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.
These accusations stick and they don’t go away. I recently wrote a paper (for a class) and was told after my rough draft to avoid certain sources because they were tainted (this by an instructor who knows a lot less than I do about this topic). Who were those sources? Roy Spencer and Ross McKitrick. I found other articles by acceptable authors that said the exact same thing. But I was offended by the suggestion as well.
Perhaps anyone donating to this site should list all their stock and investment holdings.
If anyone owns even one share of ExxonMobil it can be said that this site is partially funded by “owners of big oil”.
Christian Hunt has been indirectly funded by Exxon.
From here
Since Christian was funded by Greenpeace and Greenpeace was funded by Exxon then, by his own logic, all his research has been contaminated by “Big Oil”
This also means that any climate research funded by Greenpeace is also linked to Exxon and therefore untrustworthy.
Here are relevant comments I’ve posted here on this topic in the past:
And here’s something by Smokey:
jcrabb, “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”
Sourcewatch is an unreliable smear site that is updated like Wikipedia, this explains why the information on it is absolutely bogus. They include a list of funding increases,
Remarkable recent increases
The Center’s yearly grants and contributions have increased markedly since 2005:[8]
2009: $1,548,145
2008: $1,065,971
2007: $ 674,725
2006: $ 300,554
2005: $ 25,563
2004: $ 30,422
2003: $ 25,449
[8] ↑ 2005-2009 numbers come from the Center’s 2009 IRS Form 990, 2003-2004 from its 2007 990, on Guidestar.org
So I created an account and logged in. Guess what? Sourcewatch gets caught lying,
CO2 Science’s 2009 IRS Form 990 shows,
2009: $57,081
2008: $66,806
2007: $38,000
2006: $88, 376
2005: $68, 044
That is as dishonest as you get.
Thanks for playing jcrabb and having me irrefutably demonstrate that Sourcewatch is an absolutely WORTHLESS smear site.
For more information see,
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/groupProfile.asp?grpid=7352
The tables have turned and we now have Greenpeace fanatics sitting on the board of directors for oil companies like Shell, BP, Chevron/Texaco, Conoco Phillips and guess who? Exxon Mobil. Many more “activists” act as paid consultant in various capacities to corporations like SC Johnson, Proctor and Gamble (now hipply referred to as P&G), Dow Chemical, DuPont etc etc. Most of these Eco-Mentalist fronts derive the lions share of their funding through shake downs and extortion from the largest corporations and governments in the world.
Now just who are the real paid corporate lap-monkeys these days?
So basically if your college roommate’s brother-in-law’s ex-girlfriend’s cousin’s best friend once borrowed $5 from an acquaintance who later worked at an oil field for a brief time then obviously you’re permanently biased, whereas if you merely receive a few hundred million dollars from the government in order to justify granting them more powers and sources of revenue your own impartiality is quite clearly unassailable. Nobody needs to fund any campaign against the AGW movement, because they’re their own worst enemy.
I urge everyone to ignore anything published by Stanford/s Global Climate and Energy Project or the Climate Research Unit as the former is being funded to the tune of $100 million from Exxon over 10 years and CRU has received funding from BP and Shell.
Furthermore, we should completel ignore anything Pachauri has to say because he is assisting BIG OIL to extract the last remaining remnants of oil in fields which would otherwise have been abandoned.
References:
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
http://www.abc.net.au/unleashed/stories/s2835581.htm
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1079483,00.html
http://www.glorioil.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=7&Itemid=10
That anyone should have to go to such tedious effort to deny any connection of distinguished scholars to “big oil” is prima facie evidence of the politicization of the whole field of “climate science.” It is simply astounding that the Alarmists have been allowed to run away with the once-interesting question of whether anthropogenic greenhouse gases have any measurable effect on the Earth’s climate. And it is sad that “skeptical” scientists should have to waste their time refuting scurrilous attacks on their integrity.
