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!
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?
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.