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.
So are the AGW folks going to go Full Inquisition on people now?
SO, they're only investigating the funding sources of people who disagree with their position.
Well, that couldn't be biased at all, now could it?
"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
"My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships."
That line from the mouth of a politician is pure gold. Pot, meet Kettle.
I'm tired of these evil republicans going on witch-hunts after scientists! Those evil right-wingers hate anyone who disagrees with their religion and [interrupted, whispers]..
Oh wait, this is a brave Democrat who is uncovering a vast evil conspiracy because some evil slimeball had the gall to say that global warming is real but that the apocalyptic predictions of natural disasters made by the religion of Environmentalism aren't supported by real facts*.
Carry on, burn him at the stake, expose all of his emails because only those who exercise the faith properly have a right to privacy.
* Seriously, it's now considered blasphemy to say that Global Warming is real but that the world hasn't ended. You know what's funny? Those wacky Christian radio guys who predict the end of the world at least have the decency to admit the world didn't end the next day. Being in the religion of Environmentalism means you don't even have to exercise that level of introspection.
AntiFA: An abbreviation for Anti First Amendment.
The funding sources of "pro climate change" researchers should be investigated as well, so we can see all the, uh, corporate institutions that stand to, um, benefit (yeah, thats it) from climate change. Or something.
If only there was some way of detaching politics from science.... Hm....
My Other Computer Is A Data General Nova III.
Now the politically correct enforcers are going to jackboot all over anyone who has a different opinion?
Obviously if they don't agree with us, they must be corrupt or worse.
That's some Nazi shit right there.
The President’s 2014 Budget proposes over $ 21.4 billion for climate change activities
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
Scientific research is a tool of the devil! All the research you need has already been done in the blockbuster film An Inconvenient Truth.
Burn them all at the stake for such heresy!
And so the Purge began.
Some people, regardless of the USA Constitution and its guarantee of rights, do not deserve to speak, to be heard, to be understood or to persuade. "All animals are equals. Some animals are more equal."
.subject comment seE
Well, I suppose it's a good thing if it can be demonstrated that the Koch Brothers and other fossil fuel interests are behind the vanishingly small number of still-reputable scientists issuing climate change lies. But, really, when you have 98% or 99% consensus, you don't need to wonder if the 1 or 2% are lying or just wrong. There are no areas in life where we find ourselves unable to operate with a consensus of 98% or 99%.
So the problem is not that a few scientists are wrong, or willing to be bought. The problem is that the people we elect are willing to destroy the planet for the benefit of their reelection. And the problem is that substantial numbers of voters are stupid and so incredibly self-interested that they are willing to trade their children's future for some politician's "promise" of "jobs, jobs, jobs."
Capitalism as we see it is a complete failure, allowing 85 individuals to control equivalent assets to several billion people, and legally treating the destruction of the planet as just another externality. "Democracy" as it is practiced in the United States is a game played by advertisers and strategists; really, all you need do to understand the depth of the fraud is to realize that advertisers "buy" points with advertising buys. It's not a democracy if you've learned you can predictably alter the point spread with a "buy" of a certain size.
There is no longer *any* legitimacy to our national-level institutions, and for the Senate or House to "investigate" fraud is a joke.
And none of the Congress Clowns accept donations from corporations !
Looks like their Lover-N-Chief at the IPCC had to skip out after grabbing some "tail". And India doesn't even have Title IX.
Ha ha. Guess the IPCC Chief was just after ... Human Global Warming ... and got burned.
Ha ha.
...a member of an organization that practices real science by questioning the "consensus" in a scientific manner, rather than joining our religion?
Appeal to populace is not a valid scientific method.
This is a witch hunt, plain and simple.
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 is no longer amusing as it is the same methods used again & again. The "consensus" on fake "man made global warming" is the official obama's regime policy. Any dissent will be crushed. They can't fight ideas! So they will cut off the funding so theses "unbelievers" cannot do research of publish results. Growing up in the soviet era, I can recognize dictatorship a mile away. When are you people going to fight back?