OT to Brian H: Are you a Ghost? I have never heard the verb ‘pooch’ used in that sense outside of Whrbic, the lingua franca of WHRB.
/Mr Lynn
jcrabb said… 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
jcrabb, do you know who funds ‘sourcewatch’? Soros. Do you know what ‘Sourcewatch’ says about itself in the disclaimer section?
“Please be advised that nothing found here has necessarily been reviewed by professionals with the expertise required to provide you with complete, accurate or reliable information.”
Nice reference! Go find us some more Soros funded propaganda, will ya.
Talking about “links” can mean anything you want it to mean. It is essentially a game of 6 Degrees of Separation, where you can “link” Big Oil funding to anyone.
Eg, Exxon made a donation to a foundation which provided funds for a conference in which the culprit received free accommodation and a complimentary continental breakfast. Boy, that’s worth risking your career over, especially since the portion of the freebie that can be attributed to Exxon is, maybe, $2.
But the Suzuki Foundation gets direct funding from Big Oil.
The Sceptical Science website is ‘twittering’ this story… saw it in te Carbon Brief’s twittering.
http://www.triplepundit.com/2011/05/nine-ten-top-climate-deniers-linked-exxonmobil/
“A recent analysis conducted by Carbon Brief which investigated the authors of more than 900 published papers that cast doubt on the science underlying climate change, found that nine of the ten most prolific had some kind of relationship with ExxonMobil.”
this was re-twittered by the Carbon Brief:
“skepticscience John Cook
by carbonbrief
Exxon respond to revelation they fund top climate deniers (saying hey, we fund good stuff too) http://bit.ly/mh27SR”
http://twitter.com/#!/carbonbrief
Take Action – Go to the Top
Please Contact:
Christian Hunt, Editor: M: +(44) 7415 357 538
E: christian.hunt [at] carbonbrief.org
Tom Brookes, Director
The Carbon Brief
info [at] carbonbrief.org
Follow the Money
Please write to those funding the Carbon Brief
Energy Strategy Center
48 Rue de Stassart
1050 Brussels, Belgium
Tel: +32 2 894 9300
Fax: +32 2 894 9301
Dr. JOHANNES MEIERJM, Chief Executive Office,
European Climate Foundation
Tournooiveld 4
2511 CX Den Haag
The Netherlands
Tel: +31 70 711 9600
Fax: +31 70 711 9601
info(at)europeanclimate.org
Well said! What Warmist accusers don’t want to accept is that the above good doctors would have had an easier life if they jumped on the bandwagon. This should raise red flags for Warmists about AGW.
I’m sure Anthony would receive ooooodles of cash if he switched sides tomorrow. ;O)
berniel says:
May 14, 2011 at 3:18 am
“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. ”
For me it was the exaggerated numbers about the remaining oil in the Brent Spar that proved to me that information coming from Greenpeace is Black Propaganda. (Sorry, Richard Black, that’s a coincidence, i didn’t talk about you there…)
Gosh, even I have a “relationship” with “big oil”. I have an IRA that I am living off of in my retirement that contains 100 shares of XOM. I guess I must be on their payroll too.
Gavin Schmidt’s remark about E&E is interesting if he believes that Sonya only published papers that dispensed with peer review that fitted in with her political position.
Does Gavin actually believe this?? I think he does, because it squares with my experience as editor of AIG News – the Australian global warmers also seem to believe that I censor all and every pro-global warming article/letter etc. Wrong, wrong, wrong.
I didn’t and don’t and the reason the editorial is scientific, and hence sceptical, is that I just don’t receive any pro-AGW stuff because they believe I won’t publish them, so they don’t submit anything.
I suppose it stands to reason since they don’t like publishing contrarian papers, they then assume then we on the other side also censor as much as they do.
We don’t, and that’s the bit they don’t get.
Isn’t this smear of the equivalent quality of the “smear” Mann is suing Tim Ball for?
I think I mentioned earlier the caveat of that suit being successful.
