Post by marchesarosa on Dec 9, 2009 13:38:52 GMT
On a CNN interview which included our hero Steve McIntyre of ClimateAudit, the interviewer, Campbell Brown, stated her incredulity over climate scientists falsifying results. “I could never understand the motivation?” she complained.
In a comment elsewhere a scientist named Paul Vaughan, responded as follows:
"Actually not so hard.[to understand]
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."
and in another blog this was contributed:
"Some time ago (15 - 20 years ?) UK university departments stopped getting full government funding for pure blue sky research and thinking.
They have been encouraged to attract outside/industrial fuinding, in fact this has become a major part of running any sort of research these days.
Having the IPCC or UK government on side is a big incentive for climate researchers to get the 'right' results.
Wasn't it £13 million Jones received over a number of years?"
Regarding this job description
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
We apparently have the better part of the University of East Anglia and hundreds of "academic" staff there devoted to doing precisely this. It's an East Anglian cottage industry. They all know which side their bread is buttered. I'm afraid objectivity has been thrown out of the window in this particular institution. It's so blatant. The fact that there is a whistle-blower there (a mole in the circus) is however heartening.
In a comment elsewhere a scientist named Paul Vaughan, responded as follows:
"Actually not so hard.[to understand]
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."
and in another blog this was contributed:
"Some time ago (15 - 20 years ?) UK university departments stopped getting full government funding for pure blue sky research and thinking.
They have been encouraged to attract outside/industrial fuinding, in fact this has become a major part of running any sort of research these days.
Having the IPCC or UK government on side is a big incentive for climate researchers to get the 'right' results.
Wasn't it £13 million Jones received over a number of years?"
Regarding this job description
1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.
We apparently have the better part of the University of East Anglia and hundreds of "academic" staff there devoted to doing precisely this. It's an East Anglian cottage industry. They all know which side their bread is buttered. I'm afraid objectivity has been thrown out of the window in this particular institution. It's so blatant. The fact that there is a whistle-blower there (a mole in the circus) is however heartening.
