    As the Romans used to say, “Scientia fuerat.”

  113. 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.

  114. So, being an unwilling co-conspirator absolves all the scientists who helped the heads of the conspiracy who concocted the whole scheme over the decades of the 80s, 90s and into the 00s?

    The mere fact that they scammed the system in order to get funding and in the process gave skewed results means they are part and parcels of the whole endeavor. Their greed allowed a continuation of a publicly funded scam.

  115. 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.”

  116. Stephen Levitt of Freakonomics fame loves talking about exactly this subject – i.e. how human behaviour changes when incentives are introduced:

    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/

    Interestingly Levitt wrote about the leaked emails 10 days ago with his usual insight:

    http://freakonomics.blogs.nytimes.com/2009/12/01/the-global-warming-email-weve-all-been-waiting-for/

    Hardly a surprise he says, because this kind of behaviour goes on all the time when conventional group think is challenged. As we all know, people don’t like having their understanding of the nature of things challenged.

    Personally I love reading Levitt’s work, because even if he is wrong, he challenges the “conventional logic.” It is this underlying skepticism that is crucial to scientific progress.

  117. Tom Fuller wrote: I think that they had an informal conspiracy going to pump each others’ careers up, peer review each others’ papers, and slam any skeptics or lukewarmers who wandered within punching range – and later, after they realised how badly they had acted, they conspired to evade the Freedom of Information Act.

    I tended to agree with him. But after reading this, I am convinced there was indeed a formal conspiracy by Mann, Briffa, Jones, Folland, Karl to use a “trick” as in deception, ruse, swindle, (not clever technique), to do away with the Medieval Warm Period.

    That Mann says ” I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder! “ either displays monumental ignorance or monumental contempt (or both), for science and the scientific method, and in no way takes away from the evidence that this was in fact a fraud.

    There is enough evidence in Steve M’s analysis above for a criminal complaint to be lodged against the conspirators.

  118. 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/

  119. This is depressing. I see some comments above appealing to the moral courage of free men and women as a way out of this. I don’t see how this is possible. We, humans, are an evil species and we have gotten more evil over the millenia. We all live on a crooked planet because we are all crooked, to one extent or another. How can we trust another?

    Certainly, we have our charm and our sex appeal, enough so that the Gods of old took an interest in us despite our ugly bitchy side. However, unless we seek and find a wiser, more ethical and more powerful authority, we are screwed.

  120. 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

  121. Mapou, the truth will prevail. Of that I have no doubt. There is a reckoning coming and we will expose the corrupt politicians/false prophets, and correct the commingling of science with politics.
    What surprises me, though, is how so many scientists, who MUST know the play is over, are still aboard a sinking ship of shame. (sorry for excess alliteration)

  122. 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.

  123. I would like to know how else the deck is getting stacked.

    Is it possible to get a degree in “climate science” without joining the AGW bandwagon? If so, can this be done at the “prestigious” institutions where said degree would be most beneficial for a career in climate science?

    With all these high priests gathered and claiming only other climate scientists can possibly understand their holy words, are they keeping skeptics, or should I say those with an open mind who believe science is never “settled,” out of the field to increase their “consensus”?

  124. 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

  125. vulgarmorality (15:19:24) : 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.

    vulgarmorality maybe one doesn’t, but what is the evidence? We have the self perpetuating interest in funding and thus interest in proving a hypothesis rather than being dispassionate about it as science demands.

    And we have evidence of a conspiracy, at least among a small coterie of very influential scientists, manipulating their evidence, as I have pointed out above.

    You belief may or maynot be true, it certainly seems to be a favourite with you, your hobby horse so to speak, which you keep plugging away at, but it doesnt match the evidence.

    I think the noble motive is probaly why the myth has gained so much popularity with the general public, rather than the driving force of the scientists involved, who are far more pragmatic people.

  126. 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.

  127. I’ve noticed, in the comments, several links to funding applications that seem to encourage work confirming AGW or encourage work that assumes AGW.

    Perhaps a post entitled “How Funding Biases Climate Science” is in order. The linked applications could be shown as examples.

    I think that is far more powerful than the anectode conveyed in this post.

  128. 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?

  129. Paul Vaughan “Opposing toxic pollution is not synonymous with supporting AGW.”

    Well said, Paul. Whenever you speak, I listen.

