Does government funding for research come with strings attached?

That's because most denialist have no experience competing for, receiving or filling the requirements of federal grant funding.

There is absolutely no requirement to support any conclusion previously supported. In fact, the number one way to not get a grant request approved is to promise to not add *new* knowledge.

I'm part of a very large specialty crops grant supported half by the USDA and half by private funds. I have as much of an obligation to satisfy the private interests in this case as I do the public and guess what???

*gasp*

the private interests are concerned about the productivity of their crops in a "changing climate..."

those socialist pigs!

It's a denier theory and one that demonstrates their lack of knowledge (see mikes answer)

But one that holds little water, for a start a large portion of the data and research on the effects of climate change is not coming from climate scientists but glaciologists, marine scientists, geologists and even astronomers, it's a sad state of affairs when those pushing the denier line try to damage the credibility of the science community just to push their absurd collection of phony science and conspiracy theories. I guess they have no choice as they have only a handful of scientists and they have failed entirely to get most of these theories into the science journal system, which makes them look foolish so they have to play the "all the other scientists are on the take" card, it's the only card they have left as the evidence grows of the changes AGW is starting to cause.

Science has some basics one of the most basic principles is you don't fake your data, and there is a well documented history of what has happened to the few who have been caught doing this, they are finished. Yet for this absurd denier theory to work, it would mean that many thousands of scientists would have to be 'in on it' and being paid off, do deniers seriously think such a thing could really work that some would not have second thoughts and talk, it's preposterous, the occasional side theory is it's just Hanson and a few others, tricking all the others, again this simply demonstrates how uninformed deniers really are. all these others are as well trained as Hansen and conducting their own parallel research. This is also the case with Mann's hockey stick graph while deniers chant over and over it's discredited or wrong, it has in fact been followed by many other efforts that have all found pretty much the same thing, deniers tend to not mention this.

Denier seem to lean towards the Republicans side of things as this is were some of the rhetoric on denier emanates from in the U.S. but even here this story about government funding falls apart as the government in the U.S. has, over the last two decades, changed several times from Dem to Rep and back again and science has worked on the AGW issue no matter who was in power. This is also the case in both the U.K. and Australia. Why was this still funded even when the Reps were in power, not really that hard to work out they want the right wing vote and will say whatever they have to to get it, but they are not stupid they also have families and kids and grand kids, who will be affected by this like everyone else. A number of republicans like Ironhoof have spouted about conspiracies for years yet nothing has ever been done, simply there is not one shred of proof for any of these absurd denier theories and he knows it.

No, unless there is a specific project being done by a particular agency. Say, if you take money from the DOD, there are requirements that your research stay within the limits of the DOD's scope of activity. (Department of Defense, btw) If your applying for a grant that has funds that come from some of the agencies that have civilian priorities, like NASA, NOAA, USGS, DOE, then no, they don't put limits on what you do other than it needs to be real science, not something like UFO research or mind reading. Although, they have funded those in the past. LOL

Yes, of course, and the support for my answer is going to surprise you.

Dr. James Hansen: "In 1981 I lost funding for research on the climate effects of carbon dioxide because the Energy Department was displeased with a paper, 'Climate Impact of Increasing Carbon Dioxide,' I had published in Science magazine. The paper made a number of predictions for the 21st century, including 'opening of the fabled Northwest Passage', which the Energy Department considered to be alarmist but which have since proven to be accurate."

Well, things have sure changed since then haven't they? Just flip that around and you have funding withdrawn for not ENOUGH alarmism.

Either way, if you think governments just hand out funding and simply accept the results as the truth then you're as naive as this question implies you are.

Yes. If you don't come to the right conclusions, you stop getting funding.

For example, a conclusion by many researchers that AGW is BS, would lead to a removal of funding to study AGW.

Certainly the funding "climate" changes from year-to-year in all fields. It's not necessarily that the funding comes with strings attached, but whether you're working on something that the government wants to fund. While it would be nice (for the researcher) if the government funded whatever the researcher thinks is important, that's not the way it works. Currently the National Science Foundation absolutely requires two statements in every proposal: one is on the intellectual merit of the proposal (why it's important in a scientific context) and the second is a statement of the broader impacts of the study (why it's important to other research, other fields, society in general). So if the proposed research is in an area that is currently thought to be important, such as climate change, it may have an easier time GETTING funding, but the funding will not be contingent on the FINDINGS.

For continued funding what's usually required is that you have a track record of accomplishing what you said you were going to in your previous proposals.

EDIT: How come the deniers aren't giving me thumbs up? I bet they didn't read my answer.

That is about the biggest Duh! question I have heard in a long time. Of course it does. All funding comes with strings. There is no pie in the sky. Maybe that is why alarmists are always running around crying the sky is falling. They want some more pie.

It is my experience that nothing comes without strings attached, including the ball of string.

Frequently government funding and private funding go to the universities where the talent is.

Obviously research has a goal, whether that be a product or process development (weapon related of course with the government)

it is just as common to not have a specific desired outcome. If you are implying that the rule of thumb is that the government will only fund research with a specific result, then I would say no.

BUT with private enterprise, yes it has a specific desired outcome,such as Exxon funding organizations which deny climate change.it is very clearly one sided research. But most of the time with Exxon it isn't research they want, it is opinions.

Just to clarify a point. This tactic isn't working for Exxon so now they have gone green. They have a video about taking CO2 from Natural Gas and you will see more attempts to be green and less funding for the denier hacks.

http://www.exxonmobil.com/Corporate/news_ad_us_cap...

The worlds oil supply is dwindling fast. So Exxon will have to change course and invest inj hybrids so they become environmentally friendly while still being able to sell oil. They can't just wait until the oil is gone or too expensive to obtain. They need alternatives to fossil fuels,just like the earth does.

Yemen is almost totally out of oil and water. They spend more now to feed their people because of over population, over grazing and soil erosion that they can make selling their oil. They are almost out of water and may have to abandon their largest city because of water shortage (climate change was a big factor in this) Their government is expected to topple within a short number of years, resulting in tribal conflicts that could spill into Saudi territory.

yes, that is why we have independent scienitific organisations as well. The government in my country provides some funding to universities, and has at times threatened to remove this when scientific findings were not in the direction they wanted or when academics were critical of government policies/projects etc. What you need to keep an eye on is where the money that independent groups receive comes from. If they are open and honest they should publish regular info detailing what NGOs and industry bodies are funding their research.

Not with this administration, you don't even have to have a viable idea.