The Natural Philosopher wrote:
An interesting hypothesis - can you provide some examples
of this happening?

yes.

https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.word...-barrier-reef/

All that blog link establishes that there is a dispute; it does
not establish that Ridd's claims (or the Uni's, for that
matter) are valid. Do you have an informative link?

Then there is Susan Crockford
who dared say that in fact polar bear numbers were increasing.

Which has little to do with climate science per se, but
is about polar bears. Or do polar bears, being especially
reflective, change the earth's albedo? :-)

Also Judith Curry, a top climate scientist who basically got
fed up with the flak and resigned...

Or "retired", as it turns out on closer reading, although it also
seems she did both while still wanting to continue work as an Emeritus
Professor. Quite the dramatic exit, it would seem.

If ytou are in climate science you simply wont get funding
unless you maintain the fiction of CO2 induced climate change.

None of your examples support this claim. Further, a topic as vague as
"CO2 induced climate change" is in any case unlikely to be a useful a
subject of a grant proposal. I would expect that a scientist who
happened to not believe in CO2ICC could still sucessfully apply for
funding by focussing on some actual useful and specific technical or
scientific issue that needed better understanding. Whilst, as is
always good practise, avoiding any muddying of the scientific focus of
their proposal [1], by not mentioning some tangentally related
controversial scepticisms they might have.

If I, for example, felt that homogenization techniques used in the
metamaterials field were deficient in some way, or that much work
invoking spatial dispersion rested on poor conceptual foundations, I
would not apply to a funding body with a proposal claiming that
existing results were somehow "ficticious" (or any other comparably
loaded adjective). I would instead present a plan aimed at improving
(some specific aspect of) the field. Scientific understanding is
primarily advanced by doing things better, and not by merely pointing
out flaws.



[1] For example, Machine Learning is quite the enthusiasm now in many
circles, and so you might think that adding a sentence or two on that
to a proposal would be a good idea. But if you just wedge in in a
poorly matched mention of it into a grant proposal and it will be
spotted as such and so *not* help your case.


#Paul