The website “populartechnology.net” decided to ask the questions the smear publishers didn’t. I’ve been authorized to reproduce this in full here, and reposting at other blogs is encouraged. AGW proponents seem hell bent on trying to repeat this “linked to” nonsense at any cost, why just the other day I found out I was apparently funded by a “Pacific Island Development Company” (according to comments on another website). Heh, I’ve yet to see that check or any from Exxon-Mobil or any other energy or development company. Somebody must be stealing checks out of my mailbox. /sarc – Anthony
Are Skeptical Scientists funded by ExxonMobil?
In an article titled, “Analysing the ‘900 papers supporting climate scepticism’: 9 out of top 10 authors linked to ExxonMobil” from the environmental activist website The Carbon Brief, former Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt failed to do basic research. He made no attempt to contact the scientists he unjustly attacked and instead used biased and corrupt websites like DeSmogBlog to smear them as “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil.
To get to the truth, I emailed the scientists mentioned in the article the following questions;
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Their responses follow,
John R. Christy, B.A. Mathematics, California State University (1973); M.S. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1984); Ph.D. Atmospheric Science, University of Illinois (1987); NASA Exceptional Scientific Achievement Medal (1991); American Meteorological Society’s Special Award (1996); Member, Committee on Earth Studies, Space Studies Board (1998-2001); Alabama State Climatologist (2000-Present); Fellow, American Meteorological Society (2002); Panel Member, Official Statement on Climate Change, American Geophysical Union (2003); Member, Committee on Environmental Satellite Data Utilization, Space Studies Board (2003-2004); Member, Committee on Surface Temperature Reconstructions for the last 2,000 years, National Research Council (2006); Distinguished Professor of Atmospheric Science, University of Alabama in Huntsville (1991-Present); Director of the Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama in Huntsville (2000-Present); Contributor, IPCC (1992, 1994, 1996, 2007); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Christy: “No.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Christy: “I don’t believe so.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Christy: “No.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Christy: “The connection between industrial interests and me is given by describing me as a “Marshall Institute expert”. I spoke at a luncheon sponsored by the Marshall Institute, free of charge, to about 30 people. My remarks were incorporated into a booklet. That is the extent of my connection – hardly evidence to accuse one of being an industry spokesman.”
David H. Douglass, B.S. Physics, University of Maine; Ph.D. Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1959); Lincoln Laboratory, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1959-1961); Member, Department of Physics, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1961); Assistant Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Associate Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Professor of Physics, University of Chicago; Fellow, American Physical Society; Professor of Physics, University of Rochester (1968-Present)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Douglass: “No funds from Exxon Mobil or any other fossil fuel industry.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Douglass: “No.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Douglass: “No.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Douglass: “I have no research funds from the fossil fuel industry or any governmental body.”
Bruce A. Kimball, B.S. Soil Physics, University of Minnesota (1963), M.S. Soil Physics, Iowa State University (1965), Ph.D. Soil Physics, Cornell University (1970), Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (1969-1991), Certificate of Merit, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974, 1992, 1998), Associate Editor, Soil Science Society of America Journal (1977-1982), Associate Editor, Transactions of the ASAE (1984-1987), Fellow, American Society of Agronomy (1987), Fellow, Soil Science Society of America (1987), Associate Editor, Agronomy Journal (1989-1991), Research Leader, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (1991-2006), National Program Leader for Global Change, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (1999), Fellowship, Science and Technology Agency of Japan (2000), Collaborator, Arid-Land Agricultural Research Center, U.S. Department of Agriculture – Agricultural Research Service (2007-Present), ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Kimball: “No.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Kimball: “Of course. There are a number of experiments I would like to do that I have not been able to get funded.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Kimball: “No.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Kimball: “Almost all of my work co-authored with Sherwood Idso has been about the effects of elevated CO2 concentrations on the growth of plants, and I have never published on whether elevated CO2 affects climate. Further, all of the CO2 work was funded by the U.S. Departments of Agriculture and Energy.”
