Grants and the so called “AGW gravy train”.

“Grants” typically go to universities and government research institutions. In Australia, ARC funding is usually at the top end (in terms of dollars available) when compared to industry research funds (sadly lacking). As anyone can see from the following link, salaries/stipends are not excessive.

http://www.arc.gov.au/pdf/2010_salaries_stipends.pdf

Research ‘grants’ are never paid in addition to the normal salary. They are only paid to fund extra temporary positions required for the research, or to fund equipment and sometimes facilities.

Government research institutions don’t generally allow scientists to earn money outside their salary from work-related activities. Universities used to allow staff to earn extra funding from private activities such as consulting, but most these days either limit personal earnings from such activity or prohibit it. In any case, it has no relationship to research grants.

More can be found out here: http://www.arc.gov.au/applicants/default.htm

The “gravy train” does not exist, despite the claims of those that continually trot out this fallacy in logic. Each individual scientist must compete for limited funds.

The best way to advance your career within the scientific community is to poke holes in each other’s hypotheses, or arguments – this is what the scientific method and the peer review process is all about (clearly rpg does not understand this salient point).

The fact that no one can come up with a genuinely robust hypothesis that debunks the scientific consensus on AGW speaks volumes about the strength of its evidence. Nevertheless, despite the shrill to the contrary, funding IS provided to try and poke holes in it (AGW). Indeed, some very powerful overseas lobby groups in particular are funding research to that end. Why? Because, if they do debunk AGW, then much money, insecurity and global stress will be averted.

The article is very clever, particularly for its play on words.

Ken Fabos

You have posted elsewhere [4 January 2009 at 7:17 AM] that the "suitably qualified would (should) get taken more seriously than someone like myself who has no relevant qualifications or holds no relevant position."

Such a person is Dr David Evans. He's a "real scientist". He gives the "real story" in his "Is the climate (science) establishment corrupt?" series at www.joannenova.com.au.

"Magna est veritas et praevalebit!"

Alice