"WUWT reader Norris Hall commented on this thread: Americans belief of global warming sinking – below 50% for the first time in 2 yearsThis is not all that dissimilar to the experiences of evolutionary skeptics (anecdotally) blocked from jobs and other opportunities based on the ideological difference of the reigning crew.
… 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.
This confirms the stories that I’ve been hearing over the last few years.
Friday, December 11, 2009
Worth Sharing
This very interesting thread from wattsupwiththat.com:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Yeah but conspiracy means collusion; people explicitly acting together towards a common cause. I perceive a common opinion, rather than active collusion.
This isn't to say, of course, that the opinion is correct. I simply believe people throw around the conspiracy word to make their personal cause sound more righteous and justified.
There was at least collusion, actual and proposed, in several instances: the deleted emails; the proposal to bully journals into excluding certain authors/papers; the use of the "trick" to create deceptive graphs by excluding inconvenient data.
But of course there is a common mindset amongst this crew, and perhaps the mindset is more effective than actual collusion.
For example the mindset that solar input forcing is constant; it is not, and is known to vary periodically by as much as 0.2%, with new data finding variations as high as 6%. So using a constant for solar input radiation forcing can't be right, even if it is a common model parameter.
Post a Comment