Thursday, December 10, 2009

Follow the money—a lot of money...

When your humble Devil was first looking through the CRU emails, I highlighted a conversation that (mainly) took place between David Schnare and Eugene Gordon. When asked what he thought the motivations of the CRU Club were, Gordon summarised as follows: [Emphasis mine.]

Money is a massive motivating factor, and it seems that there are some people who are very keen on "proving" anthropogenic global warming (AGW).

Via Bishop Hill, I came across this comment at Watt's Up With That: it's written by a scientist called Paul Vaughan who commented thusly:
Personal anecdote:

Successful candidates will:
  1. Demonstrate AGW.

  2. Demonstrate the catastrophic consequences of AGW.

  3. Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2.


As His Ecclesiastical Eminence noted, this accords with a number of similar anecdotes that have been left in the comments at The Kitchen over the years, as well as those that people have emailed me.

Of course, this is still just hearsay so Bishop Hill has decided to check the veracity of this claim.
However, it is a testable hypothesis and to that end I've put a FoI request into NERC, the main UK funding body for the environmental sciences. I've asked for details of the eligibility criteria for funding programmes covering climate change, hopefully back to 2000.

Let's hope that they reply truthfully to the Bishop's FoI request: as we have seen, an awful lot of data appears to go missing in these bodies.

In the meantime, it's worth noting that the NERC is headed up by some familiar—and far from unbiased—faces.
In the meantime, take a look at the NERC Council, the body responsible for prioritising funding. Several of these are familiar names, and one or two have been ubiquitous in the media in recent weeks. For example:
  • Bob Watson (of CRU fame)

  • Andrew Watson (of CRU and "What an Asshole" fame)

  • Julia Slingo (recently seen trying to drum up support for a pro-AGW letter signed by scientists)

  • Mike Lockwood (well known to sceptics as the author of a rather questionable critique of Svensmark)

Political scientists or honest brokers? You decide.

So, funding priorities for climate science in this country are allocated by a bunch of confirmed AGW alarmists.

As I have constantly said, just follow the money...


stevie said...

How are they allowed to get away with this shit?

DocBud said...

Julia "The Enforcer" Slingo:


Ed P said...

Combine the words scientist & climatologist and - Oops, Thetans

Would there be conspiracy theorists if there weren't conspiracies?

Mark Wadsworth said...

Yup follow the money. Money and narrow interests is what keeps Home-Owner-Ism going in the same way as it keep Global Warmenism going. For every rent-seeker there is a rent-slave. Greenies and NIMBYs are two sides of the same coin. Don't attack one if you aren't brave enough, or at least intellectually consistent enough, to attack the other.

Steven_L said...

Of course it's all about money - but so what. Everything is about money.

If I lose my job I think I'm going to go into selling 'carbon' who cares if it's a scam.

Joe S said...

Steven_L said 'who cares if it's a scam'

well I do actually - I am a scientist and object to the falsification of evidence.

Steven_L said...

But there's nothing you can do about it is there? Every job I've ever had involved lying to people.

What's the difference if I'm lying to them about their mobile phone account or some crappy 'offsets' I'm flogging them?

thefrollickingmole said...

Want real money... try this list, Im sure you can find a similar one for the UK or US government as well.

This is the Australian governments "department for climate change" website noting government inititives to combat climate change.

Last time I counted there were over 90 inititives/departments/Quangoes attached to it mith multi billions budeted and many more not specified...

A few for you.

Caring for our Coasts
The Australian Government is committed to working with local communities to address the challenges of coastal growth and climate change.

Climate Change Action Fund
The Government has established the $2.75 billion Climate Change Action Fund to provide targeted assistance to business, community sector organisations, workers, regions and communities, helping to smooth the transition to a low-pollution economy. Whole of government initiative.

National Tidal Centre
The National Tidal Centre specialises in sea level monitoring and analysis for the purpose of deriving trends in absolute sea level and producing national tide predictions, tide streams and related information. Administered by the Bureau of Meterology

Every one of them in the multi millions, and every one a "constituent" who will parrot the AGW creed...
Follow the money indeed.