It's /. so here come the "libertarians". :"scientists" to lie to Congress because FREEDOM. Why don't they investigate where all the liberals are getting their data and why don't they investigate why mathematics seems to give the same answer regardless of FREEDOM.
Of course big business should be able to bribe
We already know where the dozens of billions of dollars to "support" AGW is coming from, don't we.
Do those that fund denial actually believe they aren't doing harm to society and the world?
Or do they just not care?
Or is it that they actually wish to cause harm?
I can't accept that they could actually be ignorant of the effects they cause.
The data is clear to everyone who can add without ideological blinders on. Oh wait ... never mind ... lying to Congress for cash is AS THE FOUNDERS INTENDED. Here's hoping big carbon's endless supply of blog shills is at least getting paid well. Or all you all just useful idiots?
University research funding is pretty straightforward, corporations, non-profits, and governments contribute money for research that supports their agenda. What's a little trickier is consulting fees paid to researchers. I think if we were to evenly investigate every climate scientist the climate alarmists would be the dirtier ones.
Eco-scientists pimp the statist line: more regulatory power for the Gub'mnt. No mystery since the state bribes (funds) most scientists and the states prime interest is increasing its own power. Gub'mnt power goes UP ... self-sufficient yeomanry freedoms and power go down.
... from Bantu affirmative action, wetbakkk immigration to AGW ... all of those ansatz plead regulation thus increasing Gub'mnt power. Scientists grovel after scrapes the Gub'mnt tosses to its bitches. No ... on any **funded** issue I would not trust a professional scientist as far as a rattlesnake can piss.
Scientists pimp the statist slant cause blo-jobbing Gub'mnt fattens their wallet. Gub'mnts favor any motif
Truth doesn't matter. MY TEAM HAS TO WIN!!! MORE PEOPLE DIED IN AL GORE'S CAR THAN ... /. trolling is unpaid liberal hippie hatred and how much is on the clock. Because why pay for old bitter white males when you can get them for free. The climate thing is now a cartoon libertarian cause so lying to Congress is just taking one (point two mill?) for the team.
I'm just curious how much of the faux engineer
If 95%+ of scientists agree with each other ... and are NOT all paid by the same corporations ...
but the scientists who disagree with them ARE all (100%) paid by the same corporations ...
I think you're implying bias on the wrong side.
Come out! And accept your punishment, with shall be death by burning at the stake! You're a witch!
Fuck all this! Make the damn politicians who write the damn laws reveal their sponsors! Then maybe they can complain about other people
“He’s not deformed, he’s just drunk!”
Read more...
http://www.breitbart.com/big-g...
Billions and billions of dollars have been squandered on this boondoggle. No wonder so many people don't accountability.
Alllllll Aboard!
Nice trick - pretend you have 98% consensus in order to proclaim all who disagree with you as quacks - all while neglecting to say of course what exactly constitutes "agree"...
Then when you disagree with anyone in particular who was in the original grouping, you can claim they were part of the wacky 2%.
When you have people disagreeing with your position on the level of Dyson, you really need to re-think how grounded your position truly is, as opposed to "consensus through fear and intimidation".
Oh, and Soon being paid for by Koch? That was in studies long ago, not even the current study in question... but there's another fact you'd hate for people to know, because it means that you are lying when you claim the study you don't like is funded by Koch.
All that matters of course is you discredit anyone who disagrees with you, just like the Scientologists. We all know how trustworthy they are. If I were you I'd think much harder about the intellectual company I keep.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
If only there was some way of detaching politics from science.... Hm....
Easy: make sure to elect only religious people as politicians. So they won't need to bother with science, and can base laws & regulations on holy books alone. While in the meantime, the rest of society can use actual science to discover how the world around us works (and improve our lives in the process).
Oh wait...
We should uncover funding sources of people and organizations that are using that money to lie to us. It is a good thing to uncover the fact that big oil is funding the climate change deniers. But why stop there? Let's start calling upon our representatives to disclose who is funding their campaigns when they draft and vote for legislation that's only in a corporation's benefit. Since they seem interested in uncovering the money trail that leads to lies, perhaps Grijalva, Markey, Boxer, and Whitehouse can lead by example and disclose who funded their campaigns.
