Slashdot Mirror


Lawmakers Seek Information On Funding For Climate Change Critics

HughPickens.com writes: John Schwartz reports at the NY Times that prominent members of the U.S. House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities, companies and trade groups about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change. In letters sent to seven universities, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change. "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships." Grijalva asked for each university's policies on financial disclosure and the amount and sources of outside funding for each scholar, "communications regarding the funding" and "all drafts" of testimony. Meanwhile Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island. sent 100 letters to fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations asking about their funding of climate research and advocacy asking for responses by April 3. "Corporate special interests shouldn't be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy," said Senator Markey, denouncing what he called "denial-for-hire operations."

The letters come after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as "deliverables." Soon accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work. "What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change," says Kert Davies.

4 of 394 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Interesing... by FooAtWFU · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Meanwhile in Europe where one party's politicians don't spend as much effort trying to use global warming as a bludgeon against their political enemies (and an excuse to funnel public money to their friends) popular acceptance of "climate change is a real thing to worry about" seems to be higher. How about that, hmm?

    --
    The World Wide Web is dying. Soon, we shall have only the Internet.
  2. Re:The real junk science by itzly · · Score: 3, Interesting

    All the article does is highlight a few carefully selected weather stations where the temperature records have been adjusted. It doesn't explain why the adjustments were incorrect. It also doesn't show what the unadjusted temperature record would look like if you took all the station data.

    Luckily, somebody else did that: http://judithcurry.com/2015/02...

  3. Re:Inquisition by Bartles · · Score: 1, Interesting

    Sure, if you want to argue that an inquisition is just an attempt to achieve transparency. Then yes, I will argue that it is fascism.

  4. Re:Inquisition by MightyMartian · · Score: 3, Interesting

    The denier in question is a scientist, who has taken large amounts of money from the fossil fuel industry without reporting it in his papers.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.