More twittering by the Carbon Brief to spread the exxon funded sceptics story…..
carbonbrief carbon brief
@grist as that exxon/skeptics story is getting read, would you be so kind as to give our twitter account a plug @carbonbrief ? many thanks
http://twitter.com/#!/carbonbrief/status/68674971811053568
——————
so here we have professional PAID media pr professionals whose job is to write pro AGW articles for others to use..
I hope the Hewlett Foundation (amongst others) is proud of what their money is funding….
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=32&Itemid=50
The European Climate Foundation currently has the following funding partners:
The Arcadia Fund
http://www.arcadiafund.org.uk
The Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
http://www.ciff.org
The ClimateWorks Foundation
http://www.climateworks.org
The McCall MacBain Foundation
http://www.mccallmacbain.org
The Oak Foundation
http://www.oakfnd.org
The Sea Change Foundation
http://www.seachange.org
The William and Flora Hewlett Foundation
http://www.hewlett.org
——————————————–
The Carbon Brief appears to have been set up for the specific purpose of countering sceptical stories relating to ‘climate change’ by going to AGW consensus scientific sources for an instant rebuttal. It is a project of the Energy and Strategy Centre, funded and supported by the European Climate Foundation (ECF)
ECF describes itself as “the largest philanthropic organisation in Europe focused on influencing government policy to reduce greenhouse gas emissions”. -The Carbon Brief
“…. 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
On the The Carbon Brief website they say they are just getting started.
Question 1 was “Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”
But the article on The Carbon Brief claimed that “a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors.” http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2011/04/900-papers-supporting-climate-scepticism-exxon-links
I am not saying if they are right or not, only that you are asking different questions so of course you get different answers.
Looks like someone is spending time and money spewing alarmism and discredit… on scientists. Next wearing the “green star” courtesy of desmogblog…
Hmm, lemme see how this works. CALSTRS holds $1,017,689,000 worth of Exxon-Mobile stock. CALSTRS pays my monthly pension. I spend money to travel and take pictures for the surfacestations project. Ergo, Anthony Watts’ work is supported by Exxon-Mobile. For shame, Mr. Watts….
Are they so stupid that they don’t realize where they are going to be buying all that green energy?
Of course oil and gas are funding climate research.
They don’t care if they are selling you gas, ethanol, solar, windmills, or electric, whatever
You’re still going to be buying it from the same people.
and as far as scientists receiving funding….it doesn’t matter. With the exception of people like Soros, no one has pockets that deep. All scientists have to get paid. Author a paper, throw it up against the wall, and see if it sticks…that’s the way science works.
Fortunately, the vast majority of the papers don’t stick…
OT: For those who may have read that Canada made history electing a green MP…
http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/that+best+Greens+could/4782675/story.html
fredb
We are ALL linked to oil companies one way or another. We are also linked to tobacco companies because of the taxes they pay to government, some of which is spent on the public.
…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.
“Climate Change” = “CO2=CAGW” = Propaganda Operation = “Climate Science” = Pre-Enlightenment, Evolutionary Throw-Back Brain Functioning.
[No charge…and an important disclaimer: any apparent insult implied above as to authentic Parrots and Monkeys is but an unfortunate, “anthropogenic” coincidence and is entirely unintended.]
TomRude says:
May 14, 2011 at 7:28 am
“Looks like someone is spending time and money spewing alarmism and discredit… on scientists.”
Unfortunately yes, but at least less people are buying in the garbage. It will take time to clean-up.
“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.”
Gee, I’m sorry . . . . but, this is an indication that maybe (probably) Exxon does not want any more competition in the arena . . . and that they do support a limited supply of energy so that the profit margins can be maximized . . .
This would not be surprising . . . and par for the history of merchants. . . it’s why we (US) have an anti-trust division and used to have a good income tax system for this kind of activity . . .
Unfortunately, almost all the science being done is influenced by the grant donations or else it would not get funded. And in most cases, if there is no funds, there is no research.
