The Suppression of Natural Cycles Research by Universities – Is It To Protect Grant Money?
By David Dilley
Former NOAA meteorologist,
(Now CEO of www.globalweatheroscillations.com)
On August 26, 2015, NoTricksZone published the article: “Gross Suppression of Science…Former NOAA Meteorologist Says Employees Not to Talk About Natural Cycles” where in it I wrote how the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) warned employees not to put forth alternative views on climate science.
Also in the article I described an incident in which the University of Maine was instrumental in canceling my scheduled Climate Change lecture – simply because they felt “some people in the audience may feel uncomfortable” hearing about natural cycles.
Some readers were aghast by this article and reluctant to believe that a university could be so bold to actually shut down a guest lecture at another institution, and thus infringe on the open academic exchange of ideas, which is so vital for the progress of science. But whenever articles are based on real observations and facts, more meteorologists and climate researchers come forward and share related information and experiences.
Dr. William Gray, Colorado State University
Was the shutting down of my Natural Climate Cycle lecture by the University of Maine an isolated incident or was it a common tactic used to avoid retaliation by the funding sources and thus ensure the flow of future grants? To shed light on this Dr. William Gray, Emeritus Professor of Atmospheric Science at Colorado State University (CSU) and head of the Tropical Meteorology Project, provided his insights to me in a recent conversation. Dr. Gray recalled how he and Dr. Fred Singer “had experienced a somewhat similar situation with a scheduled climate talk at the University of Colorado, a university that receives generous amounts of grants for studies on anthropogenic climate change.”
Just as was the case with my scheduled lecture at the University of Maine, his lecture too had been advertised and a room assigned. But then, just prior to the lecture, Dr. Gray was informed that the room was “no longer available”. Dr. Gray asked for another room – and requested the room to be unlocked 30 minutes prior to the lecture so they could set up and that the university provide video equipment. They seemingly accommodated his requests. But upon arriving at the room a half hour prior to the lecture, he found that it was much smaller than the other room and that it was locked. They waited and waited, then finally at the very minute the lecture was scheduled to begin, the university unlocked the door. No video equipment was available. Was my lecture and Dr. Gray’s both shut down by the universities in order to protect the flow of grants? Is this now becoming common practice to suppress the freedom of speech, the open exchange of ideas and the science of natural climate change cycles?
Fritz Vahrenholt, University of Osnabrück
The same type of academic suppression also happened involving S. Fred Singer and Prof. Claes Johnson at an engineering and scientific society in Belgium (in this particular case the suppression stemming from a high level IPCC official) and with German professor Fritz Vahrenholt at the University of Osnabrück, just after the release of his climate science skeptical book “Die kalte Sonne”. The list is surely a long one, and many other professors and speakers can confirm the practice, or even far worse, with their own experiences.
Selling Integrity In Exchange For Grant Money?
In 2008 I had a very candid conversation with Dr. Reid Bryson, who passed away in 2009 and is considered the “Father of Climatology”, and just this past week with Dr. Gray. Both professors put forth similar information on the acquisition of grants and both indicated this is how all university programs work. They told me, “Most university research departments rely heavily on government and private grants to survive.” According to Dr. Gray university research departments must play ball and “play by the rules” instituted by the grant system in order to secure climate grants. Playing by the rules means grant money for anthropogenic climate change is fairly easy to acquire, and all you have to do is apply for the advertised grant and deliver what the grant is requesting – which is to tie your research to human induced global warming.
Both Drs. Gray and Bryson indicated that “almost no grant money” is available for non-anthropogenic climate research. They also went on to say: “If you are a tenured professor, you must play by the rules and get published in journals to survive in the department. If you are not tenured, you definitely must play by the anthropogenic grant rules, or else tenure is a dream that will never be met”.
This is how the young researchers are kept in line by universities, and essentially sell their integrity in exchange for anthropogenic global warming grants. As a result of this biased grant system, there is very little research on natural cycles coming out of the universities. Most natural cycle research is either now being conducted by private companies that are not tied to the grant system, or by retired researchers who no longer need to worry about playing the game. So yes, the manipulation by the Universities of Maine and Colorado, and elsewhere, to shut down research and discussion lectures on natural climate cycles are not an uncommon practice and are aimed at protecting and maintaining the inflow of anthropogenic grants and agendas.
Note: Not only is suppression of science a problem at the academic level, but there’s strong evidence of this at scientific institutions such as the NOAA. Anyone with more information regarding an NOAA “Talking Points” memo of the late 1990s instructing employees not to promote alternative views on climate science, please contact Mr. Dilley email@example.com. More on this later.