AK 29 July 4:12, absolutely right about funding being approved, if Climate Change is mentioned! There is a 97% Consensus paper that proves it! That the 97% Consensus paper reinforces previous 97% Consensus papers, just proves that there has been a Consensus for many years that mentioning Climate Change is known to help with getting funding.

If you replace 'increasing risks from Climate Change' with 'increasing risks from Pink Elephants', many of the papers abused for the purpose of the 97% Consensus make as much sense, possibly more. The risks that result from uncontrolled pink elephants have not changed in the last 25 years, but many more consequences of uncontrolled pink elephants have been identified.

golfCharlie. All this talk of pink elephants suggests there has been a leakage from Unthreaded where we were discussing the best ways to serve gin and vodka.

You seem to be criticizing the use of publication metrics as a means to measure the worth of applicants for awarding grants. While acknowledging that this can be abused (and has been in the case of much of climate change) it seems to be the best way of evaluating those applying for research funding.

There are many other problems associated with the grant awarding system. I experienced one, which put me off applying altogether. Proposals are sent off to 3-4 reviewers who are supposed to critique them and the proposers. One project I submitted was turned down largely on a negative review. Several years later I discovered that reviewer had used my idea in his own proposal which was funded by a different granting agency. The whole process is supposed to be fair, but it isn't. I continued to research topics that used no funding other than small amounts available from my School, or I got PhD students to study alongside me.

AK 9:25 some of these academics are downright devious when it comes to getting funding!

Pharmaceutical research is coming in for some high profile criticism about fraud and corruption, but no one is wanting to see a ban on pharmaceutical research, and vey few within pharmaceutical resarch are going to criticise the funding process, for fear of cutting themselves out.

Isn't there something about the root of something being the love of something or other somewhere? Just as predictable as the green blob corruption, but your example doesn't have the love of power to give it its particular sting.
===============

All very well, but I'm still interested in the subversion of other science because of the difficulty of funding basic (blue sky) studies which have to be dressed up by their association with socially or politically relevant matters. Clearly, when those matters are related to climate change you don't like them, and when published, those studies are rightly mocked. But the alternatives are 1) not to conduct them at all, or 2) fund them regardless of their lack of obvious benefit at large. Early in this thread some implied that the state should not be funding science unless there is an obvious societal benefit and in most cases such studies should seek outside funding. Non viable science projects should not be funded. I totally disagree. I believe the necessity of science projects being required to demonstrate worth to society (using existing metrics) has had a devastatingly adverse effect of science in the UK.

The method is becoming universal and universally destructive. Yet, Parbati has her beastie.
=============

Kim. Flummoxed again. I know of a Parbati from a part of India that always reminds me of a sneeze, but what was her "beastie" and their relevance here?

AK, Climate Scientists have been well funded to warn us all of the dire consequences , of ignoring their dire warnings about Pink Elephants.

They still have not proved that there is a risk from Pink Elephants, but we are all paying for Pink Elephant defences.

Buildings can be constructed to be more resistant to earthquakes and tsunamis. Geologists are able to identify areas at increased risk from earthquakes and tsunamis. Earthquakes and tsunamis still can not be prevented or predicted, despite the fact we all know the terrible consequences.

The threat posed by Pink Elephants can only be guessed at.

Sleep it off gC, those pesky pink pachyderms will be gone when you wake up.

More commonly spelled 'Parvati'. Unfortunately I cannot remember the story in detail, and can't find it in the Wiki entry for her, but the gist is there. She protected one last critter from her husband's destruction.
==============

AK 1:57, now if you had said that to Phil Jones , or Michael Mann or .......

I have no issues with Pink Elephants, real, imaginary or concocted by Climate Scientists!

The issue hasn't gone away

Brexit and Higher Education - What next? Policy-UK Forum, 7th December 2017, Central London
DP
Danny Saxby [Policy-UK] <danny.saxby@rsvp.policy-uk.com>
Wed 23/08/2017 11:48
Inbox
To:
Alan Kendall (ENV);
Brexit and Higher Education:
International Competitiveness, the Impact on Research Programmes and Tackling Misperceptions
Policy-UK Forum: Thursday, 7th December 2017, 8.30am – 13.00pm, Central London

[ Book your place here ] | [ View agenda ] | [ Get in touch ] | [ Unsubscribe ]

With a keynote address from:
Dr Jo Beall
Director of Education and Society, British Council

With significant contributions from:
Professor Julia Black, Pro Director for Research and Professor of Law, London School of Economics; Leo Ringer, Head of UK, Global Counsel and Former Economic Adviser to two Secretaries of State for Business, Innovation and Schools; and Tom Frostick, Policy and Programmes Manager, Research and International Policy including the remit of the EU Referendum, University Alliance.

Other speakers TBC

Dear Dr Kendall,

I hope you don’t mind this reminder regarding the above event taking place this December. I wouldn’t want you, or any colleagues, to miss out if it is of interest.

We are currently offering 20% (£50) off our regular price using the discount code in this email. Further details below.

In the context of Britain’s departure from the EU and the implementation of the Higher Education and Research Act this forum brings together key stakeholders to discuss and debate the challenges and opportunities for the UK’s Higher Education sector as we negotiate our exit from the European Union.

Key areas to be addressed:

· Students and Staff – Tackling Brexit Misconceptions and Maintaining International Appeal:
The implications of Brexit on perceptions of the sector overseas; tangible solutions to securing the future of EU students and academic staff; and ensuring the UK remains a globally welcoming and competitive higher education destination for the brightest and the best.

· Impact on EU Research Programmes – Pathways Ahead for Britain’s Involvement:
The importance of Erasmus+, Horizon2020 and other research programmes; Britain’s future within these programmes; and what contingency plans should be in place for any eventuality, including funding alternatives to provisions made by the European Research Council.

· Recalibrating - Looking global and serving the local - The realities facing the sector:
Reviewing the impetus Brexit has possibly provided for regional injections in funding and how this can be realized; and developing a cross-governmental strategy to support international research, collaboration and local communities.