Chuckles said...

A lot of money. Indeed. But it's time to stop thinking small, and make sure that it's in the right hands...,2933,579956,00.html

Letters From A Tory said...

Kind of reminds of most quangos that Labour have created: they spend their entire time trying to justify their own existence rather than make any tangible contribution to society.

Anonymous said...


The 1700 Chorus who have just lost their jobs, partly because of "carbon allowance" trading?
With a capacity of 3,000,000 tons of steel, closure of the plant will deliver further "savings" over 6 million tons of carbon dioxide, worth an additional £80 million per annum at current rates but around £200 million at expected market levels...

By "offshoring" production to India and bringing emissions down – from over twice the EU level - to the level currently produced by the Redcar plant, it stands to make another £200 million per annum from the UN's Clean Development Mechanism.

Thus we see Indian plants being paid up to £30 a ton for each ton of carbon dixoide "saved" by building new plant, while the company which owns them also gets gets paid £30 for each ton of carbon dioxide not produced in its Redcar plant. That gives it an estimated £400 million a year from the closure of the Redcar plant up to 2012 – potentially up to £1.2 billion...

The ultimate irony, of course, is that the net "carbon" saving is nil.


The Pedant-General said...

"Explore policy implications stemming from 1 & 2."

And as I believe was also pointed out at Bishop Hill's, exactly WTF is that doing in the list of requirements.

1 & 2, subject of course to the mob of Mystic Megs, have at least a basis of scientific inquiry.

3 does not, in any way shape or form. As worded, it is EXPLICITLY political. It's not even economic/cost-benefit in nature: it explicitly asks for POLICY implications.

Hang them all.


Stevie,they are allowed to get away with this shit , because WE let them , just as they got away with the eussr constitution,because We let them,but while a limited number of people with intelligence object the masses are so stupid that they are fully prepared to drag us all to hell with them,as thier universe revolves around a womans crutch,beer and negro footballers,and the nwo will get away with this also,for every day they add another brick to the wall of our prison,and another barb to the wire to prevent our escape,this whole action and all of the others of recent years,has one purpose,to impoverish us to such an extent that our free will is compromised,and the state can impose anything it chooses,we had our chance but since the masses would rather fuck than fight,we are all now permanent slaves,and this is only the begining,the tip of the huge iceburg,for soon those who are regarded as "politically unreliable"will have only two choices ,recant or starve,oh brave new world that has such people int.

neil craig said...

Dr Joanne Simpson, a very high powered lady said, on her retiorement but not before “Since I am no longer affiliated with any organization nor receive any funding, I can speak quite frankly..... the main basis of the claim that man’s release of greenhouse gases is the cause of the warming is based almost entirely upon climate models" & went on to terad it apart.

Global warming is enforced in the same way Nazi Germany enforced "aryan science" (ie they didn't actually shoot non-Jewish sceptics but they didn't get jobs).

Middle Seaxe said...

Pretty damning stuff there Devil.

Tell me, are the inhabitants of the steamy, sulphurous nether regions such as yourself still open to a good bit of cursing?

I have ooooooh, about 646 curse tablets already written out and ready for a good bit of depositing in a gloomy pool somewhere near the Walbrook much as the inhabitants of Roman London were want to do.

If the first batch is successful I have another thousand odd in the pipeline.

Anonymous said...

I don't know if any other scientists could confirm this but my daughter (PhD in some sort of solar theory -she'd did not get her brains from me !!) told me some time ago that in order to obtain funding in the UK the research has to be answering one of 10 questions. I can't tell you what they all are but one of them is quite unbelievably
"Is there life on Mars?"
Needless to say "solar theory" doesn't get a look in. After all it's only the sun.....

Anonymous said...

