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.
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.
It seems to me that the real "junk science" is among the Global Warming or Climate Change supporters. Hugely significant chunks of data were completely fabricated and faked going back decades, all to show support and "proof" for climate change.
Of this there can be no argument. It is established fact.
It's not a "witch hunt" when you have actual proof that the suspected activities are taking place. All that is being established now is how widespread it is. There has not been a single case of a scientist being paid to deliver "pro" climate change research.
Step 1: Appeal based on popularity "All the scientists believe in man made global warming." When tens of thousands of scientists come out and prove this to be false move to step 2.
Step 2: Damn the source. Try to impune the reputation of the people who tore your argument to shreds. If they are worse than Hitler, no one will listen to them.
Step 3: Start having your opponents kicked out of academia because they don't agree with your "science" rather than actually proving your case. When there is only one point of view, it isn't too hard to win the argument, even if you have no case.
Note that this is what you do when the actual science (i.e. global temperature trends) and everyone's empirical experiences both disagree with your argument (the seasons and weather is no better or worse than it has been since we have been recording weather). The truth is that the scientists pushing climate change are dependent on grants they won't get if climate change is bogus, and the politicians who have bought into it either see it as a noble cause with no real understanding of the science or they see it as a way to control vast amounts of tax dollars and invade privacy and piss all over property rights.
It isn't the "scientific community" that is making this demand, it is the people that fund the "scientific community" producing the claims regarding global warming ^H^H "climate change." You know, the "global warming" ^H^H "climate change" studies that are used to justify calls for the government to seize all control of the economy and society to "prevent" "climate change." They want to protect their investment.
I wonder how much funding George Soros and his cronies have into this now?
much of left-wing thought is a kind of playing with fire by people who don't even know that fire is hot - George Orwell