    This….THIS distinction….is purposely masked by the AGW religion.

    [They] purposely confuse pollution…with the myth of CAGW…to attempt to stop pollution!

    That is their big, fat, stupid error.

    Most reasonable minds will come around to that error.

    There are TWO separate arguments here.

    One of them stands: Homo Sapiens has to do something about its pollution.

    The other one founders…completely: Homo Sapiens, around for a blip in the geologic scale, is affecting a climate that has been around for 4.55 billion years before.

    Preposterous.

    We think we are evolved. But the current climate in Science, and crystallized in Copenhagen….shows just how far we have to go as a species.

    Message to the Gavin Schmidts of the world:

    As a taxpayer-funded public servant, we are watching you. We will be holding you accountable. And you’d better stick to Science [and you are not] or you will be tried for malfeasance.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  130. 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.

  131. Stefan (07:50:04) :

    I wonder where this movement comes from. Is it just the Baby Boomer generation trying to find something meaningful in saving the world? Or is there something being driven by some key players? Perhaps it is both. But the culture is what gives it the broad appeal.
    ….

    Stefan, I have often wondered the very same. My father (67yrs old), is a very well educated engineer, graduated with honors from MIT. And yet, he is completely and utterly blind to any skepticism of the AGW hypothesis. He has drank the AGW cool-aid and absolutely refuses to acknowledge anything (empirical data or otherwise) that contradicts the hypothesis. For the life of me, I cannot understand his utter blindness. He enjoyed a very fruitful career of 35+ yrs. working that entire career as a member of a research think tank for the DOE. Throughout my entire life I have only known him to be skeptical of everything, everything until now, everything until the AGW hypothesis. I just don’t get it.

  132. Mapou (15:36:26) :

    You have the same dismal outlook as the Gnostics.
    Some of us are not evil, just wrong.

  133. [@Stefan continued...]

    On the other hand, I have been almost opposite of my father. Throughout my life I believe I have, at times, been too naive and trusting without proper evidence an many topics. I initially drank the AGW cool-aid and bought into this hoax, hook-line-and-sinker. Interestingly, for some reason the more I investigated, read and researched, something just didn’t sit right with me and I became confused. Confusion and frustration led me to read and investigate evermore. An unquenchable desire for validation has taken hold of me, driving me to gather as much understanding of this issue as I can. During the past couple of years, I have become ever more convinced that the AGW hypothesis is a complete hoax driven by many ideologies, opportunists, rent seekers and power grabbers. I am no longer confused, I have found, and I am completely convinced that AGW is nothing less than an absolute hoax. Go ahead, call me a “denier”, for that is what I am…

  134. 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.

  135. Stefan (07:50:04) :
    “I wonder where this movement comes from. Is it just the Baby Boomer generation trying to find something meaningful in saving the world?”

    You have hit the nail on the head.

    There is a screw missing in the Baby Boomer ethos….but they don’t care about that.

    When you suffer from collective narcissistic personality disorder, nothing much matters, eh?

    The world revolves around them so they will not do anything to upset their own consensus.

    Crazy thing is…all of the smart Boomers…..like McIntyre, D’Aleo, Monckton, Lindzen….are saying hell no ****** way. And the X’rs too….like Watts (sorry Anthony I am guessing here)….boomer or X’r the point is made.

    We ALL….boomers, greatest, silent, X, Y and whatever else, are equally mystified by this peculiar religion of the great Church of the AGW.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  136. 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.

  137. Squidly: “An unquenchable desire for validation has taken hold of me, driving me to gather as much understanding of this issue as I can.”<cite

    Translation: Smart. Very smart.

    Chris
    Norfolk, VA, USA

  138. 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

  139. You may as well stop trying to argue thier none science with real science. AGW is absoulutly a scam Politically started and backed by european big shots. We should try and show a motive for the scam so brainwashed greenies can see why they’re being duped. heres a copy and paste from a few nights ago right or wong it shows a motive. Maybe someone more resourceful than me can dig up the goods to prove it true.

    finny (20:15:25) :

    2009
    M. Simon (17:22:36) :

    Strange that Brits seem to form the core of the Team. Or is it just my observer bias kicking in? Or memories of Beatles movies?

