More Than 70% Of Global Warming Academics Are Democrats Seeking Funding From Federal Trough

Democrats imagine they are very smart and sciency, for embracing the global warming scam.

More than 70 percent of Democrat-leaning voters, for example, say human activity is driving global warming – a fact overwhelmingly supported by scientific study. Among Republican-leaning voters, by contrast, just 27 percent believe climate change is being driven by human-generated carbon emissions instead of natural forces.

Democrats, Republicans Disagree on Energy, Global Warming – US News

Journalists make dim-witted declarations like that, without understanding the political bias behind what they are saying.

About stevengoddard

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

47 Responses to More Than 70% Of Global Warming Academics Are Democrats Seeking Funding From Federal Trough

  1. One the strongest predictors of belief in the global warming scam is employment in the public sector – the other is that those who believe tend to be most gullible (tell them a graph is global warming and they suddenly start believing it predicts warming whereas if they are told it is stock market prices they are suddenly pessimistic with the same graph)

  2. Chris Barron says:

    When I was working on my final year project for an engineering degree I received a small amount of funding to by a few bits of hardware which helped me prove the concept of what I worked on (remote machine diagnostics and performance monitoring through the use of self healing mobile wireless networks – not an easy mouthful !)
    I was told that if I could include an environmental aspect to the project then the university could get extra funding for me, due to the climate change issues.

    I suggested that anyone can already make wireless weather monitoring devices and that they were used daily anyway. But i could tell that disappointed some of my senior lecturers because they felt you should get as much as is on offer, whenever possible.

    I made sure that I asked if I did not pursue the additional funding would it in some way affect my chances of being awarded a first….they confirmed that it didn’t make a difference to my final mark whether I took it or not, and by all accounts it did not.

    It just seems all too easy for students to be carrot teased into putting an environmental spin on otherwise climate unrelated projects.

  3. omanuel says:

    Sadly, I was a Democrat most of my life and failed to see earlier that the Democratic Party supported the use of science for propaganda purposes.

  4. Let me fix that:

    “More than 70 percent of Democrat-leaning voters, for example, say human activity is driving global warming – a fact overwhelmingly supported by Democrat-funded propaganda.”

  5. cfgj says:

    So peer-reviewed science is a complete fraud because it is “democrat-funded!”? Do you cranks realize that most of Earth Science is done outside the US which means that no “democrats” or “republicans” were involved in the process??

    • omanuel says:

      Does cfgj realize that nations and national academies of science were united into a giant, worldwide Orwellian Ministry of Consensus Scientific (UN)Truths” after WWII, on 24 Oct 1945 to prohibit public knowledge of NEUTRON REPULSION – the source of energy in cores of galaxies, ordinary stars, some planets and all atoms heavier than ~150 amu (atomic mass units)?

      Click to access Introduction.pdf

    • rah says:


      Look up the meaning of the word ‘Intelligentsia” and you will find that is exactly who is leading you around by the ring in your nose that you don’t realize is there.

      • cfgj says:

        I do not deny the science. Publications do count.

        • rah says:

          You deny science because if you didn’t you would be a skeptic.

        • Dave1billion says:

          “I do not deny the [Bible]. Publications do count.”

          You display a fanatic’s slavish devotion to your cause.

          If you substitute “Bible” or ‘Koran” whenever you say “Science” or “Peer Reviewed Publications” then you might realize how much you sound like a religious fundamentalist.

          Whenever given a chance to display any basic understanding of AGW or scientific method in general, you resort to:

          It’s in the [Bible]. I believe it. It is the inerrant word of [God].

        • DD More says:

          Published study.
          Psych-ops operations have maximum effect with people who:
          – have little education
          – accept information uncritically
          – benefit from the proposed change
          – want to believe the propaganda
          – do not wish to understand their own motivations

          How many check marks to you have?

    • 97% of the climeopathy papers published in the US are pee reviewed in the US. (I say pee reviewed because the editor has a new puppy).

    • rah says:

      Peer-review has been proven time and again that is is an incestuous and corrupt system and thus it is bad science.

      • cfgj says:

        Bullshit, it’s by far the best system in existence, even with its flaws. According to science AGW is a problem.

