Comments on: Science Agency Guidance on the Stimulus http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4982 Wed, 29 Jul 2009 22:36:51 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.1 hourly 1 By: Maurice Garoutte http://cstpr.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4982&cpage=1#comment-12416 Maurice Garoutte Sun, 22 Feb 2009 19:43:35 +0000 http://sciencepolicy.colorado.edu/prometheus/?p=4982#comment-12416 The stimulus bill allocates over 21 billion dollars for research. That includes 400 million dollars explicitly earmarked for climate research. There are other line items of over one billion dollars that will include some climate research. This country is on the verge of making policy decisions that will involve Trillions of dollars moving toward the government to control global warming. There is enough money in the stimulus bill to validate the scientific basis of the warming projections. The core of the scientific basis for AGW stems from the IPCC climate models. There seems to be no other reason to point to CO2 as the cause of global warming. Is there any support anywhere for independent validations of the IPCC climate models? To be independent the research team should not have co-authored papers with any member of the IPCC team. Validation should include an accounting of variables omitted from the IPCC models. If I were writing the research contracts there would be a “Science Only” clause involving the content of the final report. Any ad hominem attack against another researcher results in forfeit of research funds. Any policy recommendation results in forfeit of research funds. Any use of the words “carbon tax” or “cap and trade” results in forfeit of research funds. The stimulus bill allocates over 21 billion dollars for research. That includes 400 million dollars explicitly earmarked for climate research. There are other line items of over one billion dollars that will include some climate research.

This country is on the verge of making policy decisions that will involve Trillions of dollars moving toward the government to control global warming. There is enough money in the stimulus bill to validate the scientific basis of the warming projections.

The core of the scientific basis for AGW stems from the IPCC climate models. There seems to be no other reason to point to CO2 as the cause of global warming.

Is there any support anywhere for independent validations of the IPCC climate models?

To be independent the research team should not have co-authored papers with any member of the IPCC team. Validation should include an accounting of variables omitted from the IPCC models.

If I were writing the research contracts there would be a “Science Only” clause involving the content of the final report.

Any ad hominem attack against another researcher results in forfeit of research funds.
Any policy recommendation results in forfeit of research funds.
Any use of the words “carbon tax” or “cap and trade” results in forfeit of research funds.

]]>