    The way I see it global warming is a form of restitution. There was alot of noise being made about British colonalism france Spain ect.. rapeing the resources of the poor countries and that restitution should be paid. So low and behold Britian and the euro socalist devised the AGW scam. Instead of just britian and such making thier payments of reperations themselves They scam and bully us into the belief that we are making payments to the enviroment for crimes that we all took part in. People would be up in arms if they told us we had to help them make thier restitution payments for the greedy colonialism of thier past. Blaming Agw helps keep the noise level down some. The only problem is mother nature has her own agenda and is leaving whole lot of egg on thier faces. So I am not that suprised that Britian is leading the scam. They’re just not that intrested in flipping for the bill themselves.

    A poster P.Wilson quickl;y came up with a fact that added a little fuel to the fire

    This link here basically repeats what i’m saying http://www.google.com/hostednews/afp/article/ALeqM5gz_kst5v6M6TZCZcEMhpVksvCa9A China feals there owed some reperations based on our damage to the enviroment. Funny thing is where is the talk of saving the planet all I see is give us some money and you go save the planet we intend to pollute. You see it’s easier to get there restitution by caling it a climate debt that if payed will save the planet then to say WWWAAAAAAHHHH you guys are to far ahead it’s not fair you made too much money off our dealings with you give it back. I’m sure lots of things were not fair back in those colonial days. but it’s history the guys you want restitution from are long dead. I didn’t get rich from these guys and i am just making ends meet I sure the hell don’t want to give you money because you think ive profitted form some evil empire. It’s your fault you showed up late for the game i don’t see why we should have to start the game over. Get rid of the Global warming bit and start talking about restitution for the past and maybe then i’ll start to listen. But listen is about all I’m going to do. Besides China wasn’t colonized were they didn’t they just trade with the west who let them on the bandwagon anways. They should just be greatful if america pays them back the money with intrest they lent em never mind restitution.
    sorry if theres a double post I forgot to add the link.

  140. 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

  141. 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.

  142. 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.

  143. 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.

  144. stephen richards (12:06:13) :

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/uk_news/magazine/8408386.stm

    This is a great piece by Clive James. Aussie, retired

    This is another link:- http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/views/a_point_of_view

    You really must read this, Clive James is very influential in UK, and he has a lot of followers, but the hilarious thing is the mouse over on the fisat picture.

    “endurance swimmer dives in at North Pole”; the picture includes a nice mountainous background, and it has nothing whatever to do with anything that Clive James is saying, This is the Beeb at its most sublime. No, you really can’t make it up.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/magazine/views/a_point_of_view

  145. 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.

  146. Phillip Bratby (07:37:04) :
    What is needed is actual pdfs of these funding application forms. Otherwise it’s just hearsay.

    Application forms won’t contain anything as blatant as a statement that the applicant must include data which *supports* AGW. They have “workarounds.” For example, the standard US Gummint job application form does *not* have a block for “Date of Birth” because that would be Age Discrimination — instead, buried in the biographical data requirements, are “Name and address of high school attended: __________” and “Date graduated: __________.”

    In 2007, I applied for a DoS position requiring some fairly unique qualifications and experience levels. I completed the application online, and received an e-mail three days later, stating that I would not be considered because I did not meet the “experience requirements of five years in position.” Technically, they were correct, because my experience level was *ten* years performing that particular job.

    One week later, I applied for the same opening, and changed nothing except my high school graduation date — I listed it as 1970 rather than 1960.

    I received an express mail packet two days later, containing both a job offer and a request for my salary requirements. I returned it with a cover letter expressing my deep regret that I had accepted another position the day before the package arrived — and then continued with my job-hunting…

  147. 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”

  148. I want to continue on this line of thought, that funding has to be decentralized.

    Take as example Lindzen, a full professor in MIT. In the beginning of the 20th century he would have had his finance from the university and maybe some allumni contributors to the chair and he would have his group consisting of lecturers directly financed by him and his graduate students. A number of publications would come out of this group and go to the appropriate journals for peer review, where, group think worked by respect for chairs of higher level institutes and distributed more or less equitably the reviewing jobs.

    Now he is alone because the funding for any students comes from centralized planning that has an agenda different from where his research leads him.