Richard S. Lindzen, A.B. Physics Magna Cum Laude, Harvard University (1960); S.M. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1961); Ph.D. Applied Mathematics, Harvard University (1964); Research Associate in Meteorology, University of Washington (1964-1965); NATO Post-Doctoral Fellow at the Institute for Theoretical Meteorology, University of Oslo (1965-1966); Research Scientist, National Center for Atmospheric Research (1966-1967); Visiting Lecturer in Meteorology, UCLA (1967); NCAR Outstanding Publication Award (1967); AMS Meisinger Award (1968); Associate Professor and Professor of Meteorology, University of Chicago (1968-1972); Summer Lecturer, NCAR Colloquium (1968, 1972, 1978); AGU Macelwane Award (1969); Visiting Professor, Department of Environmental Sciences, Tel Aviv University (1969); Alfred P. Sloan Fellowship (1970-1976); Gordon McKay Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Harvard University (1972-1983); Visiting Professor of Dynamic Meteorology, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1975); Lady Davis Visiting Professor, Department of Meteorology, The Hebrew University (1979); Director, Center for Earth and Planetary Physics, Harvard University (1980-1983); Robert P. Burden Professor of Dynamical Meteorology, Harvard University (1982-1983); AMS Charney Award (1985); Vikram Amblal Sarabhai Professor, Physical Research Laboratory, Ahmedabad, India (1985); Japanese Society for the Promotion of Science Fellowship (1986-1987); Distinguished Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, NASA (1988-Present); Sackler Visiting Professor, Tel Aviv University (1992); Landsdowne Lecturer, University of Victoria (1993); Bernhard Haurwitz Memorial Lecturer, American Meteorological Society (1997); Fellow, American Academy of Arts & Sciences; Fellow, American Association for the Advancement of Science; Fellow, American Geophysical Union; Fellow, American Meteorological Society; Member, Norwegian Academy of Science and Letters; Member, Sigma Xi, The Scientific Research Society; Member, National Academy of Sciences; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; Alfred P. Sloan Professor of Meteorology, Department of Earth, Atmospheric and Planetary Sciences, Massachusetts Institute of Technology (1983-Present); Lead Author, IPCC (2001)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Lindzen: “No.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Lindzen: “My only funding has been from the government funding agencies: NSF, NASA, and DOE. They actually do influence scientific work.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Lindzen: “No. My objections date back to the 80’s.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Lindzen: “I have never received any compensation from the Annapolis Center. I briefly served on the board as a favor to Harrison Schmitt. Since they never asked me to do anything, I resigned.”
Ross McKitrick, B.A. (Hons) Economics, Queen’s University, Canada (1988); M.A. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1990); Ph.D. Economics, University of British Columbia, Canada (1996); Assistant Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (1996-2001); Associate Professor of Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2001-2008); Member, Academic Advisory Board, John Deutsch Institute, Queen’s University, Canada; Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute, Canada; Professor of Environmental Economics, University of Guelph, Canada (2008-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2007)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
McKitrick: “No, I have never sought or received funding from Exxon or any other oil company. My research funding comes from SSHRCC, a peer-reviewed federal granting agency, and from internal university funds. In many case I don’t have any external funding for research projects since I don’t incur any costs. The theory that Exxon generates the academic research that contests climate alarmism is one of those tired cliches that appeals to stupid, lazy people who can’t be bothered reading the papers and understanding the arguments.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
McKitrick: “No of course not. If I was willing to change my views to ingratiate myself with a funding source I would by now be on the global warming alarmist bandwagon.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
McKitrick: “No, to the extent my scientific position on climate change has developed and changed over the years it has been due to the research I have seen and done, and the data that has been published. My views, and the arguments that support them, are copiously documented in my writings.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
McKitrick: “It is noteworthy that the article omits the fact that I am a tenured full professor at the University of Guelph, and only describes me as a Senior Fellow of the Fraser Institute. For an article obsessed with funding sources, they neglect to point out that my salary comes from the University, not the Institute, and my external research funding comes from SSHRCC. With regard to the Fraser Institute, to say it is “Exxon Funded” betrays the ignorance of the article authors. The Fraser Institute is the largest and most influential economic policy think tank in Canada and one of the most influential think tanks in the world. It is supported by annual donations from over 6,000 individuals, foundations and organizations, none of whom have any editorial control over research. I do not know which corporations donate in any given year, since I am not involved in fundraising and it does not affect me, since the Institute does not do any contract research, either for industry or government or anyone else, in order to maintain its editorial autonomy. The Institute has never had any involvement with my academic journal articles, either in the form of funding or collaboration.
