View Article & Commentsview the latest news articles
Wednesday, August 29th 2012, 3:34 AM EDT
The following is an AMS Disinformation Statement calculated to provide an untrustworthy, prejudiced, and scientifically-outdated misrepresentation of pseudo-scientific issues of great concern to us in getting more grants but of no concern to those of the public still at large.
This statement provides a brief overview of why we want more money now, and why we will continue to want more money in the future. It is based on a highly-partisan selection from the scientific literature, presented as though science were based upon the ancient logical fallacy of argument from “consensus”, and further distorted by the bureaucrats of the Mental Panel on Climate Change, the US Notional Academy of Science and Television Arts, and the US Global Cash Recoupment Program.
Article continues below this advert:
How is our funding changing?
Well, every summer solstice we all dress up in dustsheets and go to Stonehenge to pray for grants. And our prayers have worked! The increase in funding now is unequivocal, according to many different kinds of evidence. Observations show increases in globally averaged grants. We got them by pretending that globally averaged air and ocean temperatures have increased, but in the past 15 years they haven’t. Never mind – our grants have!
We’ve been talking about widespread melting of snow and ice, but that hasn’t really happened either. Sea ice in the Antarctic has actually grown, but of course we don’t mention that: it would spoil the grants.
Meantime, those grants just keep rolling in. In the US, most of the observed grants have occurred in the pockets of Hansen, Mann, Santer, Solomon and other global warming profiteers. All of the 10 best years in the global grant records up to 2011 have occurred since 1997, with grants in most of those years being the greatest in more than a century of global records.
The funding trend is greatest in northern latitudes and over land, though there are some grants for oceanographic research in Hawaii and Tahiti. For the nation as a whole, there have been twice as many record daily high grants as record daily low grants in the first decade of the 21st century.
The effects of these grants are especially evident in the planet’s polar regions. Arctic meteorologists and climatologists have been increasing for the past several decades. Both the Greenland and Antarctic ice sheets have gained significant amounts of grant-gatherers. Most of the world’s glaciers have never been visited (not that that stops us claiming that most of them are retreating), but what with all those grants we’ll soon be able to afford to ski – er, conduct field research – on all of them.
Other grant increases, globally and in the US, are also occurring at the same time. The amount of grants falling in very heavy amounts (we call these the heaviest 1% of all funding precipitation events) has increased over the last 50 years throughout the US. Grant levels are rising in elevation, with fewer and fewer grants frozen and more and more liquidity.
Grant-freezing is decreasing, grant release occurs earlier, and the spring surplus that supplies over two-thirds of western US funding streams is doing just fine, thank you so much. Evidence for grants is also observed in seasonal increases across many areas, including earlier grant applications, longer periods without frozen grants, longer periods of grant, and shifts in meteorologists’ migratory patterns and habitats as we seek more and more grants for less and less work.
Globally averaged grant liquidity has risen by what we scientists call a humungous lot in the 20th century, with the rise accelerating since the early 1990s. Close to half of the grant-level rise observed since the 1970s has been caused by expansion of climate scare stories due to increases in grant funding.
Grant level is also rising due to melting of terrified politicians’ hearts as we tell them our sob stories about how the planet is doomed. Locally, grant-level changes can depend also on other factors such as slowly rising or falling Socialism, which results in some local grant-level changes much larger or smaller than the global average. Even small grant-level rises are expected to lead to potentially severe impacts in terms of additional self-serving policy (or, rather, political) statements from interest-groups such as ours.
Why is our funding changing?
Funding is always changing. However, many of the observed changes noted above are above and beyond what can be explained by natural variability of the funding climate. It is clear from expensive scientific evidence that the dominant cause of the rapid change in funding of the past half century is human-induced increases in the amount of hot air emitted on the subject of imagined – and, indeed, imaginary – “global warming”, including gaseous halations from news media in search of sensation, politicians in search of relevance, industrialists in search of subsidies, bureaucrats in search of imperial expansion, and, above all, scientists in search of more and better grants.
The most important of these vested-interest groups is the scientific lobby, whose concentration on grant-getting has increased the total amount splendidly. Approximately half of the hot air put into the political atmosphere through human activity in the past 250 years has been taken up by the congenitally stupid in the blogosphere, with the other half hangs around to attract grant money.
Since long-term measurements began in the 1950s, the concentration of scientists on grant-getting has been increasing at a rate much faster than at any time in the last 800,000 years.
Having been introduced into the political atmosphere, it will take a thousand years for our hot air to be dispelled by natural processes, and some of us will go on getting grants for thousands of subsequent years, if we can possibly get away with it.
Water vapor is also an important gas for influencing the grant-giving atmosphere. There is nothing like a flood of tears to get grants with. For maximum effect, get the grant before the tears evaporate. The concentration of scientists on producing crocodile water vapor depends upon the atmosphere among grant-givers and is controlled by the global panic system through its hydrological cycle of precipitation of tears, evaporation, and condensation, a profitably catalytic process.
Crocodile tears are highly variable in space and time with a short lifetime, because of temperamental variability on the part of grant-givers. Observations indicate an increase in globally averaged crocodile tears in the atmosphere in recent decades, at a rate consistent with the response produced by climate models that simulate scientist-induced increases in grants. This increase in crocodile tears also strengthens the greenhouse effect, amplifying the impact of scientist-induced grant applications based on our other hot-air emissions.