DirkH,
Not just the question of the amount of oil in the Brent Spar (which they lied about and were eventually forced to apologise — very, very quietly — to Shell for) but also the hypocrisy.
One of the reasons for opting for sea disposal, according to an insider who was working for Shell at the time, was that it would not fall foul of the likes of Greenpeace since that organisation had done the same thing with Rainbow Warrior, sinking it off the New Zealand coast as “a dive site”.
In fact the amount of pollution (real pollution not the mythical Carbon Dioxide stuff) created by the eventual means of disposal was greater by an order of magnitude than it would have been if Shell had had their way.
Just one example of oil companies discovering the hard way that trying to placate the eco-luddites doesn’t work.
http://www.greenspirit.com/21st_century.cfm?msid=29&page=5 has the story.
Of course there are numerous other examples of lying by Greenpeace and other enviro-mental NGOs. They appear to live according to the tenets of Richard Nixon who, allegedly, lied from habit and if he caught himself telling the truth immediately told a lie in order not to get out of practice.
Eyal Porat says:
May 14, 2011 at 5:28 am
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 …)
Possibly something the same as or better said than, “The one accusing finger points directly away, but at least three of the others point directly back at the accuser,” ?
If it even knows what the mechanism is, the Warmist Brain seems to think that no one else has ever heard of psychological “projection”.
Isn’t it ironic that AGW alarmists can publish basically anything they want, while Timothy Ball is being sued for his statements about Michael Mann et al’s very public emails. Christian Hunt has gone way beyond ad hom and innuendo here. His writing is slanderous.
You’d think Christian Hunt would be worried all those deep pockets in the shadows could fund a lawsuit against him /sarc.
So.. There’s probably two hundred thousand people going to read this article today. Who’s got the best “link” between carbon brief and fossil fueld industry that is documentable? Sounds like it’s time to twitterbomb “carbonbrief linked to exxonmobil funding.” We’re all getting burned anyway, sounds like time to fight a little dishonest fire with a little honest fire.
The egregious James Hansen is currently ‘lecturing’ (apparently ‘hectoring’ would be more apt term) in New Zealand, spreading his usual nonsense about the CO2 from coal being ‘worse’ than any other CO2 and telling the usual lies about about the ‘Denialist conspiracy being funded by Big Oil’ and his lie about Richard Lindzen ‘not believing that smoking tobacco causes cancer’ among other falsehoods. He must think that the distance from anywhere to NZ provides a margin of protection; he is being reported in some excellent science bolgs down there, one of which has undertaken to get Dr Lindzen to comment.
If climate skeptics are not influenced by their funding sources, is it fair in turn, for us to assume climate hysterics are?
Elizabeth (not the Queen) says:
May 14, 2011 at 8:53 am
“Isn’t it ironic that AGW alarmists can publish basically anything they want, while Timothy Ball is being sued for his statements about Michael Mann et al’s very public emails. Christian Hunt has gone way beyond ad hom and innuendo here. His writing is slanderous.
You’d think Christian Hunt would be worried all those deep pockets in the shadows could fund a lawsuit against him /sarc.”
Brings me to a question I have had for some time. Why is it that only the left and their sycophants in the “green movement” can sue? Why are some on the right not litigating for damages to our economy, properties, livelihoods, etc., caused by these loonies?
But the article on The Carbon Brief claimed that “a preliminary data analysis by the Carbon Brief has revealed that nine of the ten most prolific authors cited have links to organisations funded by ExxonMobil, and the tenth has co-authored several papers with Exxon-funded contributors.”
That covers anyone who works using taxpayer funds, you could also count me as I got a tax rebate last year.
What surprises me is that no-one has suggested that Carbon Brief be sued for defamation. It would be a breach of contract, for example, for Ross McKitrick to accept payment from Exxon Mobil in order to promote what is presumed to be Exxon-Mobil’s views on climate (or anything else).
