Dwight Eisenhower recognized it and said so in his farewell address. Right after he talked about a military industrial complex, he warned of

"The prospect of domination of the nation's scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present – and is gravely to be regarded."

"Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite. "

What a crock. It is amazing that you people who claim to be “skeptics”, but know less than nothing about how science or research funding works will “unskeptically” swallow anything – absolutely anything – that supports your predetermined beliefs.

>>The evidence is increasingly compelling. University of Montreal’s Danielle Fanelli has written several comprehensive reviews of the content of published science and he found, in the last twenty years, that the number of “positive” results is increasing dramatically.<<

Did it cross you mind to skeptically consider this and other comments?

Did you wonder how such a measurement could be made? Of course you did not.

Fanelli’s study focused on psychology and it looked at what results were considered statistically significant relative to the conventional p=0.05 standard.

Did Michael’s provide any evidence of any improper behavior by a single climate scientist? Duh.

Did he even mention Fanelli’s recent study about how the rise in scientific retractions is actually a sign of scientific integrity?



http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v50...

You have once again demonstrated that you not a skeptic and you do not think like a scientist (because you do not know how to).

The last time the government pumped big-time money into science and scientists was the 1960s (up to more 4% of the entire federal budget). The result was the moon landing – after which, the funding immediately disappeared. Try to at least keep up the stuff that does not require any knowledge of science.

It is the first article that I have seen from Patrick Michaels but I will keep my eyes open for future submissions.

"If an Assistant Professor, up for tenure, answers either insufficiently, he’s likely to be looking for another job." I have never worked for a college so I can't verify this with personal experience. It makes sense however given the incentives.

"Does anyone seriously think that a young researcher is going to get that kind of funding by going to federal agencies with a proposal that global warming’s amount and effects have been dramatically overblown (as they have)? The mere proposal threatens to derail everyone else’s gravy train. It won’t get funded, and the researcher soon won’t be paid. "

Darren << I can't claim to know Naomi Klein but Chicago "gangster" (not gangsta) capitalists blah blah and its oil services blah blah as if oil services were previously the domain of the governments. Ah I get it, Milton Friedman, one of the greatest economists in the last hundred years is the Chicago gangster. What a joke.

Wow, what a bunch of stupid answers. Really that it is the best you can do? You lefties are just a bunch of mind numbed robots. Darren at least is honest that he is a jack booted Marxist. It is no wonder you leftists don't learn anything. Your minds are closed to anything but your religious acceptance of your savior, Karl.

Finally a couple good answers. Thanx

Strange to see no mention of Al Gore. Must be a typo somewhere.

Patrick Michaels was educated as a biologist, and most of his serious scientific publications have to do with the effects of climate on agriculture. There is no indication that he has the slightest experience or training in the History of science, or the history of FDR or the history of anything else except the history of Patrick Michaels as interpreted by the subject.

But consider the argument he advances:

1) "The number of retracted papers has gone through the roof."

As a % of total peer-reviewed publications, doubtful, and he offers zero evidence

2) Funding "compromises" science.

But the massive government funding listed on his resume has not biased anything he has ever said?

3) Government funding of universities plants "seeds of political correctness"

Except at George Mason, where Michaels is a Research Fellow?

How might we interpret this in light of the repeated claim that the results of studies of global warming are biased by leftists, socialist, liberals, etc. (As if science has anything to do with whether George W. Bush increased the federal deficit, or Sarah Palin scored higher than 500 on her SATs, or Dennis Kucinich really believes in UFOs.)

Suppose FDR was not the first US president in favor of governmental funding for science. Suppose Thomas Jefferson founded the University of Virginia, of which George Mason U was an offshoot. How would we know whether socialist-funded Research Fellow Patrick Michaels isn't still on the socialist "side" of the "debate" on whether glaciers have receded, North American forests are being ravaged by bark beetles, floods have increased in Bangladesh, ocean temperatures have increased, CO2 levels are up 40% from pre-industrial levels, and that over half CO2 coming from fossil fuels stays in the air for centuries?

And how does the US government control all the non-US scientists in the IPCC? That's a lot of black helicopters. Maybe the extraterrestial Reptilians are part of the plot too?

Finally: If the answer to this "question" is YES, as Michaels claims, which time machine did FDR use to

retroactively arm-twist John Tyndall, Svante Arrhenius and Guy Callendar into joining the international century and a half long conspiracy, that if successful would "coincidentally" have negative consequences for the fossil fuel industries funding Michaels favorite conference convened by the Heartland Institute?

It's amazing the Michaels can make a whole column with so little substance to back it up. Anyway, let's accept his thesis that scientists should not have to spend so much time worrying about and getting government grants. How does he propose science gets funded?

Let's face it, not everyone can get the big bucks from oil companies like Michaels does.

Disaster Capitalism by Naomi Klein was well as Cold war policies of Harry Truman and the Chicago gangster capitalists touting privatization of all services world wide in particular Iraq and it's oil services answer your question.SRI LANKA and New ORLEANS ALSO PRIVATIZED INCLUDING THE SCHOLLS.IS PART OF SHOCK DOCTRINE A METHOD OF RAMMING HOMEUNPOPULAR POLICIES WHILE NATIONS IN STATE OF SHOCK LIKE PINOCHET AND TORTURRORS IN CHILE 1970'S

Are you claiming that, prior to the 1930s, scientists were all independently wealthy and never needed outside funding?

Yes and it continues today. FDR the great fraud.

http://townhall.com/columnists/patrickmichaels/2014/07/21/the-threat-to-the-scientific-method-n1864397/page/full

President Roosevelt asked ...if there was a way that the horde of scientists recruited to produce The Bomb could somehow be kept in government employment.

"Bush sketched out a blueprint in which the Universities, not the government, would be the employers, but that the pay, either for faculty or for hired researchers, would actually originate from federal science agencies"

"Danielle Fanelli has written several comprehensive reviews of the content of published science and he found, in the last twenty years, that the number of “positive” results is increasing dramatically. That’s when the data confirm a proposed hypothesis rather than suggesting rejection or modification....In a real world where scientists are answering real questions, that would be impossible. "

This was an article from Patrick Michaels of the Cato Institute.