Are American Scientists at a Disadvantage Because AGW Funding only goes to Scientists who are Believers?

Question

Face it. If you're an American Scientist and want Government Funding to look into a connection between global warming and the Sun's activity you're just not going to get those research grants, even if your idea in new and unique.

As Bob will tell you it's already done science, there is no connection. You will only get a grant if you first conclude that "global warming" is man made up front, then search for data that supports your conclusion.

However Mexican and Russian scientist have none of the restrictions They are free to do the research that lets them look at all sources objectively.

Do you believe our method of funding limits our insight to all causes of climate change? Do you believe that other countries can do a better job providing the USA with objective science about the climate?

Answer 1

Yes. Time after time, it has been proved that there is no academic freedom when it comes to challenging climate change:

Prominent Hungarian Physicist Dr. Miklós Zágoni, a former global warming activist who recently reversed his views about man-made climate fears and is now a skeptic, presented scientific findings at the conference refuting rising CO2 fears. Zágoni’s scientific mentor Hungarian scientist, Dr. Ferenc Miskolczi, an atmospheric physicist, resigned from his post working with NASA because he was disgusted with the agency’s lack of scientific freedom. Miskolczi, who also presented his peer-reviewed findings at the conference, said he wanted to release his new research that showed "runaway greenhouse theories contradict energy balance equations," but he claims NASA refused to allow him.

It is not limited to American researchers.  

Tim patterson from Canada:

Patterson says his conversion “probably cost me a lot of grant money. However, as a scientist I go where the science takes me and not were activists want me to go.”

In Europe it is the same:

"...Because of the high importance of this realization, in 1994 Dr. Jaworowski, together with a team from the Norwegian Institute for Energy Technics, proposed a research project on the reliability of trace-gas determinations in the polar ice. The prospective sponsors of the research refused to fund it, claiming the research would be "immoral" if it served to undermine the foundations of climate research.

The refusal did not come as a surprise. Several years earlier, in a peer-reviewed article published by the Norwegian Polar Institute, Dr. Jaworowski criticized the methods by which CO2 levels were ascertained from ice cores, and cast doubt on the global-warming hypothesis. The institute's director, while agreeing to publish his article, also warned Dr. Jaworowski that "this is not the way one gets research projects." Once published, the institute came under fire, especially since the report soon sold out and was reprinted. Said one prominent critic, "this paper puts the Norsk Polarinstitutt in disrepute." Although none of the critics faulted Dr. Jaworowski's science, the institute nevertheless fired him to maintain its access to funding."

Edit:  GCNP:  Why did you chose 1986 as your cut off point?  Hansen made his announcement to the world of catastrophic warming in 1988.  Before that it was not even a political topic.  1988 is a more appropriate year for comparisons.  From 1976-including 1986 he received 1,704,000.  From 1986 till 1991 he received no funding. From 1991 till present he has received 1,127,000.  So he received less money at a time when research grants skyrocketed.  That is not even in real terms (counting for inflation).  Your link proves Jello's point.

Answer 2

The premise is not true.

Richard Lindzen, Roy Spencer, John Chtisty, etc.  are skeptics who get plenty of grant money.  It's not what you believe, it's how good a scientist you are that counts.  Many deniers are simply not good scientists.

"Lindzen doesn't do much in the way of research anymore."

Wow.  That is a surprise to Lindzen, MIT, and his graduate students.  

http://eapsweb.mit.edu/people/person.asp...

Why do deniers here make such easily refutable stuff up?

Answer 3

It is simple ,if there is a problem there can be funds to research it. If it were the sun ,every body know there is nothing that they could do. So the problem must appear that the solution is something that man can do. This is propagated by the Left and they know it is a lie.

Answer 4

Nope.  Guys like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, etc. have no problem getting funding.

Answer 5

"Guys like Lindzen, Spencer, Christy, etc. have no problem getting funding."

I have heard that Christy and Spencer have had trouble getting funding. I don't know if this is true, but it would make sense. Lindzen doesn't do much in the way of research anymore.

---------

Edit:

Bob wrote

"Wow. That is a surprise to Lindzen, MIT, and his graduate students. Specifically:"

Rather than the number of graduate students, I think a better mark of research is the number of peer reviewed papers he has had in the past few years:

http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lindzen/...

Not much in the past 3 or 4 years.

"Why do deniers here make such easily refutable stuff up?"

Why do believers think they have refuted something when they clearly have not?

Answer 6

Perhaps they are disadvantaged but this global warming fraud must stop

Answer 7

This is a test to see just how objective you are:

In the ten years before he became an outspoken "climate skeptic" (from 1975 until 1985), Richard Lindzen received $850,000 in funds from the National Science Foundation.  From 1986 until 1996, when he was an outspoken critic of anthropogenic climate change, he received over $2,200,000 in funding from the National Science Foundation.

Does this result in any way refute the argument put forth above?

Answer 8

Yes, when there are funds out there specifically designated to  research the effects of AGW, it essentially eliminates those scientists who speak out against the entire concept.  Why would the government allocate dollars to a person or organization that won't study what the dollars are intended to go to?  This is an inherent problem with the system.  It encourages one-sided thinking within the scientific community, even though those are the very same people who are supposedly objective and unbiased.  When there's $5 billion up for grabs in government grants, subsidies, and allocations, even the most honorable people can reason to themselves it'll be a greater good what can happen with all that money even though they are turning their backs on ethics and morals.  That's why Bob's (not Bob326 who posted above me) classic, but overused and invalid argument "EVERY major scientific organization has come out and stated AGW is legit" is a load of c**p.  I say, cut of their funding, and then see where they stand.  When you stop the suckling at the government teat, people's views change very rapidly.  That fatal flaw of the system may or may not have been created intentionally, as the government has huge stakes in business of global warming, ie, carbon taxes.  I would argue that government is overstepping its purpose for existence in even getting involved with giving away taxpayer money for such things.  Basically, it boils down to cutting the funding and seeing everything for what it really is, a huge, steaming pile of c**p.

Answer 9

What are your sources? 'cause I've heard of a lot of scientists that DO get funding do study alternative causes of global warming.

Answer 10

Yes--

In the late 1800s early 1900s the CONSENSUS was that the Milky Way galaxy WAS the entire Universe-- everything they saw in their telescopes was contained inside the Milky Way. Of course every astronomer and physicist back then were entirely wrong..... and that's only one generation ago.

Answer 11

Prove what you say.

Are you actually Karl Rove, because he used the straw man argument in the same manner as you do. It makes sense and it's now a theory. You haven't been front and center in the news for quite some time, Karl.

I guess you just needed something to do.