The article’s dishonesty is also revealed by their comment about the Global Warming Policy Foundation — “funders unknown”. Had they checked http://thegwpf.org/who-we-are/history-and-mission.html they would see that it is funded by individuals and charitable trusts, and does not accept donations from energy firms or from any individual with a significant interest in an energy company.”
S. Fred Singer, BEE, Ohio State University (1943); A.M. Physics, Princeton University (1944); Ph.D. Physics, Princeton University (1948); Research Physicist, Upper Atmosphere Rocket Program, Applied Physics Laboratory, Johns Hopkins University (1946-1950); Scientific Liaison Officer, U.S. Office of Naval Research (1950-1953); Director, Center for Atmospheric and Space Physics, and Professor of Physics, University of Maryland (1953-1962); White House Commendation for Early Design of Space Satellites (1954); Visiting Scientist, Jet Propulsion Laboratory, Cal Tech (1961-1962); First Director, National Weather Satellite Center (1962-1964); First Dean of the School of Environmental and Planetary Sciences, University of Miami (1964-1967); Deputy Assistant Secretary (Water Quality and Research), U.S. Department of the Interior (1967-1970); Deputy Assistant Administrator, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (1970-1971); Federal Executive Fellow, The Brookings Institution (1971); Professor of Environmental Science, University of Virginia (1971-1994); U.S. National Academy of Sciences Exchange Scholar, Soviet Academy of Sciences Institute for Physics of the Earth (1972); Member, Governor of Virginia Task Force on Transportation (1975); First Sid Richardson Professor, Lyndon Baines Johnson School for Public Affairs, University of Texas (1978); Vice Chairman and Member, National Advisory Committee on Oceans and Atmospheres (1981-1986); Senior Fellow, The Heritage Foundation (1982-1983); Member, U.S. Department of State Science Advisory Board (Oceans, Environment, Science) (1982-1987); Member, Acid Rain Panel, White House Office of Science and Technology Policy (1982-1987); Member, NASA Space Applications Advisory Committee (1983-1985); Member, U.S. Department of Energy Nuclear Waste Panel (1984); Visiting Eminent Scholar, George Mason University (1984-1987); Chief Scientist, U.S. Department of Transportation (1987-1989); Member, White House Panel on U.S.-Brazil Science and Technology Exchange (1987); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Space Science and Technology (1989-1994); Guest Scholar, Woodrow Wilson International Center for Scholars, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Guest Scholar, National Air and Space Museum, Smithsonian Institute (1991); Distinguished Visiting Fellow, The Hoover Institution, Stanford University (1992-1993); Distinguished Research Professor, Institute for Humane Studies, George Mason University (1994-2000); Commendation for Research on Particle Clouds, NASA (1997); Research Fellow, Independent Institute (1997); Director and President, The Science and Environmental Policy Project (1989-Present); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2001)
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Singer: “Yes. An unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.”
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Singer: “None Whatsoever.”
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Singer: “No.”
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Singer: “1. We are funded almost 100% by private donations from individuals.
2. I note that Exxon and other companies are funding supporters of AGW with direct grants to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars.
3. I note the common smear tactic of such terms as ‘linked to’ in the final analysis, since Exxon pays taxes to government, the multi-billions of tax money supporting AGW science are ‘linked to’ Exxon etc.”