Why is Stephen Schneider and Stanford University not mentioned for taking $100 million from Exxon for environmental research? Does that level of funding not imply agreement with the aims of Exxon Mobil?
“Greenpeace Researcher”
Thats an oxymoron, isn’t it?
.
The idea that skeptic scientists are corrupted by fossil fuel money is the central point of AGW believers’ 3-point mantra; settled science, corrupt skeptics, and a media that gives too much consideration to skeptics. We know all three points are unsupportable, but that doesn’t stop the AGW believers from continually hammering this, so it is up to us to hammer back on myriad faults in their mantra. I do what I can, please see my latest at American Thinker from earlier this week about an ex-TV anchorman who thought he could get away with regurgitating point #3 without apparently saying where he got it from, “Warmist Mantra Wearing Out” http://www.americanthinker.com/2011/05/warmist_mantra_wearing_out.html
@Mike Bromley
Agreed. Your’re perfectly right. Asking such direct questions is not a way to rule out the issue.
I work in biomedical research since >1 5 years and I can reassure everybody that Industry impact is high, although subliminal, in the work of several Investigators. It is very easy to design a protocol destined to prove (or provide “robust” support) to hypothesis in agreement with Industry marketing plan; on the other had it is equally easy for those who are in the “right” position to avoid trials that are likely to prove concepts that “negatively” impact the market.
I would not be surprised for such a bearing to happen in the climate research. Monay means interest everywhere.
Needless to say that I am not supporting the idea the above-mentioned scientists are indeed influenced by Exxon (or others), I am just saying this this is a very naive way to discuss the issue. The nice “conflict of interest” forms one has to fill when submitting papers or lecturing is just waste-paper and sometimes it is just a matter of digging a little bit more deeper.
Carlo
Here’s another post I made here on this topic:
————
The smoking = cancer denialists were a small, well-paid group of hired guns, basically. McKnight [an Australian author] was implying that today’s climate contrarians are their equivalent. Jo Nova rebutted the implication:
Because people on the right have to work for a living and don’t have everything handed to them. The left, the ones that sue, are getting something from those that work so they have more free time. Now obviously there are exceptions.
“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.”
That is a poster child for how the unethical left wing concocts a skeptic as a spokesman for or is influenced to fabicate counter/AGW arguements.
For many people it is not possible to evaluate the evidence thoroughly because of lack of time or expertise. Bad science is easy to find on the skeptic side. Until climate gate broke, I hadn’t looked deeply enough to notice bad science on the alarmist side. But now I know the alarmists are doing things like hiding the decline, and worse, nearly the entire alarmist community is defending the hiding.
As far as I can tell, the evidence leaves some doubt about whether humans are causing much global warming. But alarmists say it shouldn’t. It’s a lot easier to create doubt than it is to gather sufficient evidence to eliminate doubt and spend trillions of dollars. When you can’t evaluate the evidence thoroughly by yourself, credibility matters. Some say we should just look at the research itself and judge from that. Unfortunately there are far to many ways to twist research, both intentional and even unintentionally. Ad hominem attacks and guilt by association with special interests, if true and significant, are appropriate considerations.
Roger Knights says:
May 14, 2011 at 10:55 am “The smoking = cancer denialists were a small”
Just for the record, I am one of them because Cancer was always blamed on Smoking and Smoking always causes Cancer . . . until they admitted that Black Lung, Asbestos, Radiation Poisoning, and other causes . . . Besides . . .
nicotin- – definition of nicotin- by the Free Online Dictionary …Nicotinic acid: nicotinamide. [From nicotine.] How to thank TFD for its existence? Tell a friend about us, add a link to this page, add the site to iGoogle, …
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/nicotin- – Cached – Similar
Niacin – Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaNiacin (also known as vitamin B3, nicotinic acid and vitamin PP) is an organic compound with the formula C6H5NO2 and, depending on the definition used, …
Pellagra – Flushing (physiology) – Niacin (band)
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Niacin – Cached – Similar
PS. I am addicted to air, but I am sure not going to stop breathing because someone tells me its bad for me or the environment . . . . it shows how ludicrous and ridiculous these tactics are . . .