Scientists’ activity also affects the funding climate through changes in the number and physical properties of tiny Twitter feeds and Farcebook links in the blogosphere, known collectively as gimme-gimmes. They absorb and redirect grant-givers’ propensity to hand over the loot, and modify the ability of scientists to reflect upon past grant funding and produce lachrymiose precipitation to secure future funding.
Most Twitters originating from scientific activity act to warm the planet to the idea of more and bigger grants and so partly counteract the need for scientific hot air. Twitters lofted into the blogosphere by occasional large sophistry-rich eruptions can increase pressure on funders to pay up.
How can more funding be projected into the future?
Factors that have altered grant funding throughout history, both human (such as human emission of hot air) and natural (such as the gullibility of politicians) will continue to alter the funding climate in the future. Funding projections for decades into the future are made using complex numerical business plans that account for changes in the flow of funds into and out of our bank account systems on scales much larger than the predictability limit (we never thought we’d get away with so much).
The difference between short-term and long-term funding is critically important in considering profitability. Funding is potentially profitable for much longer time-scales than before for several reasons. Grant-givers can be meaningfully characterized as naïve on seasonal-to-decadal timescales, and average funding is more predictable than individual grant events.
Funding models simulate the important aspects of grant-giving and finding increases based on fundamental physical laws of emotion, fiscal dynamics and interbank transfer. These models report on how funding would change in response to several specific “scenarios” for future grant emission possibilities.
Future funding projections have uncertainties that occur for several reasons – because of differences among models (some are long-legged, some are blonde), because long-term predictions of natural variations (e.g. in the gullibility of politicians) are not possible, and because it is not known exactly how grant emissions will evolve in future decades. Future grant emissions will depend on global social and economic development, and the extent and impact of activities designed to increase alarm among grant-givers with little or no knowledge of science.
Changes in the mean and extremes of grants and subsidies in response to increasing climate scare stories can be projected over decades or centuries into the future, even though the timing of individual grant events cannot be predicted on this time scale.
Because it would take many years for observations to verify whether a future projection of funding levels is correct, researchers establish confidence in these projections by using historical evidence and through careful study of observations of the causal chain between scientist-driven panic flow changes and grant pattern responses.
A valuable demonstration of the validity of current funding models is that when they include all known natural and human-induced factors that influence the global funding atmosphere on a large scale, the models reproduce many important aspects of observed changes in the 20th-century funding climate, including (1) global, continental, and sub-continental mean and extreme grant patterns, (2) the welcome decline in the extent of grant-freezing; (3) the latitudinal distribution of lachrymose precipitation; and (4) extreme precipitation frequency. The more we weep, the more they pay.
How will our funding climate change in future?
It’s looking very good so far, thanks for asking. Politicians and the media are so stupid that in our climate statements we can get away with saying just about anything – and, just as important, with not answering any of the genuine and (to be honest for a moment) serious objections that true scientists have been raising. Here are just a few of the key points our policy statements on the climate always leave out:
1. The NOAA State of the Climate report in 2008, written after 11 years of global warming, said the models would be proven wrong by no global warming at all for 15 years. Don’t tell our funders, but there’s been no global warming since 1997. It’s official – the models are wrong.
2. Since 1950 the world has warmed at a rate equivalent to just 2 Fahrenheit degrees per century. Yet the UN’s climate panel predicts 6 Fº/century between now and 2100. After 15 years without global warming, that predicted threefold increase in the long-run warming rate looks absurd. But don’t worry – we won’t talk about it if you won’t.
3. The direct warming caused by doubling the CO2 concentration in the air is just 2 Fº, but the computer models predict 6 Fº (the long-legged ones aren’t so sure). They get away with this by pretending that temperature feedbacks triple any direct warming. But no feedback can be measured directly or determined theoretically. Feedbacks cannot be distinguished from one another or from the forcings that triggered them.
4. Feedbacks may even act to cut direct warming rather than amplifying it. They are the biggest reason why we cannot be certain how much warming Man may cause. But don’t expect us to mention them in our policy statements: that might lead even the dimmest politicians to realize that all our claims of certainty are false.
5. We won’t talk about all the benefits of CO2 and the life-giving energy it brings. We won’t admit it’s plant food. We won’t mention that all of the carbon in timber originally came from CO2 the atmosphere. We won’t talk about the obvious benefits of fossil-fueled electricity, especially in poorer countries where most people have no electricity at all. Shhh!
6. We’ll take great care not to mention just how much it costs to make global warming go away. Actually, it costs 20 times as much as letting the weather get warmer and paying the cost of any resulting damage. But just imagine how fast all those lovely grants would dry up if those dim politicians and journalists ever found out. Since the premium is many times greater than the cost of the risk, don’t take out insurance. Now, that’s a precautionary principle worthy of the name.
There! That’s quite enough honesty. Just keep those nice fat grants coming, OK? And every time our funding shows the slightest sign of drought we’ll crank up the old tear-ducts and churn out yet another policy statement. After all, you can fool most of the politicians and all of the media all of the time.
Let the good times roll! All the way to the bank, please, chauffeur! Ha, ha, ha!
Comments section below this advert:
Have Your Say
1 comment found
showing page 1 of 1
« previous 1 next »