The following gave a general statement,
Indur M. Goklany, B.Tech. Electrical Engineering, Indian Institute of Technology, Bombay, India (1968); M.S. Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University (1969); Ph.D. Electrical Engineering, Michigan State University (1973); Julian Simon Fellow, Property and Environment Research Center (2000); Visiting Fellow, American Enterprise Institute (2002-2003); Julian Simon Award (2007); Rapporteur and Principal Author, Resource Use and Management Subgroup, IPCC (1988-1992); Reviewer, WGI, II, and III Reports, IPCC (1989-1991); U.S. Delegate, IPCC (1988-1992, 2003-2004); U.S. Technical Advisor, Intergovernmental Negotiating Committee for UNFCCC (1990-1992); US Delegate, UNFCCC (2007); Expert Reviewer, IPCC (2005-2007); Assistant Director of Programs & Science & Technology Policy, U.S. Department of the Interior (Present)
Goklany: “As its name reveals, Carbon Brief’s entire raison d’etre hinges on the notion that carbon dioxide is a harmful substance. Therefore it is hardly surprising that it would attack any individual or organization that would dare suggest that CO2 is not as harmful as it would have us believe.
Readers can judge for themselves who has a greater financial stake in the man-made global warming issue: I, who has never taken a sous from Exxon-Mobil, or Carbon Brief whose very existence depends on perpetuating the notion CO2 is a harmful, if not downright dangerous, gas.
What’s interesting about Carbon Brief’s “analysis” is that it is devoid of intellectual content. It doesn’t present any science, data or reasoned argument refuting – or even questioning — the contents of the papers cited in Popular Technology. Instead it uses that time-honored technique used by those who have no arguments: guilt by association. This is first cousin to an ad hominem attack. The irony is that on its web page, ABOUT US, it has a Comments policy which states:
– Stay on-topic: stick to the subject of the blog you are commenting on. Off-topic comments (even if reasonable, polite and interesting) may be deleted. Comments which contain links to inappropriate, irrelevant or commercial sites may also be deleted.
– Advance the discussion: we welcome evidence-based comments and links to useful resources. Persistent comments along the lines of “this is just alarmist/denier nonsense” with no supporting evidence may be deleted.
– Be polite: comments which contain swearing or which abuse other participants in the debate may be deleted. No ALL CAPS shouting please. Particularly:
– No ad hominem attacks: vigorous debate is fine, but not personal attacks or accusations (Underlining is added).
So will Carbon Brief follow through on its policy and delete its blogs that refer to its so-called “analysis”?
Normally when I have the time, I am happy to discuss and debate my views, science, reasoning, etc. But in the case of Carbon Brief, I’ll make an exception and refuse to engage, since its “analysis” reveals its lack of intellectual content.
Although I cannot, and have not avail myself of Exxon-Mobil’s munificence, since the vast majority of my career has been in government, I have no doubt that some of its dollars have found their way into my pocket, via the moneys Exxon-Mobil pays in taxes. I have no idea who or what funds Carbon Brief, but I hope it keeps away from any government largesse: that’s contaminated with tax payments from all kinds of companies that produce and use fossil fuels.”
Sherwood B. Idso, B.S. Physics Cum Laude, University of Minnesota (1964); M.S. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1966); Ph.D. Soil Science, University of Minnesota (1967); Research Assistant in Physics, University of Minnesota (1962); National Defense Education Act Fellowship (1964-1967); Research Soil Scientist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1967-1974); Editorial Board Member, Agricultural and Forest Meteorology Journal (1972-1993); Secretary, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1973-1974); Vice-Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1974-1975); Research Physicist, U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory, Agricultural Research Service, U.S. Department of Agriculture (1974-2001); Chair, American Meteorological Society, Central Arizona Chapter (1975-1976); Arthur S. Flemming Award (1977); Secretary, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1979-1980); President, Sigma Xi – The Research Society, Arizona State University Chapter (1980-1982); Member, Task Force on “Alternative Crops”, Council for Agricultural Science and Technology (1983); Adjunct Professor of Geography and Plant Biology, Arizona State University (1984-2007); Editorial Board Member, Environmental and Experimental Botany Journal (1993-Present); Member, Botanical Society of America; Member, American Geophysical Union; Member, American Society of Agronomy; ISI Highly Cited Researcher; President, Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change (2001-Present)
Idso: “I presume that all of the original basic scientific research articles of which I am an author that appear on the list were written while I was an employee of the USDA’s Agricultural Research Service; and, therefore, the only source of funding would have been the U.S. government. I retired from my position as a Research Physicist at the U.S. Water Conservation Laboratory in late 2001 and have not written any new reports of new original research. Since then, I have concentrated solely on studying new research reports written by others that appear each week in a variety of different scientific journals and writing brief reviews of them for the CO2Science website. In both of these segments of my scientific career, I have always presented — and continue to present — what I believe to be the truth. Funding never has had, and never will have, any influence on what I believe, what I say, and what I write.”