    I saw this happening in my institute. Before the common market and its centralized carrots of projects, the money came to the center and was distributed to the institutes by the board which listened to the proposals of the institutes and distributed the money according to their wisdom. The hierarchy was respected, and senior scientists could finance their specific research interests as they saw fit.

    Then the EU projects came and seniority was lost in the struggle of giving proposals and getting them accepted. It happened that a subordinate researcher in a group suddenly had a lot of money for research and post docs that the senior members did not have.

    Now hierarchies can be good or bad as the case proves, but this new definition of hierarchy coming from : “who brings most money” is the worst, in my opinion.
    It brings out the worst in human nature, and when those who distribute the money have an agenda, you end up as we have with global warming and its mantras.

  149. 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.

  150. 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.

  151. vulgarmorality (15:19:24) :
    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.
    Maybe it is not needed to arrive there, but in order to maintain that fraud particularly when it is under attack, a certain amount of conspiring is inevitable. When scientists such as these go bad, there will be enormous cognitive dissonance unless they create some sort of “good shepherd” mantra as a way of rationalizing what they are doing.

  152. So I simply Googled- ‘Successful candidates will demonstrate climate change’ and returned 503,000 entries and began to scroll through them and then my jaw hit the floor at the empire out there. Is it possible? Absolutely when you think of the international push in the Sixties to give as many as possible a tertiary education and what could you reasonably expect sacrificing quality for quantity? You’d unleash an army of incrementally marginal dullards armed with an increasingly sketchy understanding of the scientific method, sprinkled liberally with a smattering of poorly understood statistics and finally garnished with all the power and brains of computers. Where would that tectonic shift ultimately lead? Elementary dear Watson- http://news.scotsman.com/environment/Coffee-lovers–urged-Give.5891229.jp The Church of the Latte Day Saints with Al Gore as their idol at the pinnacle of their modern consensual science. Pass another slice of that yummy Climategateau there’s a good fellow.

  153. In 2003 Columbia University noted the formula used to project climate change, which these days seems to mean warmer, did not include the impact of the sun. This is a mortal flaw.

    One can pick any time frame to demonstrate a trend. If you go from 1976 to today, warming. If you go 200 to today, cooling. Now, go back the the 1200s, big cooling (Greenland was green). Go back 400,000 years major cooling trend. Picking a friendly time frame is not just a flaw, it is a lie.

    About the time of the Columbia study, it was admitted that the Mann curve was based upon mathematical error. Flaw. (But, Mann was patted on the head for a good try — at creating a trend.)

    We have known that data collecting stations do not represent a constant environment. Flaw. Measuring collection systems changed without proper modification or notation. Flaw.

    We now understand that the data was overtly cooked. Flaw. Not only was Mann’s math wrong, it was based on bad data.

    We now understand that the the “scientists” directly employed as warmers, attacked peer review and refused to release data to support their positions. Flaw. (Ever read about the tree rings?)

    Is it an argument that this political movement could never get away with such distortion when, in fact, they have? Let us try logic for a change.

    That the media does not report facts and contrary studies, does not mean the silenced professionals have changed their opinion.

    Does anyone doubt the media, in general, is promoting the “warming” notion, having failed when it reported in 1976 that we were all going to die in global cooling? Ever read up on who becomes a “journalist?”

    Only now, scientists, those who actually have a relevant opinion, are not only able to surfaced without being fired, they must, of necessity swim away from the Titanic of global warming. The suction of the sinking vessel will be huge and will take down the weak, infirm, and delusional. Those onboard, now, are like Bagdad Bob who reported those cannons in the background are not really there.

    These folks are “all in” as they see the only play is to bet it all, as conditions are changing. Even the Hitler youth are too late and won’t work outside of Chicag and London.

    On the other hand, Al Gore may be right. We should tap the heat under the surface of the earth where it is 7,000,000 degrees. I don’t think that is Fahrenheit, however, he uses the Gore-Moore scale where constant values are replaced with clairvoyant themes.

    Me, I am going to invest in tulips.

  154. 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.

  155. Interesting approach, Rajendra Pachauri wishes that US voters will remove Senators for asking for transparency in the weather records…

    “…Twenty-eight Republican senators, Saudi Arabian officials and climate skeptics have asked for an independent investigation into whether top climate scientists attempted to manipulate data to boost the evidence of man-made global warming.

