Mike the Usurper wrote:
The reason the money dried up from "real" sources is because it's garbage and everyone knows it's garbage.

You don't seem to understand the argument that he is making. He is not arguing that he cannot receive a grant to fund a study which would prove that global warming doesn't exist. If you think that is what this story is about you are completely missing the point. He is arguing that if he publicly states that he doesn't agree with the consensus view on global warming he will not receive grants at all for anything. Do you understand the difference between these two things? They are completely different things. He is also asserting that there are a large number of scientists who do not agree with this consensus view who are afraid to speak out because they fear that if they express their opinions they will be unable to continue to practice their profession. The practice of their profession does not necessarily involve running studies that disprove global warming. Meteorologists do all kinds of things besides study global warming. All that work is not necessarily "pablum" just because you have a different opinion on a particular issue than they do. He is arguing that these people are not allowed to do those things if they do not tow the party line on this issue. Ultimately he is suggesting that the "scientific consensus" would be less clear if it wasn't for these political pressures that are driving a conformity of opinion.

You don't see "real" universities funding research into "creation science" either. Does that mean we should turn around and start giving money to those people to research their pablum? No.

First, there is a significant difference between "creation science" and people who don't agree with the consensus view that human activity causes global climate change. The former requires a violation of several core aspects of the scientific method. It requires conflating theories with hypothesis and attempting to collect evidence for something which is unmeasurable by definition. The later is merely a question of what conclusions you think that the data demonstrates. Its not magical.

Second, I seem to recall a number of creationists in the math department at my university. Creationists are not ostracized from participating in science.

RE: Gore Gets A Cold Shoulder