Clearly they are not very good at their jobs because the source of funding is irrelevant. Unless you are accusing them of outright fraud, what matters is the research itself, it's replication and peer review.
That shutting down funding of a contrary point of view is not exactly scientific best practice.
Very interesting view from one of the authors.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
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.
a relevant funny
/snrk
Let's also insist on total accountability for where our representatives get their money from while we're at it.
These Democrats are anti-science Luddites. Unless, of course, the science is bought and paid for by them or supports their agendas.
They would like nothing better than to shut down all discourse that goes against their agenda.
If we are questioning Soon because in the PAST he had funding from sources disliked by the left, why shouldn't we question all the original IPCC reports since the head of the IPCC (Rajendra Pachauri) was using his position of power as a sexual predator?
I mean, it could well be he didn't care about the environment, he was just there to gather power and hypnotize potential prey with his positions (a pretty well known technique to get laid in college is to proclaim you are an environmentalist regardless of your actual leanings).
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
my poor killfile is so full of deniers that it's not able to fit one more wafer-thin mint.
You forgot to note that DEMOCRAT lawmakers on the witch hunt. Just thought I'd clarify. Climate change is a fraud. The most corrupt branch of 'science' in history.
Freeman Dyson is not qualified. He is a theoretical physicist; not a Climatologist.
It is a logical fallacy to consider one competent in a field outside of their own just because you hold their field in high regard.
Yes, I will say the same about Bill Nye who is a mechanical engineer who goes off and pontificates on AGW, evolution and God.
Anyway, this fighting - it's not even arguments - here on Slashdot are pointless. Very very few folks here are qualified and knowledgeable about AGW and considering the emotional edge everyone seems to have, a rational discourse is all but impossible.
Also, there is very little anyone of us can do about it - and one way or another we are going to pay: tax payer money and higher insurance costs because the insurance industry is taking AGW quite seriously. p/Now, I have to shower to get the stench off of myself for participating in this nonsense.
Has anyone checked this joker's papers?
This is purely an "ad hominem".
No different from Soon, where he is being attacked NOT because the current funding is from Koch, but because he had the audacity to EVER take money fro them. No different, except Soon is not groping women (if you want to rank offenses).
if he really wanted to just get laid, hard science is the worst place to do it.
Exactly, which is why he's in climate science, which at this point has more akin to astrology in terms of accuracy and actual "science". Just because his chicken bones come in the form of heavily doctored data does not make his prognosis any less Scienthy.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
The old appeal to authority. Nice.
No different than your appealing to "climatologists" who can't get ANY predictions right over many decades of trying.
Why do you distrust a physicist / mathematician, who is far more apt at understanding statistics, chaotic systems, and the pure physics involved in atmospheric changes than a climatologist (with a much more shallow education in any of those areas) can possibly be?
That's the really puzzling aspect of people like you who believe deeply in people specializing in what is essentially a nascent filed; you are putting more stock in people who have less hard science training, and the results of their predictions based on what amounts to faith dressed up as science are telling.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Didn't we go though just this sort of thing when some lawmakers tried to subpoena Micheal Mann's communications regarding the backing for his research? And were these demands for information eventually blocked?
Have gnu, will travel.
Anyone else see the irony of a CONGRESSMAN complaining about 'undisclosed financial contributions'?
Seriously, I don't care which party he's from; they're all idiot scum.
-Styopa
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source?
If you are intelligent why is it that you buy into the implied lie that Soon's funding is Koch? That's just what the left is implying, they aren't saying it outright because it's not at all the case - only that Soon a while ago did accept some funding from Koch, not involved at all in this study.
Yet you bought that line, you made the leap they wanted you to make because you want to believe SO BADLY.
Think for yourself man and shrug off the nose ring!
But you cannot take a situation where there is no consensus and fool everyone into believing that there is a 98% or 99% consensus.
