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!
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.
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”.
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/
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.
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?
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.
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“
http://antonuriarte.blogspot.com/2009/12/sulfatos.html
That’s about coal. I thought crazy. Does it make sense?
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.
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.
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
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!
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?
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
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.
@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!
This essay in Time Higer Education is a must read.
http://www.timeshighereducation.co.uk/story.asp?sectioncode=26&storycode=409454&c=2
I wonder, after reading that, if Paul was being sarcastic? Too hard to tell over the internet.
Climate Change – has it been cancelled?
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
http://www.amazon.com/Extraordinary-Popular-Delusions-Madness-Crowds/dp/157898808X/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1260549080&sr=1-1
People believe what they want to believe, or what it is in their interest to believe. This is the perennial enemy of good science.
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.
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.
I am unbelievably disappointed with the scientific process if Paul Vaughan’s anecdote is true. Truly unbelievable.
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.
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.