The group of "independent" scientists who signed the letter in The Times yesterday were from the following institutions |(university abbreviated to Univ.):

Aberdeen Univ. - 30;
Aberystwyth Univ. - 12;
Anglia Ruskin Univ. - 1;
Aston Univ. - 1;
Bangor Univ. - 14;
Bath Spa Univ. - 2;
Bath Univ. - 1;
Belfast Univ. - 1;
Biomathematics and Statistics Scotland - 1;
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council - 6;
Birkbeck, Univ. Of London - 2;
Birmingham Univ. - 14;
Brighton Univ. - 2;
Bristol Univ. - 56;
British Antarctic Survey - 39;
British Geological Survey - 8;
British Oceanographic Data Centre - 5;
Brunel Univ. - 9;
Cambridge Univ. - 52;
Cardiff Univ. - 13;
Centre for Ecology and Hydrology - 57;
Centre for Environment, Fisheries & Aquaculture Science - 4;
Chairman, MPA Science Advisory Panel - 1;
Co Chair Climate & Health Council - 1;
Countryside Council for Wales - 1;
Cranfield Univ. - 3;
Durham Univ. - 32;
Earthwatch Institute - 1;
Edge Hill Univ. - 2;
Edinburgh Napier Univ. - 3;
Edinburgh Univ. - 84;
Environment Agency - 6;
Environmental Systems Science Centre - 3;
Essex Univ. - 2;
Exeter Univ. - 47;
Faculty of Public Health - 1;
Freshwater Biological Association - 1;
Glasgow Univ. - 40;
Gloucestershire Univ. - 1;
Greenwich Univ. - 1;
Health Protection Agency - 1;
Hertfordshire Univ. - 8;
Huddersfield Univ. - 1;
Hull Univ. - 8;
Imperial College London - 18;
Institution of Environmental Sciences - 1;
John Ray Initiative - 1;
Keele Univ. - 1;
Kings College London - 7;
Lancaster Univ. - 23;
Leeds Univ. - 56;
Leicester Univ. - 9;
Liverpool John Moores Univ. - 2;
Liverpool Univ. - 20;
London School of Economics - 1;
London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine - 1;
London Schoool of Economics Grantham Research Institute - 1;
Loughborough Univ. - 13;
Manchester Metropolitan Univ. - 7;
Manchester Univ. - 40;
Marine Biological Association - 3;
Marine Laboratory Scotland - 1;
Met Office - 204;
Met Office (retired) - 2;
National Centre For Earth Observation - 1;
National History Museum - 10;
National Oceanographic Centre Southampton - 59;
Natural Environment Research Council - 4;
Natural History Museum - 7;
NERC Facility for Airborne Atmospheric Measurements - 5;
Newcastle Univ. - 10;
NHS Sustainable Development - 1;
North Wyke Research - 2;
Northumbria Univ. - 1;
Nottingham Trent Univ. - 1;
Nottingham Univ. - 16;
Open Univ. - 26;
Oxford Univ. - 88;
Plymouth Marine Laboratory - 13;
Plymouth Univ. - 26;
Proudman Oceanographic Laboratory - 15;
Quarternary Research Association - 1;
Queen Mary Univ. London - 7;
Queens Univ. Belfast - 3;
Reading Univ. - 81;
Roehampton Univ. - 3;
Rothamsted Research - 3;
Royal Botanical Gardens Kew - 1;
Royal Geographical Society (former Director) - 1;
Royal Holloway, Univ. Of London - 6;
Royal Meteorological Society - 8;
Royal Observatory - 6;
Royal Veterinary College, Univ. of London - 1;
Rutherford Appleton Laboratory - 3;
Salford Greater Manchester Univ. - 1;
Science and Technology Facilities Council - 4;
Science Museum - 1;
Scott Polar Research Institute - 2;
Scottish Association for Marine Science - 14;
Scottish Centre for Ecology and the Natural Environment - 2;
Scottish Government Marine Lab - 1;
Scottish Marine Institute - 1;
Scottish Universities Environmental Research Centre - 1;
Sheffield Univ. - 27;
Sir Allister Hardy Foundation for Ocean Science - 4;
Southampton Univ. - 16;
St Andrews Univ. - 15;
Stirling Univ. - 12;
Surrey Univ. - 4;
Sussex Univ. - 5;
Swansea Univ. - 21;
UK Climate Impacts Programme - 1;
Ulster Univ. - 4;
Univ. College London - 40;
Univ. of East Anglia - 64;
Univ. of Gloucestershire - 1;
Univ. of Greenwich - 1;
Warwick Univ. - 6;
West of England Univ. - 2;
Wolverhampton Univ. - 4;
Worcester Univ. - 1;
York Univ. - 33;
Zoological Society of London - 16.

