David Dilley has been a meteorologist for 40 years, 20 of which he spent with NOAA. At NoTricksZone, he writes about how government money and political pressure have distorted climate research:
For over 15 years an inordinate proportion of government and corporate research grants have been awarded to universities for a single specific purpose: to prove human activities and the burning of fossil fuels are the main driving mechanisms causing global warming.
Unfortunately, agendas by strong arm politics and the suppression of contrary views have become the primary tools used to manipulate the media, local and state governments (and in turn the general public) into believing what they want us to believe.
Many former research department heads, such as Dr. Reid Bryson (known as the Father of Climatology), openly state that research grants are driven by politics, and in order to receive a government grant you have to play the game. Topics for grants go with the political wind.
In the mid 1990s government grants were typically advertised in such a way to indicate that conclusions should show a connection to human activity as the cause for global warming. The result: most of the research published in journals became one-sided and this became the primary information tool for media outlets.
According to some university researchers who were former heads of their departments, if a university even mentioned natural cycles, they were either denied future grants, or lost grants. And it is common knowledge that United States government employees within NOAA were cautioned not to talk about natural cycles. It is well known that most university research departments live or die via the grant system.
It is ironic that Democrats like Senator Sheldon Whitehouse protest bitterly and demand investigations when tiny amounts of private funding support climate research independent of the government, the main party in interest. What we need is more independent funding, not less.
Not only governments manipulate, but so do some universities in order to protect their grants. A perfect example happened in 2012 when I contacted the Eagle Hill Institute in Steuben Maine USA to see if they would be interested in a climate change lecture. It should be noted that the institute has very close ties with the University of Maine. So I indicted that my lecture would involve information on natural climate cycles, and they responded saying, “That is fine.” Then In May of 2013 they asked me to speak at their lecture series on June 29th – an invitation that I accepted. They even consequently advertised the event and posted it on their online calendar.
All seemed well as I prepared for the lecture. But then came the manipulation and suppression of views. Just four days prior to the lecture, three people from the University of Maine viewed our web site (www.globalweatheroscillations.com). The next morning, just 3 days prior to the June 29th lecture, I received an email from Eagle Hill stating that my “lecture is canceled due to a staffing shortage”. Upon checking their web site, the calendar did show my lecture as being canceled, but carried the notation that “we hope to have a different lecture on the 29th”.
So what happened with the staffing shortage? A news service called “The Maine Wire“ interviewed the President of Eagle Hill, and he said that the University of Maine “felt some people in the audience may be uncomfortable hearing Mr. Dilley’s lecture”.
That’s really funny, if you think about it. Audience members “may be uncomfortable” if they learn that human civilization is not doomed after all! Maybe liberals are so addicted to predictions of doom that good news really would make them uncomfortable, or maybe this is just another way of saying that government money won’t continue to flow if we acknowledge the blindingly obvious truth of natural cycles.
The IPCC and most anthropogenic believers want to maintain the belief that global warming during the past 100 years has been caused by human activity alone, and this is why most of their climate talks and lectures do not even mention prior global warming cycles.
The politically driven United Nations IPCC and United States global warming ruse will likely end up being one of the greatest scandals of the 21st century.
For what it is worth, Dilley, like a lot of meteorologists, believes that we are entering a cooling cycle, the sixth during the last 1,000 years. The theory that liberals used to blame global cooling on human prosperity in the 1970s has been discredited, but if they can come up with a new rationale for how human poverty and unlimited government power (exercised by liberals, of course) can stave off the deadly peril of global cooling, they will do a 180 so fast it will make your head spin.