Finally . . . How to Get Government Funding for Your Technology Project
http://www.allbusiness.com/government-research-funding/15480664-1.html
It’s undated: written like a long sales ad . . . and to boot comes in like clockwork . . . a blog on a time loop that you just jump on the wheel . . .
But, I am not a realist . . . just cynical . . .
Greenpeace “researcher” Christian Hunt
Oxymoron
I’m reminded of the journalistic techniques of a magazine my father
received in the mid-to-late 1960s (via a complimentary subscription
from a business acquiantance) titled, “American Opinion” published
by a man named Welsh from Canton, Ohio.
It was a slick little magazine, color front and back pages, with good
quality graphics and typography. This magazine was so far to the right
that the John Birch Society and similar organizations were comfortable
using it to advertise their films, slide shows, and reading liturature
targeting junior and senior high school students. (Church groups, too.)
The “story” and “editorial” content of each bi-monthly issue usually
contained mention of who was “associated” or “linked” to various
Socialist/Communist parties, or just in league with ultra-liberal clubs,
study groups, organizations or institutions.
Joe McCarthy was still a hero to these folks… 20 years after the fact.
He was felled by the creeping communist conspiracy that was all around
us… maybe even under our beds.
The AGW crowd has simply substituted “denier” for “sympathizer”,
“pinko” and “fellow traveler” in their rhetoric. They feign cringing
at the creeping corporate conspiracy that is all around us, claiming
“deniers” promote a return to belching smoke stacks, clouds of invisible
toxic gasses with rivers chock full of industrial wastes… and an
overheated atmosphere.
They keep their followers in line by implying one who won’t adhere
to the current consensus is a “denier” in drag.
These allegations of “links” are carbon copies of the old red scare
tactics, and their “proofs” are just as ephemeral.
This too shall pass.
When I worked at a government lab, I was invited to give a workshop on some math topics–paid. But as a gov employee I could only accept up to a $5 gift, so I gave the course anyway and accepted a coffee mug as my honorarium. By that (and this) logic, anything more than a coffee mug would have corrupted me. Wow.
A lawsuit against Carbon Brief would be appropriate.
What about the other side. Trolls accuse others of what they theemselves are doing. There was a Climategate email about a $50 000 grant from an oil company to alarmists. Environazis reduce the supply of fossils, while not affecting demand much, hence higher prices and profits. How much oil money do alarmists get?
And take a look at grants from the US gov (NSF) sometime. Full of references to global warming. There is a lot of money in alarmism and we should say so more loudly.
I tought there were laws in the UK that made people think twice before publishing lies about individuals? Perhaps they need to be exercised?
The Carbon Brief ‘create’ some anti-sceptic pr…
then spread it around the media
http://twitter.com/#!/carbonbrief/status/68984361269202944
The Carbon Brief is funded by the European Climate Foundation (multi million euro), whose role is to campaign for 80-95% reduction of eu co2 emmission by 2050. The ECF has a communications group, headed up my the Director of The Carbon Brief.
Thus well paid, experienced PR/Media professionals, much more worrying than the Climate Rapid Response squad in the USA.
http://www.carbonbrief.org/about
“Carbon Brief’s Director, Tom Brookes, is director of the Energy Strategy Centre (ESC) the communications unit funded by the European Climate Foundation (ECF). Editor Christian Hunt has worked as a researcher and web editor for Greenpeace and the Public Interest Research Centre.”
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=57&Itemid=67
“The Energy Strategy Center (ESC) is the communications unit of the European Climate Foundation.
The role of the ESC is to act as an intelligence centre for expertise on climate change. Its objective is to help create political, media and public endorsement for strong action to address climate change at an international, national and sector level. It also seeks to bring expertise and resources to ensure that climate change issues are objectively and accurately reported and debated in the public space.”
