The relevance I see, is that the major and established industries industries - tobacco, oil, pharma, meat and dairy, even medical professionals) never liked disturbers or new scientific theories and they will fight tooth and nail to keep their ways. The example I quoted, with doctors refusing washing their hands, seems incredible and preposterous today, but in those days the doctors looked at the very act of washing hands as a far-fetched and purposeless requirement.
Nowadays, the aforementioned industries will employ lobbyists, conduct flawed studies, and spread fake news to confuse the public. Often, their aim is not necessarily to convince the consumers; in most cases, it's sufficient to confuse them.
That applies equally to industrial polluters denying the negative effects of CO2 and methane as to the dairy industry promoting milk and cheese as a healthy food.
Les, as Slobodan mentioned, this cuts both ways. All industries, including government-funded research centres, require a certain conformity to the ethos and purpose which underlie the existence of the industry.
A few years ago, when the bad effects of 'high fructose corn syrup' were given publicity, I came across an interesting report of the reaction of a group of board members of a certain, large U.S. company who marketed corn syrup. The board members decided the company would fund its own research.
However, they stipulated if the results of the research confirmed the current evidence, which suggested that fructose was a major contributor to obesity and heart disease, they would
bury the results. Only if the results
contradicted the current evidence would they publish their research. I presume a whistle blower revealed the details of the private board meeting.
A central issue about the government funding for climate research is that it all started as a result of a major concern about the possible disastrous effects of rising CO2 levels. Without the alarm being maintained, funding would be reduced, world-wide, not just in the U.S. as a result of Donald Trump's policies.
If a scientist working in a government-funded climate research centre is skeptical about the effects of CO2, and wants to keep his job, he needs to keep his skepticism to himself, or at least not attempt to publish his skepticism.
I did a search on climatologists who had resigned on principle because they disagreed with the biased nature of their colleagues and workplace ethos. I'll list a few.
(1) Judith A. Curry is an American climatologist and former chair of the School of Earth and Atmospheric Sciences at the Georgia Institute of Technology. Her research interests include hurricanes, remote sensing, atmospheric modeling, polar climates, air-sea interactions, and the use of unmanned aerial vehicles for atmospheric research.
She recently resigned, partly because she is approaching retirement age, but mainly because she was concerned about the unscientific attitudes regarding climate science in her institute.
"A deciding factor was that I no longer know what to say to students and postdocs regarding how to navigate the CRAZINESS in the field of climate science. Research and other professional activities are professionally rewarded only if they are channeled in certain directions approved by a politicized academic establishment — funding, ease of getting your papers published, getting hired in prestigious positions, appointments to prestigious committees and boards, professional recognition, etc.
How young scientists are to navigate all this is beyond me, and it often becomes a battle of scientific integrity versus career suicide (I have worked through these issues with a number of skeptical young scientists)."http://climatechangedispatch.com/disenchanted-climatologist-judith-curry-resigns-from-georgia-tech/(2) In an e-mail to GWPF (Global Warming Policy Foundation), Lennart Bengtsson has declared his resignation of the advisory board of GWPF. His letter reads :
“I have been put under such an enormous group pressure in recent days from all over the world that has become virtually unbearable to me. If this is going to continue I will be unable to conduct my normal work and will even start to worry about my health and safety. I see therefore no other way out therefore than resigning from GWPF. I had not expecting such an enormous world-wide pressure put at me from a community that I have been close to all my active life. Colleagues are withdrawing their support, other colleagues are withdrawing from joint authorship etc. I see no limit and end to what will happen. It is a situation that reminds me about the time of McCarthy. I would never have expecting anything similar in such an original peaceful community as meteorology. Apparently it has been transformed in recent years.
Under these situation I will be unable to contribute positively to the work of GWPF and consequently therefore I believe it is the best for me to reverse my decision to join its Board at the earliest possible time.”https://wattsupwiththat.com/2014/05/14/shameless-climate-mccarthyism-on-full-display-scientist-forced-to-resign/(3)
When marine scientist Peter Ridd suspected something was wrong with photographs being used to highlight the rapid decline of the Great Barrier Reef, he did what good scientists are supposed to do: he sent a team to check the facts.
After attempting to blow the whistle on what he found — healthy corals — Professor Ridd was censured by James Cook University and threatened with the sack. After a formal investigation, Professor Ridd — a renowned campaigner for quality assurance over coral research from JCU’s Marine Geophysics Laboratory — was found guilty of “failing to act in a collegial way and in the academic spirit of the institution”.http://www.theaustralian.com.au/higher-education/reef-whistleblower-censured-by-james-cook-university/news-story/c7aa0e0ac1c1dec1b065273d2e968f6d(4)
"Controlling carbon is kind of a bureaucrat's dream.
If you control carbon, you control life.”
- MIT Climate Scientist Dr. Richard Lindzen, UN IPCC lead author and reviewer"First off, there isn't a consensus among scientists.
Don't let anybody tell you there is.”
- Dr. Charles Wax, past president of the American Association of State Climatologists
"It is a blatant lie put forth in the media that makes it seem
there is only a fringe of scientists who don't buy into
anthropogenic global warming."
- Atmospheric Scientist Stanley B. Goldenberg, NOAAhttps://www.hatch.senate.gov/public/_files/UNClimateScientistsSpeakOut.pdf(5)
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/07/30/what-consensus-the-97-consensus-is-now-43-less-than-half-of-climate-scientists-agree-with-un-ipcc-95-certainty/