Anonymous said...

A friend of mine is one of the world's leading glaciologists. Apart from being a recognised expert in his field he spends at least six months a year in the Antarctic and has done so for over two decades.

The last time I saw him, I asked him point blank - "So what do you think of AGW?" He went silent and just said, "Meh, well..." He clearly didn't want to talk about it. So I then said, "Is it real or what?" He thought for a minute, obviously not wanting to talk about the subject, then just said, "Well, I tell the students at my University to make up their own minds." And that was it - he quickly changed the subject as he obviously didn't want to talk about it anymore.

Now can you think of any Academic endeavour, scientific, artistic or social science, where a leading academic and expert in his field would just let students "make up their own mind" about an issue? It was obvious that he felt that if he said anything even slightly anti-AGW his job would be at risk, even if it was only to me. Yet as a Scientist he couldn't bring himself to support it. So he just keeps his mouth shut and hopes no-one ever asks him point blank, as I did.

We know 350 leading scientists signed the Manhattan Declaration saying that AGW was a fraud. But how many of the "scientific concensus" just keep their mouths shut and say nothing. They do after all, have mortgages to pay and kids to feed.

Tomrat said...

Indeed, a lot of nests have been feathered and don't these particularly birdies would get away with merely "handing it back"; lampposts would be the least of their worries.

Sorry to harp on DK about this but as an idea for a bridging/transitional LPUK welfare policy what do you think of this?

Anonymous said...

have you seen this?

all the unadjusted tempratures from a Greenland glacier for the last 100000 years!

Seems it was 3 degrees warmer in the UK during the iron age- damn polluters!

Dick Puddlecote said...

DK and others have known that rent-seekers have been in operation in many fields for decades. The CRU nonsense will hopefully unravel, but it has to take the smaller scams down along with it if we are to enjoy a fairer, more liberal, society.

The Filthy Smoker has mentioned, many times, the same bastardisation of science in anti-alcohol and second hand smoke frauds. On this very site.

All motivated by a drive to create more funding for themselves. ASH, for example, just landed half a mill to investigate ways of banning smoking in private homes.

When the Lottery were quizzed on it, they seem to have committed to one outcome from the research before it has begun.

"The project was supported because of the Outcomes that will be delivered. Tools for health workers to be better able to support families in reducing childrens exposure to secondhand smoke"

Not a study to see if it's worth it. Not a study to assess if it is necessary. Merely one that will do as required, and the outcomes are already pre-determined.

This is going on in every sphere of our lives. Government doling out money to 'scientists' who can only get a piece of the pie if they commit to proving what the funder decides is to be proven.

Objective science has died a death. All that is left is fake charities and quangoes being paid to do the government's bidding.

God speed Bishop Hill's FOI request and hopefully there will be a domino effect in killing off trust in rent-seeking science, in favour of truly unbiased research.

Such a thing is well overdue.

Old Holborn said...

I'm angy. Again

Anonymous said...

Here in the US on the west coast I have had to answer essay questions that "must be answered in order for your resume to be considered" - and the questions mostly deal with AGW, how strong is my belief in AGW and how much effort I will pledge myself to fighting the war against AGW with all my might and strength.

This is in applying for typical run of the mill backroom lowly-paid clerical jobs BTW - and such essay answers required for organizations that aren't even directly involved with climate change issues.