        • rah says:

          I always thought that the best science was produced through observation, experimentation, replication of results etc. But here your telling me that all it takes to produce the best scientific results is to get a couple or few of your buddies that happen to have Dr. as a title in the same or a related field and that’s the best science of all! who’d of thunk it!

        • Dave1billion says:

          Bullshit, [Islam is] by far the best system in existence, even with its flaws. According to [the Koran] [educating women] is a problem.

        • AndyG55 says:

          cfnt… your continued IGNORANCE of all things to do with science is really quite hilarious.

          You keep proving that you just HAVEN’T GOT A CLUE !!!

        • Gail Combs says:

          Peer – Review is a VERY NEW SYSTEM designed to benefit the publishers. That is it was to keep publishers from ending up with egg on the face.

          …in most scientific journals, peer review wasn’t routine until the middle of the twentieth century, a fact documented in historical papers by Burnham, Kronick, and Spier.

          ….As a first example, we’ll start with the career of Albert Einstein, who wasn’t just an outstanding scientist, but was also a prolific scientist, publishing more than 300 journal articles between 1901 and 1955…..

          ….How many of Einstein’s 300 plus papers were peer reviewed? According to the physicist and historian of science Daniel Kennefick, it may well be that only a single paper of Einstein’s was ever subject to peer review. That was a paper about gravitational waves, jointly authored with Nathan Rosen, and submitted to the journal Physical Review in 1936. The Physical Review had at that time recently introduced a peer review system. It wasn’t always used, but when the editor wanted a second opinion on a submission, he would send it out for review. The Einstein-Rosen paper was sent out for review, and came back with a (correct, as it turned out) negative report. Einstein’s indignant reply to the editor is amusing to modern scientific sensibilities, and suggests someone quite unfamiliar with peer review…..
          Three myths about scientific peer review

        • David A says:

          Not one scientific group has come out with a statement in support of CAGW. There are literally thousands of skeptical papers.

      • Peer review has nothing to do with science. It has to do with journals. The journal has the paper reviewed for publication. TESTING and REPEATABILITY are the basis of science. Peer review doesn’t mean a damn thing if it’s not repeatable.

    • Gail Combs says:

      FALLACY: Appeal to Authority
      However since you have already invoked Appeal to Authority lets see what the papers say.

      How Many Scientists Fabricate and Falsify Research? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis of Survey Data

      ……This is the first meta-analysis of these surveys.

      …… Survey questions on plagiarism and other forms of professional misconduct were excluded. The final sample consisted of 21 surveys that were included in the systematic review, and 18 in the meta-analysis.

      A pooled weighted average of 1.97% (N = 7, 95%CI: 0.86–4.45) of scientists admitted to have fabricated, falsified or modified data or results at least once –a serious form of misconduct by any standard– and up to 33.7% admitted other questionable research practices. In surveys asking about the behaviour of colleagues, admission rates were 14.12% (N = 12, 95% CI: 9.91–19.72) for falsification, and up to 72% for other questionable research practices.….

      Considering that these surveys ask sensitive questions and have other limitations, it appears likely that this is a conservative estimate of the true prevalence of scientific misconduct.

      US scientists significantly more likely to publish fake research, study finds

      Source: BMJ-British Medical Journal
      US scientists are significantly more likely to publish fake research than scientists from elsewhere, finds a trawl of officially withdrawn (retracted) studies.

      Fraudsters are also more likely to be “repeat offenders,” the study shows.

      The study author searched the PubMed database for every scientific research paper that had been withdrawn — and therefore officially expunged from the public record — between 2000 and 2010.

      A total of 788 papers had been retracted during this period. Around three quarters of these papers had been withdrawn because of a serious error (545); the rest of the retractions were attributed to fraud (data fabrication or falsification).

      The highest number of retracted papers were written by US first authors (260), accounting for a third of the total. One in three of these was attributed to fraud….

