How many of the climate experts adhering to AGW are doing so for the 'almighty Grant'??

Question

Feb 24, 2008

The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation?

By Donald W. Miller, Jr.

Ethics in science and society “describe appropriate behavior according to contemporary standards” (Friedman, 1996). Two standards that scientists follow for writing grant proposals are 1) Keep it safe and survive, and 2) Don’t lie if you don’t have to. Pollack (2005) addresses the first ethic, noting that the paramount motivational factor for scientists today is the competition to survive. A scientist?s most pressing need, which supersedes the scientific pursuit of truth, is to get her grant funded-to pay her salary and that of her staff, to pay department bills, and to obtain academic promotion. The safest way to generate grants is to avoid any dissent from orthodoxy. Grant-review study sections whose members’ expertise and status are tied to the prevailing view do not welcome any challenge to it. A scientist who writes a grant proposal that dissents from the ruling paradigm w

Answer 1

Probably all of them, since we already know that global warming is a hoax.

Answer 2

You're right.  Here's another story, same subject.

It should be glorious to be Bill Gray, professor emeritus. He's the guy who predicts the number of hurricanes that will form during the coming tropical-storm season. He works in the atmospheric-science department of Colorado State University. He's mentored dozens of scientists.

But he's also outraged.

Much of his government funding has dried up. He has had to put his own money, more than $100,000, into keeping his research going. If none of his colleagues comes to his funeral, he says, that'll be evidence that he had the courage to say what they were afraid to admit.

Which is this: Global warming is a hoax.

He has testified about this to the U.S. Senate. He has written magazine articles, given speeches, done everything he could to get the message out.

"I've been in meteorology over 50 years. I've worked d**n hard, and I've been around. My feeling is some of us older guys who've been around have not been asked about this. It's sort of a baby-boomer, yuppie thing."

Gray believes in observations. Direct measurements. Numerical models can't be trusted. Equation pushers with fancy computers aren't the equals of scientists who fly into hurricanes.

"Few people know what I know. I've been in the tropics, I've flown in airplanes into storms. I've done studies of convection, cloud clusters and how the moist process works. I don't think anybody in the world understands how the atmosphere functions better than me."

In just three, five, maybe eight years, he says, the world will begin to cool again.

Answer 3

scientists actually get more respect (ergo money) for disproving others work not just accepting it.

Answer 4

I agree. It's funny how liberals frown so greatly on religion, but elevate science to deity status. The scientists can do no wrong and  are always ethical. I'm certainly not against science, it's greatly benefited man. However, scientist are just  people, and like the rest of us, are subject to the same pitfalls, arrogance, greed, and your common everyday error.

Answer 5

Lots and Lots.

Think about the position of the IPCC. This is a group formed to study Global warming and only global warming. What happens if they right any report telling the world that man is not the cause? Can you say bye bye IPCC. Same with climate scientist. We like to think they are moved by the science, but like all man, they are moved by the grant. It is tough to study climate and take trips to Bali if you are funded by your mom.

Answer 6

Conspiracy here, conspiracy there, conspiracy everywhere! Watch your back. Don't open your doors. The liberals are there ready to take your money to clean up the world. Now they even have Bush agreeing with them!