Why be economical with the actualité ?

Thread Started on Dec 9, 2009

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 "Actually not so hard to understand" and told the following 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."

0000000000


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 funding, 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?"

This what CRU is funded to do

1) Demonstrate AGW.
2) Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.
3) Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.

000000000000

It's become an East Anglian cottage industry. They 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.