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 firstname.lastname@example.org. More on this later.
15 responses to “Universities Aggressively Suppressing Other Climate Views And Open Scientific Debate, Says Former NOAA Meteorologist”
“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.”
I guess this game is played e g in fusion research and theoretical physics (no research in de Broglie, Lorenz relativity, electric universe cosmology) as well.
The oligarchs of the West consciously use the university system to stall progress. Makes you wonder what goes on in classified research – and in areas not controlled by Western oligarchs.
There are 2 topics within this post.
A: the difficultly of speaking at universities, and
B: obtaining grant money.
A: The events mentioned would benefit by knowing “the rest of the story” [see Paul Harvey]. Anyone with a long career at a university knows things go wrong – class room doors are locked and the person with the key is at a meeting with her boss; windows open in the room with no heat (students and instructor all come dressed for an arctic hike); want A/V equipment in a room? – that needs authorization by the head of AV and she is in Timbuktu. One should not confuse “procedure” and “incompetence” with malice.
However, when activist faculty and students disrupt a speaker or initiate a prior-banning of a speaker – that is to be condemned.
B: Much (or maybe most) grant money is available through government agencies via a “Request for Proposal” known as a RFP. Anyone wishing to do funded research must write a proposal that meets the financial, technical, and content described in the RFP. Insofar as the researcher does not make the rules (bureaucrats do that), she or he has to play by the rules. There are also state, regional, and national accrediting agencies that have to be satisfied on a regular basis. This total system within which universities and their people must operate is neither simple nor intended to be malicious.
Each rule, restriction, action seemed like a good idea when implemented.
I believe we are telling much of the “rest of the story” to some degree, or at least getting some of the story told. The apparent shutdown of natural climate change talks are not isolated incidents, and we all know that universities rely very heavily on grants to fund their research programs. I agree with your assessment John about submitting “Request for Proposal”, but the topics advertised by the anthropogenic grants would not be available in the quantity they are unless the topic is promoted, and continued to be promoted. Like any institution, universities do not want the boat rocked, or change a profitable direction. And it is well known that alternative views are discourage. This may be why we continue hearing the term “the science is settled”. No it is not settled, and more grants should be available for natural cycle research.
SSo a climate denier says the fix is in? Color me surprised.
I know a weatherman who retired to Utah and built a home in a cave because he said, when the USSR collapsed, it was a hoax and Russia would then attack us when our guard was down.
You should look him up, too, and see if he also thinks this is a huge conspiracy orchestrated by all the hundreds of universities.
tired of stupid 17. September 2015 at 5:31 PM | Permalink | Reply
You are TIRED OF STUPID yet you believe in the fraudulent junkyard climate models that are out of step with reality for 17 years now?
Have your brain stem examined because I think it shows no activity!
Interesting that in the 1950’s it was continental mobility (continental drift) that was suppressed.
We were taught that the continents were fixed in place all through geological time. The theory of mountain building relied on geosyncline formation. Bizarre because obviously non-physical. But to pass we had to memorize the theory, a theory that I though was Wernerian.
It took only about 5 years for plate tectonics to take hold once the mid-Atlantic ridge was shown to separate two divergent plates.
To displace the theory of man-made global warming will probably take 10 years of cooling.
Continental drift was not suppressed, just strongly argued against, because geophysicists (not geologists, but physicists) could find no reasonable physical cause for it. And no one has ever actually found the internal magma currents supposedly driving continental drift, nor have they ever found subduction actually taking place anywhere; the physics of the crustal materials involved still denies it CAN take place (i.e., lighter material diving into and below the denser material beneath it), much less that it HAS happened, or IS happening.
The truth is that it is not just climate science that fails today; all of the earth AND life sciences are in a yet-unrecognized crisis of incompetent theories, going all the way back to the rise (and consensus agreement that it was “settled science”) of uniformitarianism and its most famous offspring, Darwinian (i.e., undirected) evolution.
See, for example:
The True Origin of Continental Drift
Challenge to Earth Scientists
So it is not a matter of just a “climate conspiracy” having taken over all of our most trusted and authoritative institutions; it is the culmination of a long-nurtured, dogmatic denial of deliberate design of our world, which has affected all of the earth and life sciences. I am the only scientist who can speak authoritatively about this, because I am the one who has uncovered and verified the re-formation and design that was imposed upon the Earth, and the entire solar system, by those who were called gods by ancient man. It was that deliberate re-formation that moved and shaped the continents, not plate tectonics. That is the FACT that no other scientific “expert” in the world will face today; too many theories, too many lifetimes of diligent but misdirected research, are at stake. The sacrosanct uniformitarian paradigm, the “undirected evolution” paradigm, is at stake. Against that, those who seek refuge in their political ideology–as if the debate were only between the enlightened Left and the reactionary Right–are the most deluded, the most misdirected in their thinking, and the most irrelevant and incompetent. But make no mistake, ALL are incompetent today, in the face of the great design I found to be the single source of all the ancient mysteries.
hm. I am sceptic of your theory.
For once I tend to agree with you sod. I am immediately suspicious of anyone who writes “fact” in capital letters
Or could it just be, that a university does not want to be wrong all the time?
Temperature this year is breaking one record after the other.
So having someone talk about global cooling might just look a little silly?!?
Warming even sillier: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/09/17/how-reliable-are-the-climate-models/
You must take into account that NOAA says records back to 1880, but we do not have good ocean records until satellites came in during the 1980s. Thus for NOAA to be including satellite ocean temperatures is like comparing apples to oranges.
Oceans are warm right now due to the El Nino, but much of northern Europe including Russia, Canada, Greenland did not really have a summer, very cold – actually near record cold summer.
So there is some fudging with numbers going on by including the oceans…but not including the areas within 20 to 30 degrees of the Arctic and Antarctic.
We do expect warm oceans at the tail end of a warming cycle, this will change once the La Nina sets in, and with the combination of a cooling cycle NOAA will have a difficult time in a couple years explaining all the cold.
Any “scientifically qualified, knowledgeable” person can verify that Post-WWII physics became a tool to frighten and control the public:
Two falsehoods, inserted into the foundations of solar and nuclear physics, are still obvious for any serious physicist to verify or deny today:
I. False changes were made in the internal composition of the Sun from:
_ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945 to
_ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946
II. False changes were made in the definition of nuclear stability from:
_ c.) Minimum value of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWII to
_ d.) Maximum value of Weizsacker’s nuclear binding energy per nucleon after WWII.
These lies immediately destroyed the integrity of solar and nuclear physics after nations and national academies of sciences united on October 24, 1945.
Now these same falsehoods have destroyed the integrity of astronomy, astro-physics, climatology, cosmology, particle, planetary and theoretical physics.
This information is documented on ResearchGate, Public Dropbox & BritiusWordpress for comment and discussion. See “Stalin’s Science.”
Sorry my comment was posted on the wrong report.
This is also about accademic freedom.