So the litmus test is very strong, even to the point of non-funding issues - just to the point of making certain everyone inside an organization is identically on the same page in regard to political stance - science not-with-standing since science is not a part of the equation anymore.

Funding, certainly, in the case of organizations who are directly profiting - and perhaps hopes of funding by acquiescing to the political propaganda among those organizations on the periphery.

Pretty soon, the only free enterprise will be that surrounding itself in the exclusive held political dogmas permitted and that will leave us mainly with business to fight AGW, to fight smokers/smoking, to fight to do whatever else the UN/EU/NWO conglomerate at the top who designs these political agendas demands us to do.

It's truly frightening when it goes to demanding political allegiance up front, before even qualifying to compete for a mere backroom clerical job that is at the lowest point in the entire organization.

Yet this has become much more common, surpassing perhaps the earlier calls a few years back for non-smokers only, now one must also be an AGW believer. Perhaps soon it will be someone must believe in population control through middle-age euthanasia or answer questions avowing belief in a new liebensborn racial purity program based on the fake-science of eugenics before job applicants will be considered, even for lowly janitorial work.

Anonymous said...

Via Big Government Blog, Professor Stephen Schneider uses United Nation security officers to silence a journalist asking him "inconvenient questions" during a press briefing at the climate change conference in Copenhagen.

DocBud said...

Did anyone notice that the number of scientists who kowtowed to Julia matches the number of Corus redundancies? How convenient, each scientist, enriched by their Met Office research grants, can host a redundant Corus family for Christmas and explain to them how important it was that they lost their jobs for the greater good.

ukipwebmaster said...

The Railway engineer looks set to make a mint in assisting the closure of a steel plant here:

steve said...

I've never really understood the argument that it's all about money. You have a near global consensus of climate scientists but really it's just because they want lots of grant money - doesn't that seem a bit stupid to anyone with half a brain?

Let's compare government funding of climate science with all the money behind industries who desperately would not want AGW to be true e.g. fossil fuel, automobiles, travel etc...

I think if you follow the money you would find most of it goes back to an oil company or similar. The whole argument becomes a bit dull - it's like the tobacco argument redux...

The Happy Rampager said...

Yes, Steve, let's see if you can post links and actual evidence instead of insinuations.

You know, like DK and Bishop Hill have.

Tomrat said...


You are stating the obvious under a very wrong premise; there is plenty of money in the various industries you mention because ordinary people have paid for their services and products.

Unlike the communitarian arrests and annexation of industry through the ages these industries (not discounting the Oren Boyles and Wesley Mouchs I grant you) have not relied on looting or constraining the will of the people...or worse.

You forget that ultimately CO2 is a biproduct of life, and if we have legitimate reasons to constrain CO2 production how long before our children are sacrificed to Gaia?

Anonymous said...

This: v=a...player_embedded

needs the widest exposure ... proof positive that the AGW evangelists are running scared.

bewick said...

This one is too long to quote but an excellent article.

One comment is that at The Royal Holloway University (part of London University?) many MORE geography academics failed to sign than did sign. Many more snippets as well

steve said...

Ok some links...

Four case studies of exactly what I was insinuating...

or perhaps

The real climate scandal

Specifically look at footnote links 4,5 and 7.

I've been lurking on this site for a fairly long time and have always identified very strongly with DK's position on most things but the current fixation of AGW denial (why can't we be accurate and call it climate change/chaos?) is baffling.

There is no action taking place on it - let's face it - implementing any proper policies would be electoral suicide. There is no conspiracy. There are no "AGW evangelists" - just people who accept what a global scientific consensus is telling us. I'm not telling you to change your lives - it's too late for that, the ship is going down. At least be rational and not keep regurgitating the same old debunked arguments.

Anonymous said...

