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!
Mapou (15:36:26) :
You have the same dismal outlook as the Gnostics.
Some of us are not evil, just wrong.
[@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…
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.
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
Right with you, Squidly. Great post(s)!!
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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…
The only people to blame for the mess the world is in is ourselves. We ( 60% of we ) voted the idiot class into power, who put a medical Dr. in charge of the transport ministry, and a ex truck driver in charge of health and welfare.
Only about 0.001% of the worlds politicians can truthfully say that they were a success at something before entering politics, we are being led into doom by a bunch of people with diplomas in ignorance, and to prove they are right they pass laws to make us more ignorant than them, this is not the first time in the very short human history that this has occurred, the intelligent profits of old foretold of this problem but it still has not entered into our culture.
Plato:
”Those that are to intelligent to enter into politics are punished by being governed by idiots”
I 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.
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.
Thanks guys you give me hope for the human race. Herewith my motivator for this subject 🙂
http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_E1EXVkpEmtU/SyN0rpc34wI/AAAAAAAAADQ/HYLwRi6N6i0/s1600-h/Skeptics.jpg
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.