      Why Most Published Research Findings Are False

      Publishers withdraw more than 120 gibberish papers

      Science Magazine “Peer review is sick and collapsing under its own weight,” — science publisher Vitek Tracz

      This one is the worst: Research Misconduct Identified by the US Food and Drug Administration
      Out of Sight, Out of Mind,

      Every year, the US Food and Drug Administration (FDA) inspects several hundred clinical sites performing biomedical research on human participants and occasionally finds evidence of substantial departures from good clinical practice and research misconduct. However, the FDA has no systematic method of communicating these findings to the scientific community, leaving open the possibility that research misconduct detected by a government agency goes unremarked in the peer-reviewed literature….

      To identify published clinical trials in which an FDA inspection found significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices, to describe violations, and to determine whether the violations are mentioned in the peer-reviewed literature.

      Design and Setting
      Cross-sectional analysis of publicly available documents, dated from January 1, 1998, to September 30, 2013, describing FDA inspections of clinical trial sites in which significant evidence of objectionable conditions or practices was found.
      Results Fifty-seven published clinical trials were identified for which an FDA inspection of a trial site had found significant evidence of 1 or more of the following problems: falsification or submission of false information, 22 trials (39%); problems with adverse events reporting, 14 trials (25%); protocol violations, 42 trials (74%); inadequate or inaccurate recordkeeping, 35 trials (61%); failure to protect the safety of patients and/or issues with oversight or informed consent, 30 trials (53%); and violations not otherwise categorized, 20 trials (35%). Only 3 of the 78 publications (4%) that resulted from trials in which the FDA found significant violations mentioned the objectionable conditions or practices found during the inspection. No corrections, retractions, expressions of concern, or other comments acknowledging the key issues identified by the inspection were subsequently published.

      Conclusions and Relevance
      When the FDA finds significant departures from good clinical practice, those findings are seldom reflected in the peer-reviewed literature, even when there is evidence of data fabrication or other forms of research misconduct.

      Blogs are now performing the important tasks of scrutinizing papers and conclusions often finding gross mistakes.

  6. cfgj says:

    Only 6% of scientists are self-identified republicans according to this decade-old study:

    • Hey cf, I really wish you’d stop using the word “scientists” when we are talking about climopractors and climupunturists. It’s like using the word “musicians” to describe The Fray.

      • cfgj says:

        I assume that statistics covers all scientists, who are a notoriously liberal and secular bunch. Conservatism is more seductive to dumber folks (but not all conservatives are dumb, don’t get me wrong).

        • Gail Combs says:

          If you were persecuted for being of the wrong political persuasion and your salary increases and promotions depended on being the ‘right’ political persuasion wouldn’t you keep your mouth shut?

          I lived in Boston and worked for a mid size corporation. If you were not a liberal and not a catholic you could kiss your raises goodbye. The catholics got 10 to 25% raises and the token black, the token jew and the token female noncatholic (me) got 0.5% raises. (The department secretary carpooled with me and was very talkative and irate over the situation.) We also never got company paid educational courses and the last pick for vacation.

          There is all sorts of discrimination.

    • omanuel says:

      I agree, cfgj, that communist and capitalist scientists, as well as Republican and Democratic scientists, have deceived the public for the past seventy years by

      1. Changing the internal composition of the Sun from
      _ a.) Mostly iron (Fe) in 1945, to
      _ b.) Mostly hydrogen (H) in 1946

      2. Changing textbook definitions of nuclear stability from
      _ a.) Low values of Aston’s nuclear packing fraction before WWII, to
      _ b.) High values of Weizsacker’s average nuclear binding energy after WWII.

      Both changes are FALSE, i.e., the changes were made to deceive the public!

  7. Andy DC says:

    I for one hate the politicization of global warming science, it should be able to stand or fail on its own, based on objective, standard, scientific method. Certainly, not determined by a trillion dollar left wing power grab, backed by obvious falsehoods and a blatent Government funded disinformation campaign.

    • mogur2013 says:

      For a group that claims to hate politicization of climate science, this blog is nearly uniform about hating all things liberal. Face it, this particular blog is primarily about bashing political opponents of conservatism. And that is perfectly fine, as long as you don’t pretend that it is science. Any hint that a poster isn’t fully onboard with Obama bashing is met with derision and ridicule, here. That, my friends, is Politics with a capital P, not science with a small s.

