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, 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.
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.
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.
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.
They just play the denier's game. Attacking AGW folks because of funding was one of the first games the deniers played, as they couldn't come up with enough solid science on their side.
I see, so pseudo-skeptics can be as shrill and hyperbolic as they please, and that's just fine, but the scientific community is just supposed to endlessly take it up the rear.
What are you afraid of? That it will turn out most of the shit people like you believe is bullcrap invented by the Koch Brothers?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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...
Same as we did on the "lead in gasoline isn't harmful", "asbestos is safe to breathe" and "smoking tobacco doesn't cause cancer" instances, yes.
Industry runs the same playbook over and over, and reasonable people counter it the same way each time...
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.
No, the fact that he has been caught not disclosing his funding sources and been caught breaking ethical guidelines is what makes him corrupt.
Just a thought.
Disclosing your funding source is standard practice. Not doing so is very sketchy.
Soon's paper was fine. No lies, no fabricated data... And he attempts to explain the obvious elephant in the room: Why Climate Models Run Hot, which they obviously do.
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.
Your source is suspect there, I'm afraid.
If his papers are fine then why did he not disclose his funding source? That's rule one about publishing your work. To not do so is very sketchy.
So you are claiming that transparency is fascism. O...K...
Now this just uses the same argument: Climate sceptics have to doubt AGW, because otherwise they would lose their financial founding. And to support that, the lawmakers want to actually know who founds the climate sceptics.
The old appeal to authority. Nice. Well, Dyson is a physicist and mathematician, so his opinion on this matters exactly the same as yours - not a jot.
You're doing a great job of discrediting yourself - no one else needs to even bother.
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...
Hey, Liberals are nazis now, so transparency being fascism is perfectly cromulent in this worldview.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
Powerful people in government going after citizens who are critical of the party line. That's what smells.
So investigating a conflict of interest is now "going after citizens"?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
What are you afraid of? That it will turn out most of the shit people like you believe is bullcrap invented by the Koch Brothers?
I'm afraid that people like you are absolutely certain of what you believe, and that one of the things you believe is that none of your beliefs were influenced by anyone with a motive.
~Loyal
I aim to misbehave.
That's some grade A word salad there.
Linux, you magnificent bastard, I read the fucking manual!
one of the things you believe is that none of your beliefs were influenced by anyone with a motive.
Of course they were. Just like your beliefs. That in itself doesn't help us determine which are true, though.
You have no idea what you're talking about. The principle is called full disclosure, has nothing to do with the inquisition, and is required by every respectable scientific journal and research institution. Willie Soon's problem is not that he had received money for research (all kinds of industries finance all kinds of research all the time), but that he failed to disclose the fact (well, bragging to his sponsors about his papers as "deliverables" certainly didn't help his reputation either). A wider disclosure check is not inappropriate in this context.
The difference is that no one is going to go to jail, and the worst repercussions are likely to be the researcher in question is taken to task for not reporting his funding sources.
Are you fucking retarded?
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
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.
The funny thing is, I can't tell which side you're talking about.