This paper entitled “The Government Grant System: Inhibitor of Truth and Innovation?” explains quite a bit about the Man-Made Global Warming Cult:
Pollack (2005) addresses the first ethic, noting that the paramount motivational factor for scientists today is the competition to survive. A scientist’s most pressing need, which supersedes the scientific pursuit of truth, is to get her grant funded – to pay her salary and that of her staff, to pay department bills, and to obtain academic promotion. The safest way to generate grants is to avoid any dissent from orthodoxy. Grant-review Study Sections whose members’ expertise and status are tied to the prevailing view do not welcome any challenge to it. A scientist who writes a grant proposal that dissents from the ruling paradigm will be left without a grant. Speaking for his fellow scientists Pollack writes, “We have evolved into a culture of obedient sycophants, bowing politely to the high priests of orthodoxy.”
The grant system fosters an Apollonian approach to research. The investigator does not question the foundation concepts of biomedical and physical scientific knowledge. He sticks to the widely held belief that the trunks and limbs of the trees of knowledge, in, for example, cell physiology and on AIDS, are solid. The Apollonian researcher focuses on the peripheral branches and twigs and develops established lines of knowledge to perfection. He sees clearly what course his research should take and writes grants that his peers are willing to fund. Forced by the existing grant system to follow such an approach, Pollack (2005) argues that scientists have defaulted into becoming a culture of believers without rethinking the fundamentals.
The only way to get those grants is to never rock the boat.
Meanwhile across the lake we find our friends are having some second thoughts:
Brussels risks sacrificing European jobs with its plans to cut industrial greenhouse gas emissions, the euro zone’s big two economies France and Germany said on Monday.
Europe should lead by example but must not “change the competitiveness of our economy and our companies” by adopting tougher pollution measures than in other parts of the world,” said Herve Novelli, France’s junior minister for industry.
The European Commission announced proposals in January for curbing greenhouse gas emissions in the 27-country EU as part of the bloc’s strategy for fighting climate change after 2012.
EU countries hope to agree on the reform this year but the Commission wants to defer the question of special treatment for energy-intensive industries until 2010 or 2011, so it can see whether other countries have agreed to a global emissions deal.
Novelli told reporters at a meeting of EU industry ministers that “2011 is too far away”.
As well as France and Germany, Luxembourg, Finland, Austria, Hungary, the Czech Republic and other countries wrote to EU Industry Commissioner Guenter Verheugen to ask for swifter decisions on how the system will affect big energy consumers.
France wants the Commission to introduce what would serve as a “carbon tax” against imports from countries that do not agree to cut their greenhouse gas emissions.
Commission officials say such a system could be challenged at the World Trade Organization and drawing one up now would undermine negotiations with developing countries about a successor to the Kyoto Protocol agreement on climate change.
Germany’s Deputy Economy Minister Bernd Pfaffenbach told reporters his country’s priority was to press for free carbon dioxide emissions rights for big power consumers.
European Commission President Jose Manuel Barroso has said that if there is no global solution, the EU would look at interim measures such as free emissions permits for energy-intensive industries.
Executives from energy-intensive industries in Europe, such as producers of steel, cement and chemicals, have warned that big investment decisions are being put on hold until the EU hammers out its plan for fighting climate change after 2012.
So, we bowed out of Kyoto due to the cost and the fact that other countries would not have to follow it….and the world screamed. Now France and Germany have seen the light, and may even give some free emission tokens to the big industries. Even better, Germany is considering dropping plans to double the amount of biofuels in gasoline after being told that a million plus cars are not compatible.
Who will scream now?
Oh, right, we always have these folks.
See author page
That’s a Robert Graves hypothesis. The body of knowledge in the scientific community is so large and detailed that research is carreid out in sub sub sub specializations. A vast bureaucracy. Not quite a religion though.
It’s acceptable to fund one, two, or three RA positions with a grant, that’s how it’s normally done. For one’s own salary, paying departmental bills, etc., I would say that’s walking the fine line of fraud. Doing research, in the university setting, is the way to be promoted from a non-tenured to a tenured faculty position, and to maintain one’s value to his/her university. One of my undergraduate chemistry professors was let go because he failed to produce research of any kind during his seven years as a faculty member.
The ability to obtain a grant, particularly in the hard sciences, is not an easy task. It needs to show the line of research will advance knowledge in that particular area, but also it breaks new ground. Not merely to reconfirm what is already known, or to be a self-fulfilling confirmation of a hypothesis. That new ground must be reproducible in another lab setting, etc. as part of the peer review process. If it can’t, it’s garbage.
A good scientist, regardless of field, should always be asking questions.
With regard to “global warming,” none of this was (is being) done.
Great comment David, and right on. Scientists should always be asking questions thats why it should offend them ALL when people like Gore say the debate is over. It’s never over and when scientists rely on these grants for their welfare it does take on, like you said, the smell of fraud.