      • No Mogur. This blog bashes the psuedoscience and recognizes that 97% of the make-believe science is just politics. So we bash the politics.

        The same people who occupied Wall Street are the morons driving the global warming hoax, but they’ve gotten their hands on all the money they couldn’t find on Wall Street, by taking control of academia.

      • Gail Combs says:

        We hate falsehoods and propaganda and robbery and serfdom.

        I for one can not stand The Bush, The Shrub or the Twig. I consider McCain completely looney tunes, Mit Romney a corporate raider with a smile and I am not fond of Reagan either. I did have hopes for Obama. I hoped he would heal the last of the racism and help farmers against the Ag Cartel. I hoped he would kick the Banksters in the nuts.

        BOY was I wrong!

        He jumped right in bed with Monsanto and the CEO of GE, the guy who has single handedly shipped more jobs off shore than any other CEO. What does Obama do? He makes him JOBS CZAR?? It would be hysterically funny if our unemployment wasn’t headed for 25%.

        With 25% of those employed either directly employed by government or having jobs depending on government (accountants, OSHA safety officers…) That leaves just 50% of the working age folks to carry the entire burden of producing the wealth than feeds, clothes and houses everyone.

        Your problem is we haven’t fallen for the propaganda, we refused to be Grubbered like the rest of the low information types.

        Tough titties.

        • mogur2013 says:

          And I can’t stand Gore, Moore, and many of the arrogant scientists that hide behind their ‘credentials’. The fact that we both hate opportunistic attention whores from any political spectrum does NOT belay the fact that this blog is about politics, not proper scientific vetting of the evidence. To dismiss the peer review process with a wave of the ‘they’re all leftist comrades’ wand reminds me of the “I led three lives” TV series. (If you are under 60, google it.)

          Gail… I love your posts. I truly do. I am not even in your particular political spectrum, but you are fair, honest, and have integrity, so I love how you bring information to the thirsty, including me. Can’t you understand that not all pigs at the trough are greedy freeloaders. There are some fairly well-heeled dandies slopping there as well. There is never “all freeloaders” or “all needy”. We need reason to sort out the difference.

        • Andy DC says:


          I am like you, really am not very fond of either party. All the Republicans can seem to do is regugitate tired old prattle from 30 years ago and the Democrats seem downright dangerous. Trump is the only one who seems interesting to me, at least he seems real, whether you agree with him or not. But I ususally have to hold my nose when voting for President.


        • This blog is primarily about the science, but because the science is so simple and so easy to understand that a smart 8th grader can figure it out, and it’s very obvious that the people who are promoting the fake science are politically motivated, and are generally science imbeciles, this blog contains a lot of politics. There really isn’t a whole lot of science to talk about without feeling like you’re beating a dead horse.

          1. CO2 levels were higher than they are now for 99.98% of earth’s history, most often many times higher, and everything was fine. That includes ocean pH levels.
          2. Life is based on CO2, which belongs in the air, and is not pollution. It is currently near the acarbonoxia level for plants and nowhere near a harmful level for animals. (I made up the word acarbonoxia. Pretty cool word, huh?)
          3. Government scientists lie about temperature data, sea level rise acceleration, and everything else, which they would never have to do if their science were valid.
          4. The greenhouse effect is entirely caused by H2O except at the poles and in the mid to upper tropical troposphere “hot spot”, all of which would be warming alarmingly if CO2 rise were a problem. They aren’t.
          5. Modern warming has been going on since the end of the LIA and is now back to average Holocene levels. Man-made CO2 had nothing to do with it.
          6. There are about 120 more of these.

        • Gail Combs says:


          I am well aware people come in all flavors and moral codes and I have many friends of the more liberal persuasion including a real sweetie who is a communist.

          It is the predators and parasites I have problems with and unfortunately since their morals are, shall we say fluid, they have zero problem stabbing people in the backs and climbing over bodies. This generally puts them at the top of the heap in most situations especially if they are also charismatic. This means the political class of all flavors is in the predator category as are many CEO….

          Is this a politically flavored blog?

