#Winning – Grant Applications for ‘Climate Change’ down 40 Percent

Grants funded by the National Science Foundation have seen a 40 percent drop in 2017 of applications mentioning the words “climate change”.

If you believe NPR this is a terrible thing.

But no it’s not.

It’s a really, really good thing: one of the first major indicators that the Trump administration is starting to win the climate wars.

NPR reports:

Scientists appear to be self-censoring by omitting the term “climate change” in public grant summaries.

and

The change in language appears to be driven in part by the Trump administration’s open hostility to the topic of climate change. Earlier this year, President Trump pulled the U.S. out of the Paris climate accord, and the President’s 2018 budget proposal singled out climate change research programs for elimination.

Meanwhile, the Environmental Protection Agency has been systematically removing references to climate change from its official website. Both the EPA’s leader, Scott Pruitt, and Secretary of Energy Rick Perry have said they do not accept the scientific consensus that humans are causing the planet to get warmer.

Yep. The only bit NPR gets wrong is the mournful slant it has imposed on this happy-making story. Sure it’s bad news if you’re a second-rate hack – as so many climate scientists are – and the only way you’ve mentioned to turn your worthless environmental science/ecology/marine biology/whatever degree into paydirt is by tagging the all-important phrase “climate change” onto your research grant application.

But for the poor saps who have to fund this bogus research – ie: everyone else – it’s like a mugger in Central Park suddenly apologizing and handing your wallet and iPhone back.

Republicans – President Trump especially – are often accused by leftists of being “anti-science”.

Actually, though, the only science they’re against is the politicized #fake science promoted by people like Lysenko in the Soviet era and by climate alarmists like Gavin Schmidt and Michael Mann and James Hansen.

Most taxpayers do not unreasonably believe that if their money is going to be confiscated from them by the government and funneled into the science industry then the very least they should expect in return is that it goes towards research that is in some way important to the nation or beneficial to mankind or useful to the economy.

“Climate change” research, it is becoming increasingly obvious, fits none of those criteria.

It’s a fit subject for scientific study in much the same way, say, the breeding habits of Komodo dragons or the crystalline patterns of snowflakes or the chemical composition of Uranus are fit for scientific study: quite interesting, if you’re into that kind of thing. But definitely not a field you’d ever want to become so powerful it became the go-to area for any aspiring researcher, sucking attention, expertise, and money from any number of potentially more useful areas.

Obviously, if you asked any climate scientist to assess the merits of that previous paragraph, he would disagree quite violently.

Read more at Breitbart

Trackback from your site.

Comments (20)

  • Avatar

    G

    |

    During the Obama administration many investors knew that leftist fiscal policy and hostility towards free market capitalism was the biggest restraint on a market that “wanted” to expand as never before.

    Imagine what could happen to scientific endeavor and true environmental progress if the Climate Change Agenda stops sucking up trillions of dollars and other human resources!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      BillD

      |

      Funding for climate change research in the US is about $5 billion per year and much of that is for NASA satellites. Investment in energy infrastructure, such as solar, wind, nuclear, dams etc is more expensive. We need more climate scientists, but their numbers are very small relative to health science and the total population of scientists.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Sonnyhill

        |

        Bill Duh your climate-science-tologists have been researching for 25 years and they still haven’t been able to put together an accurate model that accounts for carbon dioxide. Instead your crew conjures up apocalyptic propaganda. So many of your deadlines have come and gone, people are now bored.

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Time has come to cot all funding of the Eco-Wackos their too wealthy and powerful already