    Pachauri said that the senators had a right to request additional investigation but warned that it could cost them at the polls.

    “I hope the constituencies which have elected them will respond in a matter that democracies are able to,” he said.

    The IPCC is looking into the stolen emails. Additional investigation, said Pachauri, is unnecessary.

    “Our credibility is not under question,” he said.

    http://www.politico.com/news/stories/1209/30510.html

  156. Sorry this belongs here:
    Snitched from a Poster on Bishop Hill:

    As a retired scientist, I appalled by what has happened to the Scientific Method I was trained in 40 years ago. Back then you preserved your raw data, explained what you did, how you did it, and why you did it; and your results were considered “preliminary” until replicated IDEPENDENTLY. I do not mean by your buddies, but by someone not tied to you. And there was scientific debate. Remember that?

    I guess we have the New Science, much like we had the New Math back in the 1960’s –“1 and 1 equal 5 for sufficiently large values of 1” .

    I also appreciate the comment about Trofim Denisovich Lysenko, who nearly destroyed the Soviet Union’s agricultural efforts in the 1930’s and 1940’s. He, too, practiced totalitarian science — his way or the Gulag.

    So, like Lysenko, I expect the Hockey Team to one day become discredited and go away. And perhaps we will discover the scientific method again, for at least a little while. My only question is just how much it will cost us individually and collectively.

    As for the chatter about whether it was a “conspiracy” or not, most such activity does not start as an overt crime. Witness Bernie Madoff. He needed money to look good so he fudged what he was doing. Then it grew like Topsy. Pretty soon his Ponzi scheme topped $50 billion. I am afraid that the Cap and Tax scheme the Hockey Team is fronting for will cost us $50 trillion.

    But what is a trillion dollars nowadays? Just ask the US Congress.

    December 12, 2009 | Don Pablo de la Sierra

    http://bishophill.squarespace.com/blog/2009/12/11/no-conspiracy.html?currentPage=2

  157. 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.

  158. I Googled- ‘Successful candidates will demonstrate climate change’ and most paths turned to this blog post or quotes of this blog post or quotes of Paul’s comment. I want this to be true. I really do, but I need more than Paul’s word for it. I need verifiable links to PDFs and application pages where “Successful candidates will demonstrate AGW” is clearly stated.

    ‘Google’ is not a synonym for ‘research’. – Dan Brown

  159. Douglas Cootey (12:52:14) : I Googled- ‘Successful candidates will demonstrate climate change’ and most paths turned to this blog post or quotes of this blog post or quotes of Paul’s comment. I want this to be true. I really do, but I need more than Paul’s word for it. I need verifiable links to PDFs and application pages where “Successful candidates will demonstrate AGW” is clearly stated.

    ‘Google’ is not a synonym for ‘research’. – Dan Brown

    Douglas Cootey I appreciate what you say and I too would rather like proof than Paul’s word for it. But if you want this to be true, (Why should you? – thats not scientific, but maybe you are not a scientist or appreciate the scientific method), do your own bloody research. Which may amount to a little more googling and follow-up. Dont expect to lie back and be nanny fed.

    Here a few leads, which took me a few seconds.

    http://newsinitiative.org/story/2008/12/13/tracking_climate_science_funding_in (A few graphs there)

    http://royalsociety.org/ (Explore Funding and Grants)

    http://www.climatesciencewatch.org/index.php/csw/details/adaptation-funding-in-waxman-markey-captrade-bill/

    http://www.canadafreepress.com/index.php/article/15180

    Delve deeper from there

  160. To give anything this “Paul Vaughan” says any credence at all, just a few simple things would suffice. a) a link to his academic homepage. b) a link to some publications. c) examples of any of these alleged funding applications

    The fact that these weren’t given originally should have made people suspicious. Until any of these are forthcoming, I consider it likely that he is a crank and a liar. I wonder why Anthony Watts didn’t bother to check him out at all before promoting his obviously questionable claims.

  161. 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.

  162. PS as Paul Vaughan has stated, what he was told was verbal. So you have to take his word for it in this case. Do not expect policy to laid out so blatantly (though it maybe in some instances).