Conclusion:
The scientists unjustly attacked in the Carbon Brief article are not “linked to” [funded by] ExxonMobil. The Carbon Brief and any other website perpetuating this smear should issue a retraction.
‘Greenpeace researcher’!!!!!!!!!!!!!?? So no bias there then.
So who pays his bills?
Should I hold my breath while waiting for said retraction ?
It is shocking that good and reputed scientists are being smeared by AGW alarmists. That doesn’t do their cause – that is rapidly sinking into oblivion – any good.
Smear doesn’t begin to describe what’s going on here. A libellous pile of filthy lies, on the other hand…
This issue epitomises how certain people come to an understanding on any technical issue.
If I were to say that 2 + 2 = 4 they would have to look me up on sourcewatch to see if it was true. They know of no other way to decide.
If I added that I was financed by Big Oil then they would know that 2 + 2 was not equal to 4.
All power to you , Anthony, upholder of the scientific method and fighter for fair dealing. I’ll be sending you some cash since you never get any from BIG OIL 🙂
Part 3 of the Carbon Brief’s ‘analysis’ looked at Energy and Environment (ie where Mcintyre and Mckitrick were originally published)
Energy and Environment – “journal of choice for climate skeptics” Analysing the 900+ skeptic papers part III
http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-%E2%80%93-%E2%80%9Cjournal-of-choice-for-climate-skeptics%E2%80%9D-part-iii-of-the-analysis-of-the-900plus-climate-skeptic-papers
The editor of Energy and Environement was ALSO NOT contacted by the Crabon Brief before they wrote the article criticising it. I contacted Sonja, and she put the comment into the blog, but of course the artcile will have been read as soon as it was twittered to the media and her comment will never be seen by the twitter followers of the Carbon Brief.. (this is verified as being Sonja)
Sonja Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen:
“Lot of badly informed and misleading material about E&E and me.
Sonja Boehmer-Christiansen, editor of E&E since 1994; contributor since 1991. Senior Research Fellow SPRU, University of Sussex; Reader Emeritus, Hull University
All papers that are published In E&E as research papers are peer reviewed, many heavily so; only Viewpoints are not. The journal is not a science buy an interdisciplinary journal. Its editorial policy has not changed since the early 1990s, long before GWPF was set up. Benny Peiser became co-editor before GWPF was even conceived of because we shared a philosophy about environmentalism and its impacts on energy policy. He is unlikely to remain my co-editor for much longer because of his new work load, and because his dual role may be used to disparage the journal, as your attack suggests. E&E has been dedicated to critically examine the environmental regulatory pressures exerted on energy policy since 1990, long before GWPI was set up.
E&E is an interdisciplinary academic journal publishing on relevant economic, social and technological subjects. Climate science is only of importance because of the growing role this alleged threat has played in policy justification and regulatory efforts. The demonisation of greenhouse gas emissions has encouraged me to publish so-called climate sceptics, with the helpful support of my publisher, since the early 1990s. E&E encourages a less ideological (less ‘green’) analysis to energy policy that environmental pressure groups would like. Climate science debates deserve serious attention rather then the kind of approach reminiscent of McCarthyism practised here.
My political agenda for E&E is not party political but relates to academic and intellectual freedom. I am an geographer turned international relations specialist (environment as special field) and as such have long been critical of environmentalist exaggerations. I have observed and recorded ‘scare mongering’ effects utilised by politics on policy and economic competition since the early 1980s. I now believe that in a subject as new, complex and poorly understood as climate science and climate history over geologic time – which I studied as a physical geographer and geomorphologist in Australia – all voices should be published and debated. However, the opposite happened once the climate research, with help of the IPCC and the WMO became de facto servants of global and EU energy ambitions. Only environmentalists and some vested interests (political, economic and financial) are very sure that the observed warming is indeed primarily anthropogenic, dangerous and subject to mitigated by subsidisation and regulation. ‘Renewables’, nuclear power and an assortment of promising technologies are to liberate us from cheap and readily available ‘fossil’ , i.e. carbon fuels. Why? Not all of these efforts to decarbonise energy supply are ‘bad’, but they should not be justified with scare stories, imposed on others as part of a global economic agenda.