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=72&Itemid=79
“Roadmap 2050: A practical guide to a prosperous, low-carbon Europe
The ECF has embarked on a project in support of the climate and energy goals set by the EU’s Heads of State and Government of reducing Europe’s GHG emissions by 80-95% by 2050. ”
If you get Carbon Briefed and there are ‘mistakes’ – too late – it has been twittered to the media, and there pre-coneceptions will have been fulfilled.
AGW PAYMASTERS
If you want to talk about the corruption of science through funding, let’s include some AGW propagandists.
Here, for instance, is a list of financiers of that well-known publisher of incorruptible, unbiased scientific truth, the Climatic Research Unit.
http://www.cru.uea.ac.uk/cru/about/history/
This list is not fully exhaustive, but we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders (in alphabetical order):
British Council
BP
Broom’s Barn Sugar Beet Research Centre
Central Electricity Generating Board
Centre for Environment
Fisheries and Aquaculture Science (CEFAS)
Commercial Union
Commission of European Communities (CEC, often referred to now as EU)
Council for the Central Laboratory of the Research Councils (CCLRC)
Department of Energy
Department of the Environment (DETR, now DEFRA)
Department of Health
Department of Trade and Industry (DTI)
Eastern Electricity
Engineering and Physical Sciences Research Council (EPSRC)
Environment Agency
Forestry Commission
Greenpeace International
International Institute of Environmental Development (IIED)
Irish Electricity Supply Board
KFA Germany
Leverhulme Trust
Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (MAFF)
National Power
National Rivers Authority
Natural Environmental Research Council (NERC)
Norwich Union
Nuclear Installations Inspectorate
Overseas Development Administration (ODA)
Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, Royal Society
Scientific Consultants
Science and Engineering Research Council (SERC)
Scottish and Northern Ireland Forum for Environmental Research
Shell
Stockholm Environment Agency
Sultanate of Oman
Tate and Lyle
UK Met. Office
UK Nirex Ltd.
United Nations Environment Plan (UNEP)
United States Department of Energy
United States Environmental Protection Agency
Wolfson Foundation
World Wildlife Fund for Nature (WWF)
Here is how I would want to answer these questions:
1. Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?
Not yet, please send the six figure and up checks to .
2. Do funding sources have any influence over your scientific work?
Having never recieved such checks to date, I cannot say. Try me!
3. Has your scientific position regarding climate change ever changed due to a funding source?
Well, it might in the future…
4. Please include any additional comment on the article,
Think of how proud of myself I would be if I had to face that temptaion, and overcame it! Please give me that chance! I sure it would, uh, strengthen my moral fibers no end!
The smear job, how I remember the smear jobs as an activist. OMG how nice it was to dig around in your own soiled pants, all warm and cozy and not to sticky in the winter, to find some true nuggets to smear the evil doers into enlightenment with. And as far as I can remember that was the natural cause of why smear campaigns never became properly science based to start with. :p
Yes, definitely kidding. The humour (note: Cdn. spelling) is not overt enuf 4U, I guess.
Nope, but of a nearby generation. ;D
IAC, the dig is withdrawn, or rather redirected at Poptech, who ‘fessed up. [What’s sorta funny-bizarre is that most who do that particular misspell then pronounce it to suit: Ek-Setera. And generally use i.e. to mean “fer example”. And “wallah” for voilà. Etc. So I was kinda nonplussed to see it in Fred’s text! But I’m sure P-T is non-disingenuous when he says it was just a typo. 🙂 ]
As for the outrageous “linked to” hypocrisy the article highlights, surely it would suffice to note that the Demonic Big Oil companies are (currently, while the subsidy-tide continues to flow) joined at the hip with every AGW group and foundation on the planet, and fund them lavishly — orders of magnitude more than any tiny dissenting research efforts or analyses. So Greens are all hoist by their own petards*, and must blow huge clouds of smoke and desperately maneuver big mirrors to keep attention off their duplicity.