    Maybe you could see

    1. How much funding is being done for “Climate Science”, “Climate Change”, including such incidental things like the “Social implications of Climate Change” (off the top of my head)

    2. How much of these are for pro- AGW studies. (The Hypothesis assumes AGW to be correct in the first place and surprise, surprise, confirms it after the study) or Hypothesis that assumes AGW to be a fact and then purports to study some alleged consequence of it.

    3. How many grants are being given for contrary theories.

    Make your own judgements from your research.

  163. hmmm (13:21:10) : Do a little research on how to Google. Do not expect such blatantly obvious infringements of the scientific method.

    Here are some results I got in a few seconds

    “The Post-doctoral researcher will actively cooperate in theoretical and applied planning and design research regarding how urban structures, including the integration of buildings and infrastructure, can be shaped to withstand and adapt to demanding and changing climates. The aim is to investigate how, from a long term sustainability perspective, practical and functional structures with aesthetic, harmonious and symbolic dimensions can be achieved, as well as to investigate relations between humans, nature and built-up environments. The successful candidate will demonstrate a broad interest in sustainable urban systems. The particular focus of the post doctoral position will be agreed depending on the candidate’s expertise and interests within the general scope provided here.

    “The School of Humanities and Sciences at Stanford University is currently accepting applications for two postdoctoral fellows in the Natural and Social Sciences…Potential themes include: Water, Food/Agriculture, and Climate Change in the Natural Sciences or Economics of Inequality in Asia, Global Woman’s Health, and Global Security in the Social Sciences.

    Applicants should possess a Stanford PhD, or have served in a postdoctoral position at Stanford University. A research background and interest in teaching are required. International experience, particularly in connection to Asia, is preferred. The successful candidate will demonstrate a clear commitment to involving students in scholarship through active learning.”

    (Assumes AGW to be a fact – brainwash other students)

    “Allen & York has been retained by the Abu Dhabi Environment Agency, one of the Gulf region�s leading environmental regulatory authorities, to recruit an international Crisis Management Specialist. The successful candidate will be working as a focal point for implementation of the organisation�s emergency management plans and responses…. Educated to degree level, the successful candidate will demonstrate a track record in leadership and communication having operated at a management level. A technical background dealing with environmental issues concerning crisis management and emergency response is essential. This is likely to have been gained working for another environmental regulatory body or within the private sector advising on such matters… Candidate will be rewarded with a highly competitive salary package.”

    You want the job for that “highly competitive salary package”.. what are your chances of being hired by saying in your interview that there aint no environmental crisis?

  164. No some of you understandably took my Google string too literally. It was simply to pick up the modern tendency for internet job ads to set out job criteria and hence that well worn ‘candidate will demonstrate’ with the additional ‘climate change’ to gauge the size of the industry out there (very crudely of course). To cut out a lot of extra albeit sometimes useful noise, try “candidate will demonstrate” + “climate change” for 27800 hits and “candidates will demonstrate” + “climate change” for 40000 hits and you’ll get a better picture. Now that’s certainly not definitive but you’ll get a quick idea of the size and nature of the empire and where it’s concentrated. It’s certainly a worry if there’s lots of secure tenure involved.

  165. Needless to say, I didn’t bother applying for the funding. Contacts gave me tips about how to get funding. I then browsed a bunch of websites, engaged in conversations, read between the lines, and synthesized. It was clear that I would be funded if I conformed and that I would not be funded if I did not — hardly surprising. I chose not to sell my soul to help corrupt people mislead the public. For that choice I have been punished severely financially, as expected.

    For those who don’t know my background: I am a hardcore environmentalist, an opponent of toxic pollution, and an advocate of parks & natural forests. My background spans 7 disciplines, with ecology being the core and applied stats & physical geography being major components. Rather than going narrow & deep and settling into a publishing role at an ivory tower, I opted to keep trying new things every few years, driven largely by a desire to gather interdisciplinary knowledge that was clearly absent (& even culturally impossible) in disciplines in my rear-view mirror. Ecology is an extraordinarily complex field, so ecologists are often inclined to seek knowledge from a wide range of other disciplines.

