We hear that Julia Gillard is happy to have the CSIRO, the Bureau of Meteorology and the Australian Academy of Science on her side while making her arguments for a carbon tax. Well of course she is. She and her predecessor bought them. And bought them but good. Over the last couple of years her Department of Climate Change (the DCC) gave them 27 million dollars in the form of research grants. That pays a fair swag of the salaries of the CSIRO and Bureau climate scientists who make up the majority of all employed climate scientists in Australia.
Several regulars were very unhappy. Here is hc
What an outrageous libel and what nonsense. A despicable new low for Catallaxy. They hold the views they do because they are paid bribes.
Then Peter Whiteford went for the smear.
What proportion of your income comes from public sources
Answer – very little actually; but it was Rafe’s post and he was quoting somebody else. Then FDB jumped in
Just what are you insinuating with this libellous rot Rafe? Why not come out and say it – tell us WHICH scientists falsified WHICH of their results and are allowing their paymasters to determine their conclusions?
On behalf of all scientists, publicly OR privately funded, I demand a retraction from Rafe of his suggestion that they are all corrupt, their findings all suspect, because they’re not magically paying themselves from a secret stash o’ leprechaun gold.
So all up a quiet thread at the Cat with the usual sorts of shenanigans. This morning, however, that Paltridge post has been largely reproduced in the Financial Review (subscription required). As far as I can work out the final sentence has been dropped, otherwise it is the same piece (with very minor edits).
In the first instance this is great for blogging – stuff that gets lifted or identified in blogs and translated into the MSM shows that blogging has become a serious medium of expression. Second, I’m very surprised this was run in the Financial Review – the AFR does has a corporatist mindset at the moment. It has been largely pro-AGW and pro-carbon tax and pro-ETS so this is a very radical piece for them to be running given their recent history. Whatever their reasons there is a certain cache and credibility to being published on the op-ed page of the Fin Review that blogs cannot really hope for. I have no doubt the letters page will fill up with indignant denial – but nonetheless the argument of ‘scientists-on-the-take’ has been main streamed.