I have done a environmental and energy policy research myself , including of the role of science in policy-making when a Senior Research Fellow at Sussex Science Policy Unit (SPRU) in the 1990s. I have published a lot on why climate scepticisms remains an intellectually justified position.
While I may personally regret energy policy agendas based on the climate threat, this does not stop E&E from publishing many papers that do not agree with this position. I regret, however, that very little else but ‘decarbonisation’ research is funded at the moment. Decarbonisation dominates research papers, even those from emerging economies. Other environmental issues (and there are many) are largely ignored. Energy poverty is but little researched, as is the geo-politics of energy, both of more immediate concern.”
I had a good news email from Sonja (I have checked with her whether it was OK to reproduce part of it, I have left out the email to Realclimate for the moment)
27 April 2011 12:57
Dear Barry and Gavin, dear All
Below is News: “We are now in the ISI.”
It has been a long struggle and I would like to thank Bill Hughes of Multi-science for his ‘sustained’ efforts, as well a Linda Love and Louise Purcell who have been such loyal ‘assistants’ to Energy&Environment. For so many years. They had to cope – one after the other – with many of the difficulties associated with peer review. Eight issues a years is not an easy task for two women working part-time.
I would like you all to read my unsolicited note to Gavin Schmidt of RealClimate, who might perhaps inform Carbon Brief. I owe a lot to Barry Woods for informing me of the following item from CarbonBrief (http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/energy-and-environment-900-papers) :
It is unclear whether E&E is peer-reviewed. The journal is not listed by the ISI Web of Knowledge, which provides “comprehensive coverage of the world’s most important and influential journals”. E&E has been described by Gavin Schmidt of the science blog RealClimate as having “effectively dispensed with substantive peer review for any papers that follow the editor’s political line”. – Carbon Brief
Thanks
Sonja
To: Sonja A Boehmer-Christiansen
Subject: We’re in ISI
Good News!
Energy & Environment has just been accepted for indexing in the Social Sciences Citation Index, a database in the Web of Science, as well as Current Contents/Social and Behavioral Sciences. Indexing will begin with Vol. 20, 2009 and forward. The journal will be listed with an Impact Factor in the 2011 Journal Citation Reports (JCR) when it is published in June 2012.
We are using the electronic version of the journal for indexing. Issues will begin to appear in products in about 3 weeks or so.
Our editors consider many factors when evaluating journals in addition to citation counts, such as scope, authors, etc….”
Well, I am getting a paper on misconceptions about methane published in Environment and Energy and can I say that I am still waiting on the cheque from Exxon, BP, Gazprom or anybody else.
I think the wrong question is being asked. You’re attempting to respond the accusations of “linked to” by asking the question “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”
These are not the same; it is very easy to say no to your “direct” question and still receive funding from any number of intermediary agencies that are directly supported by fossil fuel industries. If your questions are intended to disclose the lack of any money trail, I’m afraid this does not achieve it. I’m not trying to say there is a money trail, just that this question easily allows one to avoid disclosing if there is one.
or…
Once you crunch the numbers you find a good proportion of climate change science comes down to a small network of individuals who co-author papers and share funding ties to the oil industry.
IMO Borg Lomborg’s lasting achievement was to cause environmentalists like myself to become aware of some totally inexcusable biases in the reporting of the environmental damage caused by civilisation, and so he caused many of us for the first time to turn a steady critical eye on the possibility that this bias might be motivated (consciously or unconsciously) by the vested interests of those enviromental scientists who have chosen to embrace the moral high ground.
Until you make the Lomborg leap, one simply cannot see how, say, a director of a Centre for Climate Change Research might have a greater vested interest in saying that climate change exists than someone who once received Big Oil funding in expressing scepticism of this claim. It is so rediculiously obvious to me now that I am embarrassed and amazed that I was blind to this possibility before.