    There was one particular funding criteria webpage which inspired me to post a similarly scathing comment on WUWT many months ago. I applaud the administrators of that webpage for at least altering their optics (which previously invited sarcasm & ridicule). I am not going to identify the webpage as doing so would be more like blowing a bridge up than burning it. Just because there have been differences of opinion with colleagues & contacts in the past does not mean there cannot be mutually beneficial interactions in the future.

    Dissonance & harmony are both found in nature’s beauty. I’m not a “global warming denier”; rather, I’m a nonalarmist. All I ask for is 5 to 7 years of secure, stable, sufficient funding, to be used in my hometown (where my essential contacts are), to follow some fruitful leads on natural climate variations via harmonic cross-wavelet & time-integrated cross-correlation analysis. I’m not concerned about the source of the funding (big government, big oil, whatever). All I’m concerned about is the truth. The source of the funding has no impact (whatsoever) on the truth. Some will disagree; I can suggest that one option is to do so respectfully. If funding for my natural climate variation research is not forthcoming, one option I can see is to continue drawing inspiration from Gandhi. Anyone investing in my research will be able to claim a light ecological footprint, as I walk or sea-kayak 95% of the time when I travel and I do not fly.

    Let’s all keep in mind that this is a blog and that a major purpose of a blog is to generate discussion.

    Best Regards to All, Anthony Watts & WUWT moderators in particular.

  166. If not the Carrot Train then the Global Gruesome Greasum swamps Big Oil any day from where this small businessman peeps out of his foxhole in no mans land. Unfortunately I’m too bloody old and set in my ways for a C’Change career move now.

  167. bonsoir (13:20:11) :
    To give anything this “Paul Vaughan” says any credence at all, just a few simple things would suffice. a) a link to his academic homepage. b) a link to some publications. c) examples of any of these alleged funding applications
    The fact that these weren’t given originally should have made people suspicious. Until any of these are forthcoming, I consider it likely that he is a crank and a liar. I wonder why Anthony Watts didn’t bother to check him out at all before promoting his obviously questionable claims.

    I’m suspicious that your suspicions are actually a fishing expedition, and you’ve made a pretty rash assumption that our host did *not* “bother to check him out.”

    Personally, having seen first-hand the shenannigans that bureaucrats pull when they’re in charge of distributing funds, I wouldn’t be foolish enough to declare Mr. Vaughan’s statements “questionable”…

  168. I have not read all the comments. Not enough time. But here is an example someone asked for about research grants
    . 7.5 million GBP up for grabs here boys n girls. I think applications are still open.

    http://www.esrc.ac.uk/ESRCInfoCentre/Images/Energy_and_Communities_Call_Specification_tcm6-34922.pdf

    Do you make a proposal saying (a) “we are going to focus on points 5.3 and 5.5 and how carbon emissions can be more accurately measured and presented to ordinary conusumers in order influence their energy intensive lifestyles to the downside…” OR
    (b) I would like X amount to study whether carbon emissions are even relevant to this debate.
    Read the PDF it is obvious which side of the debate the funds are on. That’s bias. Simple.

  169. Or just go here and cringe. Click through a link or two and decide for yourself whether the agenda is tied to the funding. there’s plenty of money for grabs up here as well.

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/funding/news/

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/work/policy/society/

    Just a sample but you can not deny from this that researchers would not tailor their research proposals to get a grant from them when the strategic goal is , I quote:
    “enabling society to respond urgently to global climate change and the increasing pressures on natural resources;” Already decided see. Science settled and all that.

    http://www.nerc.ac.uk/about/strategy/ngscience.asp

  170. How hard would it be to provide a link to just one climate-related publication? Impossible, I guess, because despite extensive searching I can find no climate-related publications by anyone called Paul Vaughan.

    His “anecdote” is pure invention, uncritically parroted.

  171. You did not need 1000 scientists to be involved. All that was need was for one or two people in perhaps five or six countries to adjust the data. Anyone using the data when making a comparison to CO2 would find the results that had been seeded into the data. The scientists would not be aware that they were being played. They would honestly think that their conclusons were correct. Only none of their predictions would ever be confirmed.

    It would only have taken a dozen people in just the right place, and remember it took years to pull this off.

  172. Hunter (17:11:29) “[...] despite extensive searching I can find no climate-related publications by anyone called Paul Vaughan.”

