Are climate scientists lying for work to receive U.S. research grants? – Watt?

Eric Worrall's paper

“…I still have a grant because I changed the title…”

Trump withdrew his outcry when he withdrew his support for research that referred to “climate”

U.S. government dives funds from domestic and foreign research amid health and public safety warnings

Oliver Milman
Friday February 21, 2025 23.00 AEDT

The Trump administration is depriving the support of US and overseas scientific research, which contains a word with a particularly inconvenient: “climate.”

…

The researchers say that the work of mentioning climate is especially targeted. An environmental scientist working in the western United States does not want to be named, said they had previously awarded grants from the Department of Transportation’s Department of Climate Adaptation Research until they repositioned it to remove the term “climate.”

“I still have the grant because I changed the title,Scientists say. “I was told I needed to be published before the title of the grant was published in the US Point [Department of Transportation] To keep the website. The explanation is that current government priorities do not include climate change and other themes considered “wake up.”

…

Charles Hämeri University of Helsinki, Finland,illustrate Fulbright Grant Changed to remove or change the terms “climate change,” “equal society,” “inclusive society,” and “women in society”.

…

Read more: https://www.theguardian.com/environment/2025/feb/21/trump-scientific-research-climate

Am I reading it correctly?

Has an anonymous climate scientist just admitted to tricking the U.S. government into funding climate paper by turning the title of his paper into a lie?

How many climate scientists are willing to bend the truth to keep their chances of receiving federal grants?

How much does the University of Helsinki break down the students and faculty members obtained from the U.S. government?

If the prime minister of a large university seems to think it can evade restrictions imposed by the Trump administration by re-granting its grant application title, how deep is the rot? While to be fair, perhaps the Prime Minister did condemn the truth to win Fulbright’s grant, and Guardian reporter Oliver Milman forgot to include the Prime Minister’s condemnation in his article.

I looked up the Fulbright program, which is allegedly the grant program from the University of Helsinki.

Fulbright Project

…

Founded in 1946 by U.S. Senator J. William Fulbright, the program is considered one of the most prestigious scholarships in the United States.^[1]The program About 8,000 grants are provided annuallywith approximately 1,600 grants from our students, 1,200 for our scholars There are 4,000 foreign students, 900 foreign visiting scholars, hundreds of teachers and professionals.^[2]

…

Read more: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/fulbright_program

Some things seem to be clear.

1. At least some climate scientists seem to think that disbanding and deceiving the U.S. government is acceptable to ensure the opportunity to obtain federal grants.
2. The U.S. government needs to examine what advice is provided to climate scientists seeking grants and provide that advice in case of changing the title of climate science papers to evade restrictions on research grants, which originated from officials working in the U.S. government.
3. Doge will have to dig deeper than the title of research grant proposals to prevent the radiant climate scientists mock the Trump administration’s efforts to guide how to pay federal grant funds.
4. If alarmers climate scientists are willing to disperse and deceive to maintain their chances of receiving federal grants, what are they talking about?

I do not recommend that climate scientists should be prevented from conducting researchI fully support the right of the most dangerous climate scientists to raise their own funds from state governments or other organizations or individuals who believe climate change is a threat. Publishing awakening is freedom of speech, which is protected by the U.S. Constitution. However, no government has an obligation to use taxpayers’ money for research that they believe is not a priority.

At least this Guardian article has a positive attitude. Thanks to the Guardian reporter Oliver Milman, we now have the name of a U.S. government-funded overseas research grant program that is allegedly abused by abusive climate scientists (Fulbright Program).

Related