Payday on Grant Avenue

Russ Steele

As I am reading the most recent batch of the Climategate e-mails it occurred to me that many of climate scientist in these e-mail are just scientific hacks on the government grant payrolls. Michael Mann, Phil Jones, Ben Santer, Tom Wigley, Kevin Trenberth, and Keith Briffa, who starred in the first set of Climategate e-mails are front and center in the current set of e-mails.

These e-mails demonstrate that these climatologist are very aware what they must do to keep the grant revenue stream flowing in their direction. They need to provide their government paymaster what they are looking for — another good reason to tax citizens. The paymasters were looking for a crisis that citizens cannot ignore, and run away global warming seemed to fill the bill.

In the Climate 2.0 batch of emails the scientists admit that the evidence behind man made global warming is paper thin, and the apocalyptic climate story is being pushed for political rather than environment reasons.

For example there was this message from the British Department for the Environment, Food and Rural Affairs (DEFRA), which points out how scientists are selectively using data, and colluding with politicians to misuse the scientific information.

Humphrey who is reported to work for DEFRA writes:

‘I cannot overstate the HUGE amount of political interest in the project as a message that the government can give on climate change to help them tell their story. ‘They want their story to be a very strong one and don’t want to be made to look foolish.’

In other words, reminding the scientist what it is they are being paid to do — support the government paymasters agenda.

Professor Phil Jones, IPCC Author writes:

 ‘Any work we have done in the past is done on the back of the research grants we get – and has to be well hidden. I’ve discussed this with the main funder (U.S. Dept of Energy) in the past and they are happy about not releasing the original station data.’

Well it turns out the reason they could not provide the station data is that it does not exist. See this post at WUWT in an An Open Letter to Dr. Phil Jones of the UEA CRU by Willis Eschenbach

Another UN IPCC lead author Jonathan Overpeck writes in an e-mail:

 ‘The trick may be to decide on the main message and use that to guide what’s included and what is left out.’

In other words cherry pick the data and only publish that which supports  the government paymasters agenda.

The amazing thing, well maybe not, is the lack of interest by the main stream press in the substance of the e-mails. Google Climategate 2.0 and see how few stories come up in the lame stream press about this issue. They seem to be adopting the attitude “nothing new here, move along.”

Here is an example from Discovery Magazine Bad Astronomy blog:

So, with the Noise Machine ready to blast into full gear, let me be very, very clear:

Global warming is real. Independent studies confirm it. Vast amounts of evidence support it. 97% of climate scientists who study it agree with this. It’s almost certainly caused by human activity.

Got it?

Yet, those of us who follow the issues day to day, know that there is much more that is being hidden behind the curtain. Global warming stopped in 1998, those independent studies were pal reviewed, the 97% was 77 scientists who were asked only two questions and there are over 800 qualified scientists who are disagree that the science is not over, and as yet no scientist has proven that human activity is responsible for global warming.  I have bought my last issue of Discovery, as they are not discovering anything, they are just another government propaganda tool.

I think it was “Deep Throat” during the Watergate investigation that said “Follow the money.”  It is time we follow the Climategate money to the root of climate science corruption – grants to support government mandated study results — human caused global warming is a danger to the planet.

About these ads

About Russ Steele
Freelance writer and climate change blogger. Russ spent twenty years in the Air Force as a navigator specializing in electronics warfare and digital systems. After his service he was employed for sixteen years as concept developer for TRW, an aerospace and automotive company, and then was CEO of a non-profit Internet provider for 18 months. Russ's articles have appeared in Comstock's Business, Capitol Journal, Trailer Life, Monitoring Times, and Idaho Magazine.

4 Responses to Payday on Grant Avenue

  1. D. King says:

    Well Russ, I think things have gone too far for AGW supporters to be able to gracefully back away. The only way I see this ending is for the creators of this scam to be totally discredited. Then, and only then will those pulled into supporting it, see what has happened.

  2. Todd Juvinall says:

    When there is a Seth Borenstein true believer with the AP spewing the lie it will take a while to change minds. The grant whores are everywhere and they will react just like the ones in Greece. On the streets and burning their own towns down,

  3. Russ says:

    Patronage by John Brignell at numberswatch.co.uk/lying.html

    There is a long and respectable history of patronage in science as well as art, literature, lexicography etc. The patrons (other than the church) used their own money. The modern patrons, however, are bureaucrats who use the money of others; to whit, taxpayers. Their science is not the science of recent tradition, but a whole new ball game.

    There are major differences between real science and bureaucratic science (BS). Real science involves living with the prospect of failure. In BS, failure is not allowed. The whole project is mapped out beforehand in forms such as Gantt charts. There are deliverables that have to be delivered on the due date. With the exception of really big physics, real science is carried out by small groups. It is the same with BS, except that there are about five managers for every researcher. Above all the expected result must be delivered on time. Those who desire further patronage never report a negative result or, indeed, a result at variance with the expectations of the sponsors.

    We can identify the “scientists” who habitually lie by the fact that they produce, on time, results that are never unexpected and always conform to the establishment-sponsored theory. Real science is never that predictable.

    Powerful patronage makes people over-confident. They come to believe that they are untouchable. Like the royal favourites of mediaeval times, they soar in the air on a zephyr of preferment, only to get too close to the sun and plunge to earth.

  4. D. King says:

    They step way over the line when they start blowing up infrastructure and cutting off water. Changing the parts per million or billion in acceptable levels of whatever to cause cost increases that make improvements impossible is so transparent that I wonder if they think people don’t notice or are not going to hold them personally responsible / accountable. This is going to come to a head, and, like the city of Bell, California, these people will be held accountable.

    GO TO JAIL!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

%d bloggers like this: