Playing the Climate Research Game

David Richardson's picture

Perhaps people are either tired of discussing or too embarrassed to discuss the problems of Obamacare, so the cultural conversation is returning to debate climate change.

Advocates intone that 97 percent of peer-reviewed research demonstrates that man-made climate change is a fact. They then assume that there is an overwhelming consensus among scientists, and that it is imperative we do something to save the planet from ourselves.

All this sounds reasonable until you know how the climate research game is played.

Climate change advocates either remain willfully ignorant of how climate research is done, or they know the intentionally political nature of this research and deliberately hide it.

If you don’t understand how the research game is played, you, too, will be duped by these arguments, and will blithely sit while leftist idealists armed with “scientific facts” from comrades in white lab coats rip away what vestiges of freedom we have left in this country.

I have worked in academia among professors at Georgia Tech and many other research institutions for 20 years and I know the game.

Major universities pay their professors to teach and do research. However, you probably didn’t know that while research is a major part of a professor’s job, universities typically don’t pay for the actual research that they do.

It is up to each professor to get their own funding to get lab space, buy equipment, and hire grad students to help them do their research.

If a professor does not publish enough peer-reviewed research within the first 5-7 years after they are hired, they will not get tenure and they will probably be out of a job.

Successful professors at major research universities spend more time raising money to do research than actually doing research. They are professional fund-raisers before they are researchers.

Now, if you are a chemical engineer or physicist, for instance, you have many funding options available to you. There are government agencies to which you may submit a grant proposal to fund your research. There are many foundations interested in these areas.

More often, though, private companies like Kimberly-Clark, Intel, or Dow will fund university researchers to make major new advances in science because it benefits the company. It is often cheaper for these companies than doing the research in their in-house labs.

However, when it comes to climate research, there is little benefit for foundations and companies to research the weather. So, almost all climate research funding comes from various government agencies. All of these agencies are ideologically driven.

If you submit a grant proposal that aims to demonstrate the veracity of man-made climate change, there may be a big check in your future.

If you submit a grant proposal that intends to disprove man-made climate change, you and your research group will go out of business because you won’t get funding.

The next time someone says to you that 97 percent of peer-reviewed research proves that climate change is real, wake them up! Just reply, “Are you really that stupid?” and explain how the climate research game is played. It is a cleverly disguised ideological hustle, so don’t fall for it.

Is climate change real? Of course! The climate changes all the time.

Do humans have anything to do with it? Not likely.

If you talk to meteorologists (I know a few) who work with the weather every day, many are not convinced at all.

However, professional meteorologists don’t do much peer-reviewed research. They are busy working with the weather. It is university climate scientists who do most of the published research.

If you know anything about university professors (I have written an Oxford University dissertation on the topic), they are overwhelmingly left-leaning politically, and the vast majority are registered Democrats.

Climate science research is done by almost exclusively ideological liberals funded completely by ideological liberals to produce “results” that prove liberal ideology.

If the sole source of climate research funding were not government agencies, I may be more willing to accept its conclusions. But I know too much about the climate research game to know better.

Unlike most any other area of scientific research, climate science is thoroughly skewed, tainted, and politicized because the only way to get funding is from an ideological government agency.

This spills over into other sciences, too. I may be a biological researcher studying the mating habits of the Eastern Gray Squirrel. It is not easy to get funding for this kind of research from a foundation or company.

However, if I write a government grant proposing to research the impact of climate change on the mating habits of the Eastern Gray Squirrel, I’ll get my grant.

The “97 percent of peer-reviewed research” claim only tells us that 97 percent of government-funded research supports the government and U.N.’s liberal ideological ends.

Show me a large body of climate research funded by a non-ideological source that demonstrates man-made climate change, then let’s talk.

The “scientific consensus” that climate alarmists claim does not exist. There are thousands of working scientists who don’t buy the mantra. See the Petition Project ( for just one list of them.

[David Richardson of Peachtree City is the executive director of The Assumptions Project. He has a master’s degree from Oxford University, and is a university consultant in education and culture. He is a recognized expert on the religious attitudes and beliefs of university professors. He, his wife and children have lived in Fayette County for more than two decades.]

conditon55's picture
Joined: 03/12/2010
The Metric System, Climate Change and other liberal commie plots

