But this link shows what’s can possibly happen to those that pursue research fraud.

http://tinyurl.com/r7hmw

WEART: I see, so how did you get started on the Maunder Minimum? In your 1976 science paper, you mentioned Gene [Eugene] Parker.

EDDY: Right, Gene Parker was an occasional visitor at the High Altitude Observatory in Boulder. He’s from the University of Chicago, as anyone who listens to this knows. I remember him coming there in the late 1950s and giving a colloquium on his wild idea that there was a solar wind, before that was accepted by anyone. I remember the unanimous reaction of the solar physicists to his idea: what a ridiculous notion that was — a wind blowing charged particles out of the Sun. It reinforces what I said earlier: that new ideas, if they are worth anything, will always be met by a knee-jerk rejection on the part of the disciplinary experts. It also tells something about Gene, who was never afraid of stepping into new things. Later, in the early 1970s, he called Maunder’s early papers to my attention: did I know about this thing in the past? (I did not.) Because he knew I had an interest in history. I don’t know just why he told me. He may have known that at that time I was cautiously and with some prejudice digging back into the history of sun weather relations, which is another story.

Imagine if it were applied to:
* Government
* NGOs
* Education establishments?

Shortly after the discovery of pulsars I wished to present an interpretation of what pulsars were, at this first pulsar conference: namely that they were rotating neutron stars. The chief organiser of this conference said to me, “Tommy, if I allow for that crazy an interpretation, there is no limit to what I would have to allow”. I was not allowed five minutes floor time, although I in fact spoke from the floor. A few months later, this same organiser started a paper with the sentence, “It is now generally considered that pulsars are rotating neutron stars”.

One of the NAS panellists observed to me privately with some satisfaction that even our writings show that “science works”. He mentioned, in my opinion, a little condescendingly that “science” would have got to the present situation with or without us, as others were already starting to do what we did.

This sounds like both sour grapes and hubris of the worst kind. Steve deserves congratulations for his contribution to the science. A contribution done in spite of terrific resistence from the climate community and media. Would some else of done it? Maybe, but just because “someone” would have discovered it, don’t disparage Steve’s contribution. He is the one that did it.

An assumption of invincibility is always dangerous and there are counter examples where science hasn’t worked. A good one is Paul Erhlich who is comfortably ensconced at Stanford despite his penchant for wild predictions that fail to materialize (e.g. he was willing to bet even money that England would not exist in the year 2000). To his credit he has actually made testable predictions. To his discredit he assiduously ignores his failures. Then there was his bet with Julian Simon that was very well defined, over a ten year period. Once again his theory went down in flames. He actually wrote an entire book on this bet exlaining why it doesn’t matter, why he did not really lose, and how he won a new bet he created that Julian never accepted. And yet “science” has rewarded him handsomely with respect and position. Julian, best as I am aware, was not so rewarded. Here the scientific community has failed miserably.

As an aside, the amount of money paid to consultants baffles me. How could a company year after year need millions of dollars of consulting? What is the value added by some kid fresh out of B-school?

So what you are saying is that the problem was that the auditors (reviewers) were from the same consulting company (scientific community) as the consultants (collaborators)