Idso has been funded by Exxon through Center for the Study of Carbon Dioxide and Global Change.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Center_for_the_Study_of_Carbon_Dioxide_and_Global_Change
The Carbon Brief – MONEY TRAIL
Well funded with political influence
(from the Watts Up – Carbon Brief article)http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/18/the-carbon-brief-the-european-rapid-response-team/
“The Carbon Brief is backed by the European Climate Foundation and it appears to me to be a PR machine specifically designed to counter any scepticism and it has the funding, resources, political backing and contacts to do just that.
“European Climate Foundation aims to promote climate and energy policies that greatly reduce Europe’s greenhouse gas emissions and help Europe play an even stronger international leadership role in mitigating climate change.” –
“…. To meet that challenge, six funding partners joined forces in 2007 to create a new multi-million euro philanthropic entity called the European Climate Foundation.” – About Us – ECF
The activities of the Carbon Brief seems to me to be at odds with the other stated commitment of the European Climate Foundation, which made me laugh in disbelief at their apparent ‘doublethink’.
“We seek to maintain a reputation for objective, high-quality work that is neither ideological nor politically biased.” – About Us ECF
The European Climate Foundation (ECF) is well funded by its partners and even more importantly is very well connected politically in Europe for the clear aim of 80-95 % reduction in CHG’s by 2050. The Energy Strategy Centre is the European Climate Centre’s communications and media arm, which would indicate that The Carbon Brief far from being non-ideological and not politically biased, has as its sole purpose the promotion of the ECF’s agenda, which is to lobby hard for European Union climate and economic policy change.
“The majority of the European Climate Foundation’s fund is re-granted to NGOs engaged in trying to bring about meaningful policy change. When we see an unfulfilled need we also engage in direct initiatives, such as commission papers, convene meetings or launch a new organisation. We seek no public attention for our efforts and instead prefer to highlight the success of those who are actually doing the work.
We have identified four major areas for immediate intervention within Europe:
• Energy Efficiency in Buildings and Industry
• Low-Carbon Power Generation
• Transportation
• EU Climate Policies and Diplomacy
—————————
so evidence of well funded AGW PR campaign
.. and I still haven’t recieved a cheque from Exxon (or anybody else) 😉
fredb says:
May 14, 2011 at 3:14 am
I think the wrong question is being asked. You’re attempting to respond the accusations of “linked to” by asking the question “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”
These are not the same; it is very easy to say no to your “direct” question and still receive funding from any number of intermediary agencies that are directly supported by fossil fuel industries. If your questions are intended to disclose the lack of any money trail, I’m afraid this does not achieve it. I’m not trying to say there is a money trail, just that this question easily allows one to avoid disclosing if there is one.
Sounds like a trolling statement to me.
@fredb: The question of funding is in direct response to the accusation made in the article. If you believe it falls short and that these authors are answering truthfully to the question yet still hiding funding from ‘big oil’ sources ( despite most of them explaining exactly where their funding does come from in their response ) then I suggest that you create a survey with questions that will give the answers that satisfy you and put your mind at ease.
It’s very easy to sit and point fingers from your armchair. If its not acceptable to you ( the response ) then do something about it and tell us of your findings rather then tell us of what you think might hypothetically happen in any given scenario. That kind of guesswork belongs in climate models.
And before you say “I’m not pointing fingers” Unfortunately when one makes an implication followed by “but I’m not making any implication” then the implication has already been seeded in the reader’s mind.
Greenpeace, they are the politcal activists not the envirommental ones?
So easy to get confused with all those green dollars being sloshed around I guess it’s hard to see the good for the greed!
I was enjoying Fred Singer’s entry and answers right up till he pooched the last word. Ect. for etc. is jest dum!
😉
fredb,
But as several responders point out, to an extent anyone who does research paid for by government, not only in the US but also in the UK and elsewhere, could be said to be “linked to” any company who pays taxes in that jurisdiction.
On that basis, virtually all climate scientists are “linked to” Exxon Mobil or Shell or BP or any of the power generators. In fact BP has in the past given direct support to the CRU at East Anglia, so where does that put them?