It's follow the money now, yes. The amount of money in AGW industries dwarfs that of the big petro-chemical industries. Even medium-sized workplaces (like my own) have both Sustainability Officers and yes, even a Climate Change Officer. Now think of that spread across the land, in every Council, University and large business. Throw in the enormous funding from the UN, EU and bizarrely the WHO, who deny funding to struggling nations unless they implement their directives (look at what the WHO did to Nigeria with regard to smoking bans, for example. They basically said, "We won't give you billions for HIV treatments and anti-malarials unless you institute a smoking ban." So of course they did. And it's the same with the AGW fraud). Then there's all the money in eco-industries - recycling, packaging, alternative power generation etc. It's not just academic funding we're talking about here.

However, where the AGW fraudsters, like the anti-tobacco loons, have been extremely clever is in their use of psychology. They've used a combination of scaremongering to sway opinion (a tactic a certain Mr Hitler advocated); they somehow got the moral high ground ("Feel bad about yourself? Doing this makes you a good, sensitive person!"); they've appealed to the bigotries, jealousies and hatred of people to divide and conquer elements of the population ("It's the Corporations, rich (people and countries), the 4x4 drivers who are doing it! Have a go at them!"), and they've appealed to people's hubris by saying "Yes, you are so important that you're changing the climate of a planet. And yes, you are so important that you, yes you, can save the world!"

Politicians have gone along with it, initially because it was easy PR for them - they might be nasty sacks of shit but if they had "green" credentials they could look sensitive and caring and lovely... at no actual cost to themselves. Plus, it's an issue they can never be judged on - if they fail to lower unemployment or crime then they will lose their jobs when a year or two down the line they are showed to have failed. But with Climate Change they can make pronouncement after pronouncement and it doesn't matter as no-one will ever call them up on it as there will never be a date when they can in fact be judged on it. Then, of course, they saw the benefits of adopting such policies that made them seem fluffy whilst simultaneously allowing them to raise taxes without too much appropbrium and which allowed them to remove long-held liberties without any backlash.

THIS is where AGW is now - it's like the Rennaisance Church. Yes it has pot loads of cash but it's real power is in the ideology that it has become. Non-believers are evil. Anyone who questions the consensus is wrong and risking damnation (for us all!). And anyone who says otherwise is risking everything. There have been many examples in this very thread of scinetists being cowed by the AGW fanatics, and the CRU emails show that they are trying to crush dissent and are doing so consciously. But what about the media? What about the politicians? Refuting AGW now, regardless of evidence, would be so negative that it would have to be avoided at all costs. Their PR freebies gone; their license to tax gone; the fact that they were shown to be gullible fools highlighted for all to see. FFS, we have a Climate Change Minister and Climate Change legislation on our statute books! Do you think ANY politician would admit the whole thing is a fraud, even if the evidence was indisputable?

Anonymous said...


That is where the real power of the AGW movement is. There is money, yes, but their real power is psychology. The AGW belief system makes people feel good. It makes them feel important and as if they have purpose. It allows them to show themselves to be sensitive and caring without actually doing anything messy like helping the homeless or visitng Africa.

It's there with AGW and it's there with anti-tobacco. Once they realised they could use the health card rather than the "We don't like it" card they knew they could say they were on the side of the angels whilst painting their opposition as big corporate crooks. And it worked. Who'd belive anything Big Tobacco says nowadays? That's why they don't say anything. They know it's pointless and they know that the evidence shows that smoking bans create smokers and increase cigarette sales, so they just keep schtum (while the antis continue to paint them as Dr No-led megaliths that corrupt everything they touch).

In the same way as Climate correspondents don't want to sack themselves, politicians don't want to look like gullible morons who've wasted billions and scientists actually want a career without being "excommunicated".

The poster above hit the nail on the head. I think the whole thing is a sham. But if I went for a job that demanded I write an essay on how bad Climate Change is, would I? Damn right I would. And I'd say all the "right" things, too, because that is the prevailing ideology and if I need a roof over my head you're damn right I wouldn't oppose it.

Anonymous said...

Here's another bunch of companies "following the money".

Tomrat said...