Yes, that is what we have been trying to tell you
You and others are trying your damnedest to prove it is possible. I give you an 'A' for effort in that regard, but I'm afraid at this point the sample selection of people who are buying that fabrication is too low to be able to claim you can in fact fool everyone.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Funny, the more the science looks doubtful, the more the political pressure builds. Sieg Heil!
Dyson: "theoretical physicist" who understands the movement of air well enough to make a portable cyclone you can move about your house.
Climatologist: Understands the entire workings of the climate so well that they have been unable to form a single model that correctly predicts future behavior of the Earths climate in two decades of trying; constantly claims it's because of some new factor they seemed to have overlooked, claims they know everything THIS TIME.
In practice, Dyson is far less theoretical than any climatologist.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Just because an individual or institution receives funds doesn't prove a conflict; only a potential conflict. His diatribe is simply more baseless rhetoric attempting to undermine the science proving there is not a climate change problem and substantiating his bad science.
If he proceeds with his witch hunt then I propose every learning institution that receive any public, private or corporate funds be force disclose their relationships in complete detail. Oh wait; that would be everyone, lol.
Kert Davies is truly a shill douchebag. Period.
Let's see, it *is* a crime to lie under oath, esp. to Congress.
Next, it's a "witch hunt" or McCarthyism, when it's discovered that someone testified under oath to Congress and didn't tell them that his "deliverables" were funded by the climate-change deniers whose wealth - oil, coal - needs it denied.
So the anti-global warming crowd here is defending biased results based on income... oh, that's right, the Invisible Hand of the Free Market (tm) will show that global warming's not happening, and so it's hunky-dory to build new oil and coal-fired power plants, and prevent solar, wind etc technologies from helping change the field... and take money away from the companies. Presumably, they're investors in those companies, too.
Too bad the Real World doesn't see that Invisible Hand. And how many of them live right next to coal-fired power plants?
mark
I'm afraid this is just a sad statement on society. People are either unable or unwilling to rely upon the scientific method, evidence and testable, provable facts. Instead an appeal to experts and human authority are still the order of the day. We are all taught in modern education about the dark ages when secret religious texts were a central source of wisdom, and only a select few well educated scholars were deemed worthy of accurately interpreting those texts. We are taught about how terrible the impact of human corruption was on that time.
Fast forward to today though, and we now have advanced to holding scientific journals as a central source of wisdom, and only a select few well educated scholars are deemed worthy of accurately interpreting them. Is nobody else disturbed by how little difference we have made between the priesthood of old and the scientific consensus today?
The Inquisition (Look out sin)!
Coldest year on record here.
Consensus is the exact opposite of science. If we went with the consensus, the Earth would be flat, the sun would revolve around the Earth, the moon would be made of cheese, etc. Science is questioning *everything*. Anybody who says there is a consensus in AGW and opposition is to be silenced or downplayed is anti-science.
What are *you* afraid of?
Is not the entire world.
Globally, it's the warmest year on record.
If telephones are outlawed, then only outlaws will have telephones.
If oceans rise just 5 feet it's going to take tens to hundeds of trillions dollars to do things like move entire cities or create flood barriers. Increases In salinity and changes in rainfall can lead to completely redoing the water supply for entire regions which in turn can completely alter the manner of agriculture in each region. Increased storm activity can take a toll also.
It may look like the US spent 22B in climate research but actual research dollars were only 2.5B of that amount. The global women's shoe market is 80B whereas the global soccer (football) market is much larger. I have done some research and found we spend more yearly on the two than all of climate research ever done since the beginning of science. For a problem with such a high likelihood of being plausible its pretty damn insane more hasn't been done to understand and map the problem. I would not be suprised if the cost of dealing with a changing climate exceeded one quadrillion usd dollars within only 150 years.
