Andy Russell made a suggestion:
I was having a discussion in the comments on this blog recently about science funding. Amongst other things, a theory cropped up that to get funded research proposals must include some link, however desperate, with climate change.
All the same, if you fancy playing climate change buzzword bingo, there’s a website here where you can search through all the grants that the Natural Environment Research Council (NERC) award with little descriptions of the project. Happy hunting!
So I did. The NERC website as I write says:
Daily update: 8779 awards have or will receive funding worth a total of £1,225,406,898
So how many had the words “climate change” in the title or abstract? The result was:
1084 grant, fellowship and training grant records. Total value of £202,868,701
So, about 1 in 8 of the awards, totalling about one sixth of the awarded money, which does seem a little high to me. But where does that take us? There are studies like A comparative study of meteoric metals in the upper atmosphere, which has nothing to do with man made climate change, which is a possible source of confusion here. I don’t think this approach is capable of resolving the debate; you’d need to analyse successful grant applications against unsuccessful ones, in similar or identical topics, and see whether there’s anything statistically unusual about applications that mention the climate.