    I do not claim to be a climatologist, nor do I claim to publish.


    Hunter (17:11:29) “His “anecdote” is pure invention, uncritically parroted.”

    You are mistaken.

    Perhaps you misunderstand my mission. I suggest you review my posts in this thread.

  173. “I do not claim to be a climatologist, nor do I claim to publish.”

    That rather dramatically contradicts your statement about “going public with a finding about natural climate variations”. If you are not a researcher in a climate-related field, and if you do not publish papers on climate-related subjects, your anecdote cannot possibly be true.

  174. This is increasingly Bizarre!

    Paul now:
    “I do not claim to be a climatologist, nor do I claim to publish”

    Paul then (regarding funding in the climate sciences):
    “Personal anecdote:
    Last spring …after having my funding slashed… ***after going public with a finding about natural climate variations***…funding application instructions of the following variety”

    This post is very disappointing. I’ll not comment further.

  175. Re: Hunter (04:30:49) & kdk33 (05:32:41)

    The [patently false] premise here seems to be that only a publishing climatologist is capable of making a finding about natural climate variations.

    In 2008 I had 3 contracts that involved running cross-wavelet & time-integrated cross-correlation analyses to explore climate variations. During the period of contracted work, I made only one public announcement (via a public presentation). It did not come as a surprise to me that my superiors found my research & presentation “provocative”. I do not blame them for the current political climate, which makes my research a bit of a hot potato for administrators. [Interestingly, it was clear to me that a number of the people who would not fund my research were hoping I would publish and present at conferences.] In January 2009 I started funding my own research.

    My concern is about the backlash against the environmental movement (& related questionable science) and the increasingly misdirected energy within the environmental movement. Many important environmental issues no longer get media attention and Jane & Joe Public (on my street at least) now think they’ve done their bit for the environment if they’ve done so little as change their light-bulbs.

    Climate alarmists & nonalarmists agree about the need to understand natural climate variations better. This is the common ground.

    Note that I do not equate climate alarmism with environmentalism. I oppose toxic pollution & flawed science and advocate parks & natural forests.

    Do I think climate science is overlooking important nonrandom timescale-dependent phase-variation patterns shared by a number of solar/geophysical variables and their integrals & derivatives? Yes – and I comment about this occasionally at WUWT, in support of the environmental movement. Opposing toxic pollution is not the same as supporting AGW.

    If you wish to carry this exchange further, I suggest doing so in a civil manner. (I do not consider malicious distortion, automatic assumptions of guilt, & false accusations civil.)

    If you are a frightened alarmist, I understand. Just keep in mind that I’m not a big bad denier. Perhaps a respectful & enlightening dialogue is within your grasp if you can overcome miscalculated & misdirected prejudices.

    All the best.

  176. If you are not publishing in the peer-reviewed literature, you are not doing worthwhile research. It sounds very much like you were pursuing private interests on your employer’s time and so you got fired. You are clearly not describing the funding of normal scientific activities, although it’s clear that you wanted to give the impression that this is what you were talking about.

    Science does not work in the way that you were insinuating. You make it clear that you are not a scientist and you don’t publish, so you can offer no insights into the prevailing attitude in funding of climate research.

    [REPLY - However, it is said that one does not need a Ph.D. in Fashion Design to make preliminary determinations regarding the Emperor's new clothes. One also mourns for the ruined and corrupted process once known as "peer review". ~ Evan]

  177. Did your contracts prevent you from publishing in peer-reviewed journals or from presenting at conferences? Where was the previous work that led to you getting those contracts? Can you point to any work you’ve done that has been scrutinised by people who are capable of assessing your reasons for thinking that “climate science is overlooking important nonrandom timescale-dependent phase-variation patterns shared by a number of solar/geophysical variables and their integrals & derivatives”.

    IOW, what supporting evidence do you offer for a funding application?

  178. Re: Susanne (03:37:49)
    These are personal questions appearing in a public forum. I have not chosen to be featured in this article. I have no interest in publishing. I have been generous with my time in addressing questions, but it is apparent that some will remain skeptical of the truth. Perhaps those with the media looking for a “poster boy” will have to find someone who matches mainstream stereotypes. (I do not.) Season’s Best.

Comments are closed.