It may be interesting to some to see how scientific research gets funded. I speak from personal experience of the last thirty two years.

First, there are a lot of very smart people working in science. I believe that most scientists are honest. But there are a number of realities that must be faced that dictate the direction that research will take.

It takes money to do scientific research these days. It takes money to pay for salaries, money for equipment, and money for support people. There is only a limited amount of money available. As a result every scientist is in competition for money, and every successful scientist is keenly aware of that fact.

Nowadays you have to sell your research proposal to someone who doesn't understand the science nearly as well as the researcher. Those who control the money are looking to solve problems. They are looking for a return on their investment. As a result the scientist has to pitch his proposal to appeal to what the money manager thinks is an important issue. If the issue is sensational, that will help sell the project. Making something a crisis will help get someone’s attention. Usually this involves taking "worst case scenarios," or making computer models that show just how bad things could get. The modest researcher, the one who feels obligated to explain all the limitations of the theory and predictions tends to lose out in the dollar competition. Professional presenters (who don’t know the science) are hired to make important pitches.

The money manager considers how important the issue is, and how big a return on investment he can expect based on the sales pitch. He relies in part on his own judgment, but he also relies on what others in the scientific community consider important issues and important problems to solve. He examines the credentials of the researcher. Since he is not equipped to judge the research himself he again relies on professional associations, number of articles printed in professional magazines, and general esteem the researcher is held by the scientific community.

That is why it is so important to achieve recognition by your peers in your field. You are intimidated to conform to mainstream thought. Those who don’t conform are labeled as quacks or worse, and their articles won’t be published in the best journals, which are also anxious about their reputations. Not being able to publish restricts your ability to get funding, which restricts your ability to do credible research, which further restricts your ability to get published or funded.

It is to the advantage of your competitors to make you look hopelessly out of date or going against “known scientific facts.” They are anxious to jump on the bandwagon and declare that “the debate is over.” You find yourself frozen out of the competition.

Sometimes you find it necessary to seek funding from those that are oppressed by the currently popular scientific theory. Unfortunately this is the kiss of death, for your research will forever after be labeled as tainted. Those who support the politically correct doctrine will be funded from universities or environmental advocacy groups, or a similar group that appears unbiased to the casual observer. Actually these groups are part of a multi-billion dollar juggernaut that is very careful to reward only those who support their political agenda, and their research is every bit as much tainted as the opposite point of view.

Frequently these theories take the form of some impending doom to the planet. The sensational stories sell in the mass media. It is important to have some crisis to arouse the generally apathetic majority into donating money to one of those many mass mailings calling on you to save the environment, or the whales, or the polar bears, or the world from burning to a crisp. Everyone feels important participating in the cause. The last thing they want to hear is evidence that things are not as bad as previously thought.

I’ve lived through a lot of scares we were told came from scientists, but are usually exaggerations made by non-technical activists interpreting the scientists. I remember not long ago how the “fact” of globally cooling, leading us into an ice age, was past the stage of debate. There have been numerous health scares, numerous environmental scares. They were all overblown or proven false.