…”perhaps a conspiracy is unnecessary where a carrot will suffice”
11
12
2009
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!
...........
Juraj V. (07:50:07) :
In Czechoslovakia 1977, some dissenters put together an announcement called “Charta 77?, asking our communist government to follow the human rights declaration, which we just signed in OSCE. Reaction of government was overly hysterical: newspapers churned hate against it, people at work were forced to sign the “Anticharta” which denounced Charta authors like traitors, imperialistic agents funded by West etc. Of course, nobody was allowed to read it.
A current example of this:
....
The Met Office has embarked on an urgent exercise to bolster the reputation of climate-change science after the furore over stolen e-mails.
More than 1,700 scientists have agreed to sign a statement defending the “professional integrity” of global warming research. They were responding to a round-robin request from the Met Office, which has spent four days collecting signatures. The initiative is a sign of how worried it is that e-mails stolen from the University of East Anglia are fuelling scepticism about man-made global warming at a critical moment in talks on carbon emissions.
One scientist said that he felt under pressure to sign the circular or risk losing work. The Met Office admitted that many of the signatories did not work on climate change.
John Hirst, the Met Office chief executive, and Julia Slingo, its chief scientist, wrote to 70 colleagues on Sunday asking them to sign “to defend our profession against this unprecedented attack to discredit us and the science of climate change”. They asked them to forward the petition to colleagues to generate support “for a simple statement that we . . . have the utmost confidence in the science base that underpins the evidence for global warming”.
but:
“Above all, we must realize that no arsenal, or no weapon in the arsenals of the world, is so formidable as the will and moral courage of free men and women. It is a weapon our adversaries in today’s world do not have.” — R. Reagan, First Inaugural Speech
............
Richard G (07:56:16) :
It’s upsetting when the deluded puppets in the media ask persons skeptical of the ‘concensus’ to prove their position.
To do so proves they clearly understand so little.
Most of us with a smidgen of integrity knows that when we put forward a theory it is incumbent on US to prove it and not on others to disprove it.
Part of the wall of noise thrown up at the moment is to indirectly question the sanity of a skeptic by suggesting that for this ‘concensus’ to be ‘untrue’ there would need to be a global conspiracy!
And how absurd that would be!!
Commit this Tolstoi quote to mind and use it against all those fools who suggest such a thing.
Its not a conspiracy, it’s just human nature!
There is NOTHING new under the sun.
“I know that most men, including those at ease with problems of the greatest complexity, can seldom accept even the simplest and most obvious truth if it be such as would oblige them to admit the falsity of conclusions which they have delighted in explaining to colleagues, which they have proudly taught to others, and which they have woven, thread by thread, into the fabric of their lives”.
Leo Tolstoy (1828 – 1910)
Reminds you of anyone?
Perhaps Gore, Hansen, Schmidt, Jones etc?
.........
April E. Coggins (08:16:43) :
How do you suppose the wording of this grant influenced the application process?
merinews.com
“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.
.............
David L. Hagen (08:40:32) :
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
I devoted six years to carbon accounting, building models for the Australian government to estimate carbon emissions from land use change and forestry. When I started that job in 1999 the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened that case. I am now skeptical.. . .
The political realm in turn fed money back into the scientific community. By the late 1990s, lots of jobs depended on the idea that carbon emissions caused global warming. Many of them were bureaucratic, but there were a lot of science jobs created too.
I was on that gravy train, making a high wage in a science job that would not have existed if we didn’t believe carbon emissions caused global warming. And so were lots of people around me; there were international conferences full of such people. We had political support, the ear of government, big budgets. We felt fairly important and useful (I did anyway). It was great. We were working to save the planet!
But starting in about 2000, the last three of the four pieces of evidence above fell away. . .
There is now no observational evidence that global warming is caused by carbon emissions. You would think that in over 20 years of intense investigation we would have found something.. . .
Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. Climate change has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly blames carbon emissions, to the point of silencing critics.. . .
The cause of global warming is an issue that falls into the realm of science, because it is falsifiable. No amount of human posturing will affect what the cause is. It just physically is there, and after sufficient research and time we will know what it is.
David Evans, a mathematician, and a computer and electrical engineer, is head of Science Speak. Send him mail. Comment on the blog.
.........
Shawn Sene (08:42:35) :
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.
................
John Galt (10:21:09) :
Isn’t it odd that AFTER a conspiracy is EXPOSED, the defenders of the conspiracy say it can’t be a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people because, if it was a huge conspiracy involving thousands of people, it would be EXPOSED.
Hmmm, I think the premise just ran into itself.
...............
Richard (14:53:59) :
Tom Fuller wrote: I think that they had an informal conspiracy going to pump each others’ careers up, peer review each others’ papers, and slam any skeptics or lukewarmers who wandered within punching range – and later, after they realised how badly they had acted, they conspired to evade the Freedom of Information Act.
I tended to agree with him. But after reading this, I am convinced there was indeed a formal conspiracy by Mann, Briffa, Jones, Folland, Karl to use a “trick” as in deception, ruse, swindle, (not clever technique), to do away with the Medieval Warm Period.
That Mann says ” I don’t think that doubt is scientifically justified, and I’d hate to be the one to have to give it fodder! “ either displays monumental ignorance or monumental contempt (or both), for science and the scientific method, and in no way takes away from the evidence that this was in fact a fraud.
There is enough evidence in Steve M’s analysis above for a criminal complaint to be lodged against the conspirators.
.................
wattsupwiththat.com |