Science has little time for psuedo-democracy and hype, which in the end is all the "consensus" has: a lot of vested interests and "data" tailored to fit their interests and that of the political clientelle forcing us to fit the bill chasing CO2 while real problems are sidelined; forget the rhetoric that we should fund all things that's just stupid - their is a finite amount of money and resources with which to martial a response to these crisis and when they are not being squandered by governments and tr'nazis the wealth creators responsible are having their actions constrained.

As for your "consensus" why not look up the Manhattan Declaration or the other half dozen accords signed by hundreds of scientists with some integrity left?

Rob said...


The money from Government promoting AGW dwarfs that from industries sceptical to it. It is colossal.

As for the main thread, it isn't simply about the money, the funding - these people have nailed their trousers to the mast of AGW. Their reputations as scientists would be destroyed if the foundation of AGW was proved, or even plausibly suggested to be a myth or a fraud.

Anonymous said...

I despair because we are going to be shafted by a great BIG LIE ,
It just goes to show the complete utter contempt that the rich and the elite hold for the population as a whole.
Criminals, every lying filthy one of them.
The brass neck of it, caught lying and still they intend to go down this disasterous route.
Utter madness.
Who the hell do they think they are ?
Evil bastards, that's who I think they are.

Tomrat said...


Further to the colossal amount money the government has hosed down the drain has it ever occurred to you that the oil companies, the gas mogels and energy companies might stand to benefit from the AGW scam?

Without even trying they get massive subsidies for renewable energy, can inflate the price of their commodities above it's actual value with the full blessing of big govt. or encourage full scale intervention into another sovereign country on the pretext of energy security?

Think about it; the entirety of the energy network in this country was once a publicly owned - the grid still is, and so it is not unlikely that the boards of these companies are not made up of Orren Boyles? Most OPEC countries have nationalised oil industries as are many of the gas suppliers; it's simply the path of least resistance for these countries for them to take money to be less productive.

neil craig said...

While some companies close to government will get the juicy contracts or the subsidies "Big Nasty Industry Conspiracy" as a whole cannot because what this scam does is enhance the power 7 money of government. Certaibnly individual companies have been keen to do ads about windmills & fighting global warming but that is because they want to be on the inside as the companies close to government. In the 3rd world this is known as crony capitalism & immensely destructive of free enterprise. Same here but it doesn't get discussed.

Anonymous said...

Email Keith Briffa from regarding a funding proposal:

"Each of the boards has its own family to protect, or at least this is the way science funding is now perceived, so that the only consideration in the discussion ( especially of proposals from alien boards) is whether or not there will be enough on the carcass for ones own. The strength of our proposal lies in the potential for true cross-Board participation and the real scientific and strategic advantage of the focus on the Hadley Centre work. ... I can not see that we could have done anything more in the cicumstances to overcome this hurdle than by enlisting Hadley Centre support."

Given the presence of Slingo on the NERC Council - nepotism/favouritism appears to be the order of the day to ensure proposals get funded! So no doubt members of the boards look favourably on applications which support their thinking.

ukipwebmaster said...

Booker is now onto the Steel story:

bob "the bullshitter" watson said...

we can only hope that a thorough and wide-ranging coverup finally puts to rest these groundless, and, if i may be so bold, prestige sapping, allegations of the obvious.

wv: flater (it is indeed)

Mitch said...

these fuckpigs say the world as we know it is gonna end, the whole chicken lickin scenario yet they only spend a few billion quid. Less in fact than the Olympic games so how stupid do they think we are eh?

Anonymous said...

Look at the way the Media and Higher Education and other have treated Dr David Bellamy. His face hasn't been on UK TV for years. He was one of the first scientists who knocked the AGW 'Things' as a Scam.

Carbon Derivatives Trading by International Finance Corporations, Banks and Governments will be one huge Scam. A way of offloading bad debt into 'Investmetns' for the stupid, gullible, greedy and down right daft to buy into. Just wait, in another 5 years or so, the whole thing will be exposed for what it is - a fraud that will make Bernie Maddoff's scams look like 'small beer'.

[Fred Tiddlypop of the Township of Port St Wenn & Gaverne, in the County of Kernow'

The very model of a modern scientific man