We need more satellites that map various temperatures (including ocean), land use, cloud cover, and co2 distributions. We need more studies and data on glaciers - autonomous sensors everywhere. Same goes for ocean currents - also temperatures from deeper that you may not get from satellite. We need better climate models that let us accurately predict the changes that are likely - region by region - something current models struggle with. We cant feed those better models with better data, or more accurately check predictions because we lack the means of acquiring better data. Ultimately, in 100years or so, there may be serious wars fought over the redistribution of wealth that a changing climate will force on us all.
n/t
I often see postings by climate deniers, skeptics, critics, whatever you want to call them claiming that the 97% of scientists who supposedly believe in AGW do so because their pay is based on them supporting it. Somebody should put together the stats on who is funding the scientists in the field, whether they are pro or con on the issue and what are the terms of their "contract". Do they have a grant to specifically study the issue of AGW, are they just studying climate in general, or are they just on salary and don't have a grant to do anything in particular? Also, where are the people located? Are they mostly in the US, or spread out among many countries?
I want more info than just a single "97%" statistic.
I don't have a problem with needing to expose "funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change", as long as we *ALSO* expose funding for those who *don't* publicly dispute those views as well. Honestly, I think the funding for every researcher should be publicly stated. Period. Not because they are "for" or "against" some POV... just "because" it's the right thing to do from a scientific standpoint to share who provided funding for the research (and thus any potential bias).
Oh noes! They're asking for all comments and information on what the scientists are doing behind closed doors! THAT'S SO UNFAIR!
Unless, of course, the witchhunt is to hound climate scientists who think we need to do something to stop AGW getting too bad to fix, then it's SOOO UNFAIR that they get to keep anything private, 'cos science must be all open and available, right?
But not when it's Willie and your pals. Oh, no, they're being held by the inquisition if they even ask!
even the Peanut Gallery knows
It's why they keep this oath breaking horseshit up. Problem, Reaction and Solution.
These fuckers embrace spying, domestic blacksites, kill lists, theft of wealth, banksters, and lawlessness
Here's some of these commie motherfuckers....
ICLEI USA Members — ICLEI Local Governments for ... ...
www.icleiusa.org/about-iclei/member
ICLEI | Member List | Agenda 21 Implementation
www.procinctu.info/iclei-list-members-agenda-21-implementation/
Agenda 21 - ICLEI Update: 138 ICLEI Members Quit
www.varight.com/ news/ agenda-21-iclei-update-138-iclei-members-quit-iclei-in-18-months-we-g ot-em-on-the-run/
Members - ICLEI Canada
www.icleicanada.org/members
ICLEI IS HIDING ITS LIST OF USA MEMBERS - DEMOCRATS AGAINST U
www.democratsagainstunagenda21.com/ 1/ post/ 2013/ 08/ iclei-is-hiding-its-list-of-usa-members.html
About a month ago ICLEI removed the membership list for the USA from their icleiusa.org website. On their international website they still list USA members but NOT BY CITY--just by state.
From what I've read about it, Greenpeace fed this information to friendly reporters at the NY times.
The documentation actually shows it is a 1.2million donation to the Smithsonian Institute.
This is not like 2011 when Dr James Hansen (director of GISS @ NASA at the time) collecting over $1.6million US in speaking and event appearance fees.
The moral to this story is if you say 'doom is nigh' you can collect income from AGW. If you try to disprove the sky is falling, expect to be lynched ala Galileo.
Since when does one (roughly) side of a controversy deserve much more examination and aspersions as to whether they are "bought" or not than another? Does anyone seriously believe the pro-AGW folks all are totally un-invested scholars speaking only pure objective truth as they best see it? Give me a break.
Everyone that has some doubt about the official AGW story or claims has been roundly vilified for quite some time now. They have been compared to flat earthers or young earth folks for bothering to voice an opinion. This is not the stance of any sort of enlightened discourse or inquiry. It is a concerted effort to silence and shame critics of a politically aligned position. It has almost nothing to do with real science.
Hide the Decline
You can live in purposeful ignorance if you like; I choose not to, because I can understand better what will or may happen.
"There is more worth loving than we have strength to love." - Brian Jay Stanley
Does Wisdom of crowds bring out the TRUTH in this case?
Casteism