30 September 2008

Truth or Funding?

The author of this paper [PDF] argues that debates over climate change are not reaching resolution because there's money to be made by extending the debate, i.e.,
For a variety of inter-related cultural, organizational, and political reasons, progress in climate science and the actual solution of scientific problems in this field have moved at a much slower rate than would normally be possible... the heavy influence of politics has served to amplify the role of the other factors...[that are] amplified by the need for government funding. When an issue becomes a vital part of a political agenda, as is the case with climate, then the politically desired position becomes a goal rather than a consequence of scientific research...

We will show how political bodies act to control scientific institutions, how scientists adjust both data and even theory to accommodate politically correct positions, and how opposition to these positions is disposed of.
Bottom Line: Politicians are accused of taking bribes to change policies. That poison has spread to (willing) academics and administrators who prefer to talk from one grant to another.

hattip to RW

5 comments:

  1. Any idea where this paper was published?

    ReplyDelete
  2. from page 1: This paper was prepared for a meeting sponsored by Euresis (Associazone per la promozione e la diffusione della cultura e del lavoro scientifico) and the Templeton Foundation on Creativity and Creative Inspiration in Mathematics, Science, and Engineering: Developing a Vision for the Future. The meeting was held in San Marino from 29-31 August 2008. Its Proceedings are expected to be published in 2009.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Lindzen is the sole AGW denier among bone fide publishing climate researchers, he gets $ from oil companies...

    ReplyDelete
  4. Interesting -- his piece cuts both ways, i.e., perhaps he's unwilling to concede AGW while he can collect more grant money...

    ReplyDelete
  5. Templeton Foundation? Is this not the flush Brit soft creationism foundation, which lavishes money on famous senior scientists who make at least vague reference to supernatural forces? Are they branching out to other supernatural arenas, such as global warming denial?

    ReplyDelete

Spammers, don't bother. I delete spam.