Equation Finds Funding Is Linked To CO2!
By Paul Homewood
https://theconversation.com/our-equation-proves-climate-change-is-linked-to-emissions-34897
Back in December, The Conservation ran an article on climate change written by Philip Goodwin, of the University of Southampton, and Ric Williams, Professor at the University of Liverpool.
Both took care the declare their funding from the NERC, but I wonder whether people realise how much this could amount to.
I FOI’d both universities to see.
Southampton never bothered to respond, despite chasing, an indication maybe of their disregard for the law and the rights of taxpayers who fund them.
I did get a reply from Liverpool, however, which stated that, in the last three years, a total of £426,806 had been paid in grants from the NERC, for two projects of which Prof Williams was listed as principal investigator.
Of course, this money would not be paid directly to Prof Williams, as it would go to his university. Nevertheless, we are talking significant amounts of money here that would be important to the university.
Would any of this have been paid out to someone who, shall we say, took a more sceptical view of climate change?
Comments are closed.
NOT A LOT OF PEOPLE KNOW THAT 
Answer to your question. Nyet
Funny how such a self proclaimed extraordinarily simple finding wrt emissions and warming has since been forgotten by all. In just two months.
Were the words, actual data and real world used anywhere in this piece – it just seems to deal with the modelled world as far as I can see. OR did I miss something somewhere?
Follow the money.
Dr James Verdon yesterday posted on his Frack-Land Blog:
“Should academics be immune from losing their job…..
“There is uproar at Bristol University at the sacking of an academic (in the veterinary science department), apparently for failing to secure sufficient research funding.”
http://frackland.blogspot.co.uk/2015/02/should-academics-be-immune-from-losing.html?showComment=1424807248678
LOL, are they still using steam to represent CO2..
How childish and uneducated are these guys? !
ps love the caption on their pic
“Another million tonnes of this and we can cancel that ski holiday. ”
Guys, that steam is comprised iof what makes your ski fields. It all H2O.
Please.. go back to primary school, and try to learn something this time !
The paper is dreadful science. They claim to use the IPCC models which are based on CO2 levels in the atmosphere to predict the RFF which drives global warming and is fundamentally flawed science anyway. The RFF which is used by all IPCC models is a committee value not a scientific value and is based on very approximate models of gas behaviour.
What these authors have done is produced a trend line showing that the two events correlate but this does not mean causation as they are just events that increase with time. If they show anything it would be that the total amount of heat released is the factor that has caused the fiddled rise in temperature not CO2. However, the paper is full of schoolboy errors, especially extrapolating a dubious hypothesis ad inf.
It is frightening that University standards are sinking so low; but it is the dash for cash that drives them coupled with the religious fervour of the dedicated believer. Similar to the You Tube appearance of Dr. Cowton recently. A school pupil could produce better science than this. Peer review is already a discredited club activity and this shows it up further.