And how is a researcher supposed to know where all the money is coming from? As McKittrick pointed out, that’s not his department. Is he supposed to demand a list of the previous 10 years of donations to see if there’s one that might upset Greenpeace or any other of the anti-science organisations that infest the planet?
It has evidently escaped the notice of the enviro-mentalists at Carbon Brief (and in the rest of that sad community of losers) that oil and gas companies and power generators are comfortably ensconced on the climate gravy train because they know a good thing when they see it.
I was in discussion some years ago with a development guy from E:ON who wanted my support for a planned wind farm locally. He admitted when challenged that if it weren’t for the subsidy they were getting from the UK government there would be no question of even thinking about wind power but as long as the cash came rolling in they would go on building the things!
The idea that there is a hard core of sceptics paid by Big Oil or Big Coal or Big Elec (or Big Brother, for all I know) to oppose AGW is so ludicrous is to be unbelievable in any other sphere of activity.
What there is is a fairly large number of scientists a damn sight more experienced and a damn sight better-qualified than the second-raters who have managed to find a niche to keep their bank balances warm who, sooner or later, are going to win this argument unless the public can be made to believe that they are all tainted by association with the enviro-mentalists’ Big Bogeyman.
Never mind Big Oil; what we need to worry about is the Big Lie.
berniel says:
May 14, 2011 at 3:18 am
Well put. Lomborg had a big impact on my thinking. Obviously his work has done the same for many others.
This explains the vicious attacks on the man, particularly by Scientific American. Some just can’t take criticism, particularly where their own dishonest twisting of the facts is brought to light.
There is an upshot to all this. I now have more time for the reading of honest commentators now that I’ve excluded publications such as Scientific American, Time, large chunks of NYT, etc.
The truly hilarious part is that Exxon funds mainstream AGW scientists, to the tune of hundreds of millions, but not skeptics (at least not to anywhere near the same extent).
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/11/21/us/exxon-led-group-is-giving-a-climate-grant-to-stanford.html
I used to work just down the hall from Dr. Christy at UAH. He told me one time that a major donor to the University of Alabama system (but not UAH), who owned Drummond Coal in Alabama and who was on the system board of trustees had discussed donating money to the research institute. He would not do so because even to donate something to the overall organization (a $40 million per year organization) might provide fodder to the alarmists. This was before Christy had built the center for global hydrology at UAH.
I personally watched Dr. Christy get raked over the coals by the then senator Al Gore for simply publishing a paper that refuted the climate science findings of the early 1990’s. One of the nicest guys around as well.
OK, OK Let’s make a deal…
ExxonMobil will stop funding the climate d*niers…
and the American taxpayers will stop funding the CAGW climate research (DOE, NASA, NSF)…
Deal??
There is a Jewish saying fits perfectly for this issue:
He who discredit somebody, actually discredits by his own faults.
(In Hebrew it sounds much better …)
Brian H, “I was enjoying Fred Singer’s entry and answers right up till he pooched the last word. Ect. for etc. is jest dum!”
You are kidding right? That was a typo on my part and was not in his email. I’ve corrected it and emailed Anthony.
fredb, “I think the wrong question is being asked. You’re attempting to respond the accusations of “linked to” by asking the question “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”
These are not the same; it is very easy to say no to your “direct” question and still receive funding from any number of intermediary agencies that are directly supported by fossil fuel industries. If your questions are intended to disclose the lack of any money trail, I’m afraid this does not achieve it. I’m not trying to say there is a money trail, just that this question easily allows one to avoid disclosing if there is one.”
That is the direct insinuation, that they receive their funding from ExxonMobil. Please shows us this imaginary “money trail” that those who keep accusing skeptics of believing in “conspiracy theories” believes exists via conspiracy theories. In the world of conspiracy theories nothing can satisfy those who demand proof of something they fail to provide to justify their own beliefs.
Knowing that question #1 would not satisfy the conspiracy theorists I included questions #2 and #3 which makes the overriding insinuation of corruption irrelevant.
Let me know when you get anything REMOTELY resembling a money trail, let alone evidence of corruption.
Why is it so hard to just address their scientific arguments? Why is it so hard to believe there are credentialed scientists who honestly do not support an alarmist position on climate change? Seriously.