How The Climate Consensus Was Created

The climate consensus is created and maintained by cutting off funding to any scientist who tells the truth about climate.  Like Bill Gray at CSU or David Legates at The University of Delaware – formerly the Delaware State Climatologist.

Everyone in climate science understands this, so they keep their mouths closed.

About a decade or more ago, I was told by someone that I had been placed on a federal “Do Not Fund” list.  Undaunted, I applied for a grant from NASA.  Well, the proposal was rejected but the letter back from NASA contained only a single review sheet that was blank except for the following note written in the comments section:  “NCDC [National Climatic Data Center in Asheville NC] should be funded to do this research.”  When I contacted the program officer, Jared Entin, he indicated that he was on vacation but would investigate right away.  I have called and e-mailed; I have yet to hear back from him.

Several years later, I applied to the USDA to leverage weather radar to enhance agricultural forecasting.  My proposal was submitted electronically and was listed as “Under Review”.  In due course, I received a note from the USDA that all proposals had been either rejected or accepted and they thanked me for my submission.  Since I had not heard from them, I went on-line and checked my proposal.  It was listed as “Under Review”.  I sent an e-mail to the program officer and one of his assistants responded.  She seemed so friendly and helpful and wanted to know more about the proposal that I had submitted.  When I gave her the proposal ID number, I received a terse reply:  “You will have to take this up with the Program Officer”.

So, I did.  We played the same game again — he then stopped answering e-mails or phone calls.  Eventually, I got the University Research Office to inquire.  They said they were told by the Program Officer that “we cannot be responsible for system problems.”  Sure…right.

I have submitted a total of 5 federal grants since I was told.  All five have met the same fate.  No bad reviews…no reviews at all.  And the Program Officer cuts off all communications.

In the 1980s, John Darcy was convicted of fraud — he had made up data and nearly fifty papers were rejected.  His penalty?  He was forbidden from getting grants from the NIH for ten years.  I have been convicted of nothing…indeed, I have been charged with nothing. But I have been black-listed…and just today, the DailyKos runs a piece on how difficult the “believers” have been treated…

Sorry for the rant,

David

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

10 Responses to How The Climate Consensus Was Created

  1. R Shearer says:

    There ought to be at least some blind component to grant application processes so researchers are not blacklisted for political reasons.

    • Johansen says:

      How can anything be double blind, in reality. I would assume everyone knows – or can easily figure out – who the author is. The double blind, disinterested, thing is kind of a joke i.m.o.

  2. Phil says:

    If President Trump ever gets off his laurels, Happer’s committee will have to fix this.
    So too for the science publication machine, which is clearly broken.

    https://hhgpc0.wixsite.com/harde-2017-censored

    If they don’t fix the corruption, it’s just a matter of time that the American public
    is right back in the UN’s clutches.

  3. Johansen says:

    It’s not a rant. He shouldn’t have signed off with “sorry for the rant”! He’s actually being pretty controlled, considering what happened.

  4. Anon says:

    As a research scientist, I actually experienced another pernicious variation of this.
    It happened when I was an AGW true believer and was teaching AGW at the University.

    I will just use a general hypothetical:

    NIH receives two grant applications from two different research groups with different hypotheses:

    Group #1] Increase in flea infestations tied the the misapplication of pesticides.

    Group #2] Increase in flea infestations tied to Climate Change.

    NIH won’t fund both, and Group #2, gets the grant. (I suspect now, for political reasons.) And a short time later it appears in the MSM that “flea infestations are caused by Climate Change”.

    On the project I was working, in collaboration with actual carbon scientists, the phenomena had actually nothing to do with Climate Change (and still does not, beyond the initial correlation). However, we found it IMPOSSIBLE to go back to NIH and propose a mechanistic answer — because it eroded the Climate Change hypothesis.

    We noted that as we pushed the issue we were getting warnings similar what David Legates received above. We never got to the point where we were labeled “deniers”, but I believe now that would have been just over the horizon had we been foolish enough to persist. As a result we had to shut down our research for lack of funding — and move on to other projects.

    This was way back in the early years of the Obama Administration and I laughed it off, thinking that the NIH was mistaken, but that Climate Change was such an important issue, that I could put aside my reservations and doubts. After all losing the grant was for a “higher cause”.

    After becoming a skeptic (in 2016), I now realize how pernicious this is to good science: the Climate Change issue is literally sucking up undeserved research funding and is actually impeding (starving) true scientific inquiry and discovery.

    • John F. Hultquist says:

      2016?

      What took you so long? Smile
      We got a DSL connection about September 15th, 2008.
      Over the next 2 days I became aware of the CAGW issue.
      I read Steve McIntyre’s “Ohio State” paper, and a few other things, and was a skeptic by the 18th.
      And I’m not all that smart.

      • Anon says:

        It was Wikileaks (Podests emails) that started me questioning. I saw Roger Pielke’s Jr’s name come up:

        https://www.nationalreview.com/2016/10/wikileaks-john-podesta-silenced-climate-change-dissent/

        I thought, if these folks ran a dummy democratic primary (and had no ethical qualms about it) what concern would they have for the integrity of Climate Science (probably a lot less).

        I stayed on the ship so long because I never really looked at what I was teaching – just taught out of the textbook. I thought peer review in the climate sciences was just as robust as it is in the fundamental basic sciences, like chemistry and physics, so assumed what I was teaching was solidly grounded.

        Little did I know…

    • Jason Calley says:

      Hey Anon! You make a good point. Every dollar wasted on CAGW whether for unwarranted research, or for unwarranted remediation, is a dollar that might have been used for some productive project. Actual scientific research and actual environmental problems are being ignored because of CAGW sucking the funding dry.

    • Petit_Barde says:

      I became skeptic in 2010, after a debate between an alarmist (Jean Jouzel former vice president of the IPCC) and Vincent Courtillot (former president of the Institut de Physique du Globe de Paris).

      Before that, I was not interested in the subject and I was prone to accept all the AGW story.

      Courtillot’s arguments were more convincing than those of Jouzel but what definitively convinced me was that few days after the debate, the IPCC demanded the Research and Education Ministry (Valérie Pécresse at the time) to acknowledge the validity of the AGW. Evidently, she refused, stating that she was a politician and that this controversy had to be investigated at scientific level.

      This IPCC demand raised a BIG RED FLAG to me (how could an actual scientist demand a politician to acknowledge a scientific argument ? Insane) and all the facts since then confirmed that the AGW was more a scam than something based on sound science (climategate, fraudulent data temperatures exposed by Tony Heller, Watts, McIntyre and others, dubious pseudo-scientific arguments, ad hominem attacks against skeptics, relayed by MSM, the inconvenient pause, hundreds of sound scientific skeptical articles and conversely blatantly wrong alarmists papers and MSM idiotic apocalyptic propaganda, etc.).

      As a French engineer with some scientific background, the more I dive into all the subjects related to the AGW, mainly scientific but also political, social and economic, the more all this storytelling proves to be, to say the least, questionable.

  5. John Francis says:

    Scientists are some of the most closed minded individuals on the planet.
    I saw while pursuing just a B.S. in Biology,premed , grad 1970.
    Professors dare not be questioned on opinions.
    Look at how they treated Louis Pasteur.
    Keep up the good work Dr Legates. I for one am proud of you.
    Johm

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.