Prein at National Center for Atmospheric Research said he had replaced the politically charged term “climate change” with “global change” in a project he submitted for the oil industry. He said that regardless of how it is labeled, interest in climate research would likely endure given the importance of extreme weather forecasting to a broad array of industries, like insurance and energy. However, he was concerned the longer-term work crucial to understanding the scope of global warming could lose critical support. Climate scientist Ben Sanderson, also at NCAR, told Reuters he is applying to renew funding for assessing uncertainty in climate change. “Now the proposal would have to be defensible without referring to climate change explicitly, so to talk about weather risks in general,” he said. Tracey Holloway, an air quality scientist at the University of Wisconsin, said she believed simple word changes sometimes could help scientists avoid trouble. Using the term “weather” instead of “climate change,” for example, could work for studies that deal with a short-term time scale, she said.
In other words, hide or distort the purpose of the research, or whatever it takes to keep those federal bucks flowing your way. The same ingredients, just change "how it is labeled."
What is this "DataRefuge"?
But Eric Holthaus, a meteorologist who writes for online magazine Slate, has taken efforts to protect scientists and their work a step further. He spearhead an effort, with the support of the University of Pennsylvania and the University of Toronto, to let scientists move their data onto publicly available non-government servers. The project, called “DataRefuge,” is intended to eliminate the chances of political interference with the data, he said.
So they now fear their own government. A classic case of "live by the sword, die by the sword." And we'll be watching to see if their sword-distorting tactic is successful.