If i talk about climate change, I am not going to tell you that you should buy your gasoline by the liter. - 17000 scientists signed this petition, 9029 with PHDs. Like Gail D Adams, PhD, he was born in 1918, died 2010. If you grab a few names from the list, like these, Luther Aull, PhD, Neil N. Ault, PhD, Kathi A. Aultman, MD. And Google them, you see the exact same list hit over and over again with different organizations with different names. Any one smell a rat?
There are people who will do internet searches on all of the names on the list. In short, the list is not credible.
If 17000 scientist called out here are 3% of the scientific community who say "No", then that means that 546,000 believe climate change is real.
For a practically based alternative point of view, please try this one. It is by Rich Alley, PhD out of Penn State.
If climate change is real and it is only folks of liberal persuasion pursuing answers, then the liberals have the best shot to save the planet, including all of the conservatives on it.
The science confirming global warming is simple and proven. There is no scientific debate is global warming real. Scince confirmed man is causing it. It comes from buring clao and oil (mostly). The scientific debate is about how much trouble we are in. And that is a tougher question.
Science Magazine
talks about a survey of the literature and supports the 97% consensus calim.
We know that oil and coal are rich and powerful and the idea of going from hero to zero in a couple of decades and being able to see the whole thing coming is not too exciting so it is likely they will fund efforts to delay the transition - to the tune of billions of dollars in their pockets. Could it be that te 3% desenting opion about climate change is from people who get their paycheck from oil or coal ?
Want to know more about climate change ? The USA government is a world leading resoruce on the subject. - maybe NASA is a sham organization ? - USA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration - sham website ? - the USA energy Information Administraiton ?
USA Nation Renewable Energy Laboratory ?
Want to know about the path forward? Like wind resource off the coast of Gerogia ?
US Department of energy ?
The always feared and loathed EPA
The world bank
Note the .gov extension.
International Organizaitons - a United nations Organization.
When oil and coal go bandrupt, the money spent on the fuel today will be freed up in a renewable economic dividend to be spent on other things.
If climate change is real and it is only folks of liberal persuasion pursuing answers, then the liberals have the best shot to save the planet, including all of the conservatives on it.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Joined: 04/23/2007
"Information" - Condition55

Thanks for all the government website links and the vast government inspired "industry" of green. Ever wonder who is getting rewarded with all this climate change stuff? Why! Could it possibly be the "scientists"? Could it be the politically connected? Could it be the investors in the crony companies created to "solve" the climate change "problem". Could it be gosh, Al Gore? You know the guy that sold his "environmental" talk radio station to big oil? Only he says because they had the best price.

If it's between trusting my senses and logic vs. trusting government funded science, well......

Now you go right along with all the other sheeple and try and "solve" the "problem" of global climate change, the rich and powerful politicians need unquestioning people like you. I mean, you have the best intentions after all, you're trying to save the world and all those people that just can't quite grasp the concept. Thanks buddy!

Try and grasp this condition55, it's about the money.

conditon55's picture
Joined: 03/12/2010
16 tons

The links I post are all credible main stream establishment US government organizations or similar. No front sites financed by the oil industry.

Since the fossil fuels business will surely go bankupt, just like the steam powered railroad, do ya think they have launched a global propoganda campaign to delay the transition ? (They cannot stop it, they can only delay it.)

or are they all puritanical good samaritans, simply advocating for good of the general public ?

Let me see who has more to lose on this equation ? The entire scientific body of the planet( -3% funded by the fossil fuels industry ? ) or the fossil fuels industry? Short term, the fossil fuels industry, because they are going out of business. Long term, every human being on the planet for the next thousand years.

Every one in the power generation business, you could read that as Southern Company and Georgia Power, know the transition is coming.

The federal government is letting leases for off shore wind power generation and they are all being bought.

If you are a power generation company like Duke or Southern Co, do you really want the distinction of being the last major US power generation company in America with big coal infrastruture ? And be recognized as the biggest power generation putz in the country ?

Why do you think north east Wyoning wants a train to Seattle ? To ship coal to what will be the last major coal market on the planet, China? That is my guess.

The only scientific debate about climate change is, how much trouble we are really in.

This month the UN IPCC will meet in Yokohama Japan and issue updated guidance. Each time new guidance is issued, my prediction is the news will be more and more serious as human understanding of the reality of the situation improves.

For sure thid topic has nothing to do with politics. Why? because it is everyone who is at risk, not just liberals.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Joined: 04/23/2007
One other thing Condition55

Using "credible" and "US Government" in the same sentence is an oxymoron.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Joined: 04/23/2007
Condition55 - One

small correction to your discourse, the fossil fuel industry is not going out of business, however the government is attempting to regulate it out of business, it will fail. As you aptly point out, fossil fuel will be exported because it's the cheapest form of energy. So in the long term, it will put America at a competitive disadvantage, but at least we will live clean as we all live in poverty.

Oh yes, somehow the rich political elite will come out just fine no matter what. They just want YOU to take the cold shower.

stranger than f...
stranger than fiction's picture
Joined: 06/27/2012
Condition - How dare you question Fox "News"

Don't you know that scientific fact must be vetted by the oracles at Fox "News"? Please don't preach heresy to true believers. Next, I suppose that you'll assert that the world is over 6,000 years old, that people have never lived much over 100 years, and that fatherhood at 500 years old may be a stretch. Remember, there's empirical science and then there is "science."

Truth is stranger than fiction.

Recent Comments