          Yes but you can not separate CAGW from politics since
          Tim Wirth pulled out his bag of tricks in 1988 to fool Congress into believing in CAGW. Since Clinton signed the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change 12/06/92. Since Happer, who served as the Director of Energy Research at the Department of Energy in 1993, says he was fired by Gore in 1993 for not going along with Gore’s scientific views on ozone and climate issues. “I was told that science was not going to intrude on policy,” Happer explained.

          It is the custom and practice of the IPCC for all of its Reports to be amended to agree with the political summaries.

          The Summary for Policymakers (SPM) is agreed “line by line” by politicians and/or representatives of politicians, and it is then published. After that the so-called ‘scientific’ Reports are amended to agree with the SPM. This became IPCC custom and practice of the IPCC when prior to its Second Report the then IPCC Chairman, John Houghton, decreed,

          We can rely on the Authors to ensure the Report agrees with the Summary.

          This was done and has been the normal IPCC procedure since then. This custom and practice enabled the infamous ‘Chapter 8′ scandal.

          Appendix A of the present Report (the AR5) even states this where it says.

          4.6 Reports Approved and Adopted by the Panel

          Reports approved and adopted by the Panel will be the Synthesis Report of the Assessment Reports and other Reports as decided by the Panel whereby Section 4.4 applies mutatis mutandis.

          More recently you have Christiana Figueres, who was trained by Al Gore (see WIKI) and was appointed as Executive Secretary of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change in Jan. 2015:

          She said:
          “This is the first time in the history of mankind that we are setting ourselves the task of intentionally, within a defined period of time, to change the economic development model that has been reigning for at least 150 years, since the Industrial Revolution”

          United Nations climate chief Christiana Figueres said that democracy is a poor political system for fighting global warming. Communist China, she says, is the best model.

        • mogur2013 says:

          Ah, geez, get yourself a room, AndyDC. You’re blowing the floor. Do you conservatives have anything other than ‘focus on my bowtie, you are getting sleepy…’

      • rah says:


        If a person refuses to recognize that the CAGW scam is run by government dollars for reasons of justifying changes in commerce and thus society so the government has more control over each, then I guess they would have an opinion similar to yours.

        • No rah, he already recognizes it, and approves of it. People in favor of socialism are the ones who will be looking for government jobs. And once they get government jobs, 97% of them agree with government global warming and agree with their peers who review it.

  8. Gail Combs says:

    Survey shocker: Liberal profs admit they’d discriminate against conservatives in hiring, advancement

    ‘Impossible lack of diversity’ reflects ideological intimidation on campus
    It’s not every day that left-leaning academics admit that they would discriminate against a minority.

    But that was what they did in a peer-reviewed study of political diversity in the field of social psychology, which will be published in the September edition of the journal Perspectives on Psychological Science.

    Psychologists Yoel Inbar and Joris Lammers, based at Tilburg University in the Netherlands, surveyed a roughly representative sample of academics and scholars in social psychology and found that “In decisions ranging from paper reviews to hiring, many social and personality psychologists admit that they would discriminate against openly conservative colleagues.”

    This finding surprised the researchers. The survey questions “were so blatant that I thought we’d get a much lower rate of agreement,” Mr. Inbar said. “Usually you have to be pretty tricky to get people to say they’d discriminate against minorities.”

    One question, according to the researchers, “asked whether, in choosing between two equally qualified job candidates for one job opening, they would be inclined to vote for the more liberal candidate (i.e., over the conservative).”

    More than a third of the respondents said they would discriminate against the conservative candidate. One respondent wrote in that if department members “could figure out who was a conservative, they would be sure not to hire them.”

    Mr. Inbar, who volunteered for the Obama campaign in 2008….

  9. Gail Combs says:

    RAH, Mogur
    It all depends on whether your view point is that the individual should serve the State or whether the State is there to protect the rights of the individual. It really is that simple.

    If you believe the State should be served by the individual you have Sparta:

    Ancient Spartan Communism

    “..Plutarch’s description is of interest because, waiving the question of its historical accuracy, it gives a very adequate definition of the ideal communistic state, as ideally imagined by countless later generations. In general, he says,

    …he trained his fellow-citizens to have neither the wish nor the ability to live for themselves; but like bees they were to make themselves always integral parts of the whole community, clustering together about their leader, almost beside themselves with enthusiasm and noble ambition, and to belong wholly to their country.