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Russell Johnson

    |

    I never get tired of winning! Thank you Mr President!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Sonnyhill

    |

    I can’t think of any corporation that spends more money on advertising than the Climate Change mafia.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    David Lewis

    |

    When I was a student working on one my science degrees we were required to read leading edge research. One article left the impression that more research was needed. I mentioned it to my professor who almost laughed. He said it was common for researchers to write papers attempting to get more money. This was before the politicization of science. Today one of the hidden agenda of the climate change movement by the “scientists” is to get more money. It appears they are smart enough to adapt to a changing environment.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      BillD

      |

      Grants are very competitive and this sounds like sour grapes by your professor. As a professor, I don’t get paid during the summer unless I teach summer classes or get a grant which pays salary at my normal rate. Most summers I work on grant research, teach summer classes or work at institutes in Europe. Besides summer salary, grants go to buying equipment, supplies, travel expenses and hiring students. Research costs money. Recently, I needed to buy a piece of equipment that costs about $25,000. I also needed supplies, such as radioactive isotopes. Do you really think that professors get paid enough during the academic year to work without pay during summer while hiring students and buying equipment and supplies out of their own pockets? Professors on 12 month appointments don’t receive any direct money to their pockets from grants. All of the money goes to students, equipment, supplies, travel and the university. Grants are a means to doing high level, exciting and productive research. That is what scientists work for.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Sonnyhill

        |

        Scientists who want to study ALL the factors related to climate change need funding as well. Why does it matter where the money comes from? Warmists suggest that the source of funding might suggest a predetermined outcome .
        Why are you immune from the same accusation?

        Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Bill Nye in happier times . Well at least no one can accuse Bill Nye of being a scientist looking for the next grant check . Stick to acting and comedy just like the Pope .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    BillD

    |

    I am not a climate scientist, but I am a professor and scientist who been a member of review panels in DC that evaluate NSF grant proposals, some of which are proposals on climate change. The ones that I am most likely to see proposals on the effects of climate change on animal populations and the effects of ocean acidification. NSF proposals are very competitive. Only top scientists make the effort to submit proposals and only about 15% are funded. Writing a proposal that typically cites over 100 of the most relevant related studies takes months of reading and writing. The proposals are read and graded by 8-10 scientists from around the country before they are evaluated by panels. Only proposals with mostly “very good” and “excellent” ratings advance to the panels. Climate proposals are evaluated in the same manner as other proposals and most scientists on the panels are not climate scientists. Of course, just about all scientists understand that human caused climate change is strongly affecting plants, animals, lakes and oceans and that understanding these effects is very important. Even though climate projects take money away from other fields, just about all nonclimate scientists want to see climate science funding at high levels.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      There’s an inordinate amount of money being spent (wasted) on something we’re unable to predict, affect or prevent. RAKOOI likes to tell us that there’s one million scientists world wide working on it. The rest of the world is busy adapting. Get with it, Bill.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      G

      |

      All of this first accepts the premise that human production of CO2 is harming the earth’s climates and that CO2 is a pollutant. Many do not accept this premise on its face.

      The perceived quality of the scientists seeking grants is irrelevant if the underlying premise of their work is false. The assertion of many here is that a generation of academic science has been subtly but systematically corrupted by politics and politically directed funding. Many who labor in their esoteric sub-specialties have no context from which to see the forest for the trees.

      Most of them are not corrupted individually, it is more the fault of the politically xenophobic atmosphere that now pervades academia. The LAST place to now expect open debate of any kind is a PC college campus. Sadly, to postulate anything but full acceptance of the modern political Climate Agenda will likely result in censorship or worse.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Sonnyhill

        |

        Next up is our troll, Rakooi. He’s about to smear some of his friend’s left over Vaseline on the lens. If you cover one eye and close the other, his bum’s-eye view is plausible.

        Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      Areas with mild climates have 30 degrees C temperature swing from summer to winter and harsher climates 60 degrees. It is ludicrous to say that a once degree increase is having an impact. The fact that scientists buy into this does not say much for their competency.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    rakooi

    |

    I think you forget that it was Obama who SAVED the World’s FREE Enterprise System from the George W. Bush, Brownback (Kansas) and TRUMP mismanagement of the economy.
    The Month he took office there were another 800,000 laid off.
    World Wide, millions.
    HIS Controlled advocacy of free enterprise
    rebuilt confidence in banking (Judiciously investing the $880 BILLION allocated during the Bush Admin.)
    $80 billion to save our auto industry and millions of jobs that depend upon the auto industry.
    (every penny has been paid back WITH INTEREST, thank you very much!)
    FOR THE
    1st TIME EVER,
    a large chunk of the federal government has been privatized…
    by that GUY you like to call a Marxist, a Kenyan, a Atheist, a spend thrift Democrat.
    GOVERNMENT GROWTH UNDER OBAMA was 3.3% per year!
    compared to ……………….George W. BUSH was 8.7% per year!
    compared to…..Ronald Reagan (w/2 recessions)8.1% per year!
    In fact
    that last time we had a comparable
    FISCAL CONSERVATIVE IN OFFICE WAS
    DWIGHT DAVID EISENHOWER.