    …the Spartan state was probably unique in some respects in the record of political institutions. It is difficult to recall any other state in which the individual was so completely subordinated to the general ends of the community — and such subordination is, of course, of the very essence of socialism in its general sense, as distinguished from that species of socialism generally referred to as communism. From the day of his birth, when he might be not merely subordinated but suppressed for the good of the state, the young Spartan continued to be disposed of in one way or another until death opened up for him a way of escape. The common education, which began at the age of seven, was wholly designed to make good soldiers, to teach men to suffer uncomplainingly the extremes of heat and of cold, of hunger and of pain, and in each was implanted the conviction that he belonged not to himself, but to the state.

    This type of attitude toward the treatment of fellow humans as nothing more than cattle (chattel) is reiterated centuries later by Fabian Co-founder George Bernard Shaw.

    “We should find ourselves committed to killing a great many people whom we now leave living, and to leave living a great many people whom we at present kill. We should have to get rid of all ideas about capital punishment …

    A part of eugenic politics would finally land us in an extensive use of the lethal chamber. A great many people would have to be put out of existence simply because it wastes other people’s time to look after them.”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Lecture to the Eugenics Education Society, Reported in The Daily Express, March 4, 1910.

    “The moment we face it frankly we are driven to the conclusion that the community has a right to put a price on the right to live in it … If people are fit to live, let them live under decent human conditions. If they are not fit to live, kill them in a decent human way. Is it any wonder that some of us are driven to prescribe the lethal chamber as the solution for the hard cases which are at present made the excuse for dragging all the other cases down to their level, and the only solution that will create a sense of full social responsibility in modern populations?”

    Source: George Bernard Shaw, Prefaces (London: Constable and Co., 1934), p. 296.

    “Under Socialism, you would not be allowed to be poor. You would be forcibly fed, clothed, lodged, taught, and employed whether you liked it or not. If it were discovered that you had not character and industry enough to be worth all this trouble, you might possibly be executed in a kindly manner; but whilst you were permitted to live, you would have to live well.”

    George Bernard Shaw: The Intelligent Woman’s Guide to Socialism and Capitalism, 1928, pg. 470)

    Sure sounds like slavery to me with no hope of being a free person.

    And don’t for get the Eugenics part that is also embraced with enthusiasm by the Webbs,. the other co-founders of the Fabian Society.

    We have all heard about how the Spartans of ancient Greece used to expose new-borns to see if they were fit for survival and training as a Spartan. Exposing a new-born to the elements for one day was a way of testing the babe to see if it was fit. If the baby survived one day exposed to the elements, the baby was fit to be a Spartan, if it did not survive, well, it was no good to be a Spartan. This is somewhat exaggerated. New borns would be examined for any physical impairment. If an impairment was found, then the baby would be left to the elements to die. But only if upon examination an impairment was found.

    From the Groniad no less: Eugenics: the skeleton that rattles loudest in the left’s closet, Socialism’s one-time interest in eugenics is dismissed as an accident of history. But the truth is far more unpalatable

    Then you have the type of government where the State is there to protect the rights of the individual. This is the government most of us on this board want as described by E.M. Smith.

    The basic “issue” is that government is best when it is absolutely minimal, driven from the bottom up by locals and local to the people, and leaves most decisions to free actors in a free market (only acting to keep the market free and fair via preventing collusion, trusts, and monopoly).

    The EU, and increasingly, the USA: Is tending to maximal government, driven from the top down from far far away ignoring the local people, and having most decisions made by paid actors of the government with no clue what The People want (or even worse, not caring at all what The People want) often acting to prevent market forces and pushing the agenda of those who collude, form trusts, and want monopoly power; frequently in a Government-Industry consortium oligopoly.

    The original USA was set up to be of the first form. Local Sheriff was the head law enforcement officer in any local area. Counties had State Senators. States had Federal Senators. Everything from the bottom up. Over the decades, one bit at at time, power has shifted to central control. The end game is always collapse of Empire. Only the details change.

    Also see E.M. Smith’s “Evil Socialism” vs “Evil Capitalism”

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s