    THE REST OF THE WORLD is not adapting to climate changes caused by Global Warming….but rather bringing emissions under control by shifting AWAY FROM the heavily subsidized & government supported …
    THE KILLER COAL & OIL FOSSIL FUEL MONOPOLY……

    EVEN we have made progress….
    The LAST year of the Obama Administration saw
    Electric rates decline……………..by about 1%!

    WHEN was the last time you saw The Fossil Fuel Monopoly reduce electric rates…..this time THOSE RATES WERE DRIVEN DOWN…
    by competition from WIND, SOLAR and Natural Gas.
    …all stimulated under the Obama Administration
    States w/out competition saw rates go UP !
    TEXAS was the BIG WINNER with Double Digit Declines in electric rates in all of the competitive markets !

    ANY DIVERSION is preferred than ADMITTING THE truth for DAILY CALLER
    .
    ……..DAILY DISINFORMER.
    ………deeply in the pocket of the Killer Coal and OIL Monopoly…..who pays DAILY CALLERS BILLS !
    .
    Daily Caller has been systematically LYING TO YOU ABOUT there being NO GLOBAL WARMING…..
    NOW
    they admit THERE HAS BEEN GLOBAL WARMING….but it’s not getting worse.
    ..
    but, of course,
    THAT’S NOT TRUE, EITHER.
    …it is just not as big a lie as they have been telling for YEARS !
    Dr. Christy declared in the 1990’s at Heartland SPIN-Institute…that global warming would end as a scientific issue around 2000 as we enter a world cooling event and resume our 9000 year slide into the next Glaciation (ice age).
    Dr. Christy declared in 2003 that there is NO GLOBAL WARMING…headlines in DC.
    Now,
    Dr. Christy, in a 180 Degree turn.
    ..admits that it has been warming FOR 23 YEARS
    but it is NOT ACCELERATING….
    OOOOPPPPS!
    Doesn’t that sound a little hollow??
    “….
    Climate Change: Global Temperature
    Author: LuAnn Dahlman September 11, 2017
    .
    Temperatures measured on land and at sea for more than a century show that Earth’s globally averaged surface temperature is rising.
    Since 1970,
    global surface temperature rose at an average rate of about 0.17°C per decade.
    (around 0.3° Fahrenheit)
    —more than twice as fast as the 0.07°C per decade increase observed for the entire period of recorded observations (1880-2015).
    The average global temperature for 2016 was 0.94°C
    (1.69°F)
    above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F),
    surpassing the previous record warmth of 2015 by 0.04°C (0.07°F)….”
    ..
    .
    SO, who the hell has been TELLING THE TRUTH For DECADES about THREATENING CLIMATE CHANGES
    and
    who has BEEN BLOWING IDEOLOGICAL SMOKE UP YOUR SKIRT ! ? ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Sonnyhill

      |

      The American economy rebounded in spite of Obama. We’d be even further ahead if Romney was President 2009-2016.

      Reply

    • Avatar

      David Lewis

      |

      In the first seven years of Obama’s presidency out of fifty states, Texas was the only one that had job growth. Taking the United States as a whole, the number of immigrants taking jobs was almost exactly the same as the number of jobs created. Remember, Obama is a strong supper of immigration. The result under Obama was there was no job growth for Americans.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Windbag Rkooi Blah Blah Blah again and mindless yammering as well

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Spurwing Plover

    |

    Obama like Clinton ruled like all liberal demacrats do by breaking the law and violating the U.S. Constitution becuase like all socialists?Communists they hate the Constitution becuase it stands in the way of the New Word Order and Big Brother

    Reply

Leave a comment