*Blown up by their own sapper-mines
“The Carbon Brief and any other website perpetuating this smear should issue a retraction.”
GFL with that one, Anthony.
The strategy of Big Oil in funding Green initiatives deserves more analysis and consideration. Beyond buying tickets on the subsidy gravy-train, I think they know full well that the renewables are going to fail spectacularly, and out of necessity the world will turn very urgently to fossil fuels — outside of India and China, which are ramping up use with only the most perfunctory of nods to demands to reduce use of the Demon Carbon. They are, then, de facto also betting (and, one hopes, working behind the scenes) to make sure the AGW foolishness doesn’t actually achieve de-industrialization and de-population, which would be VERY bad for business.
Brian H , “IAC, the dig is withdrawn, or rather redirected at Poptech, who ‘fessed up. [What’s sorta funny-bizarre is that most who do that particular misspell then pronounce it to suit: Ek-Setera. And generally use i.e. to mean “fer example”. And “wallah” for voilà. Etc. So I was kinda nonplussed to see it in Fred’s text! But I’m sure P-T is non-disingenuous when he says it was just a typo. 🙂 ]”
Do you usually waste this much comment space on blog typos? Sad.
I think it is the wrong question. What one really needs to show is how many of the faithful scientists have been funded by big oil.
The oil industry has absolutely no need to fund climate “deniers”. I see no evidence that even so-called passionate advocates are reducing their CO2 emissions. Celebrities, stars, politicians, scientists etc see little problem in jetting around the world either for conference attendance – none of which have provided any value – or other reasons.
I see little evidence for the vast majority of humankind to choose not to use motor vehicles as transport – in fact I see an increasing envy and demand from the billions who currently have no mechanised transport.
I see little change in use of gasoline despitet higher pricing – the main reaction I see is increasing political pressure for solutions which reduce the price – I see no public appetite to do without.
Why would they waste their money ???
For a real world look at what Evil Oil has purchased at the UAE, see this Monty Python clip. Start at 2:44 for the actual reference, but it is all a classic.
That should be UEA, the University of East Anglia.
I’m afraid that this exercise is fatally compromised by the unnecessary inclusion of the word ‘direct’. There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company. Why wasn’t the question asked as to whether individuals had received such funding? The fact that Exxon Mobil and other companies ‘launder’ their donations through a complex web of think tanks, trusts and foundations; many of which themselves choose to hide the source of their funding is well established. In such a case the fact that individuals are able to deny ‘direct’ funding is unremarkable – but that wasn’t the charge made against them.
Dean Morrison says:
May 15, 2011 at 2:49 am
I’m afraid that this exercise is fatally compromised by the unnecessary inclusion of the word ‘direct’. There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company.
What clear evidence?
Lets have some hard facts or just shut up !!!
Dean Morrison, “I’m afraid that this exercise is fatally compromised by the unnecessary inclusion of the word ‘direct’. There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company. Why wasn’t the question asked as to whether individuals had received such funding? The fact that Exxon Mobil and other companies ‘launder’ their donations through a complex web of think tanks, trusts and foundations; many of which themselves choose to hide the source of their funding is well established. In such a case the fact that individuals are able to deny ‘direct’ funding is unremarkable – but that wasn’t the charge made against them.”
Again WHAT EVIDENCE? You keep repeating this perpetual conspiracy theory. I am well aware that unsubstantiated charges of conspiracy and corruption keep being made with ZERO evidence to support the charges. Put up or shut up.
SHOW ME THE MONEY!
I am not sure that this group, The Carbon Brief, deserves any response. Dr. Goklany said it all, “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.”
Carbon Brief is attempting to discredit scientists who accept funds from commercial sources of fossil fuels. I say so what? If we are to believe there is scientific integrity, the results of scientific investigation should be independent of a funding source. Many of the donations for research come from foundations organized by industry including major oil companies to provided funds in areas of interest managed by a independent board of trustees.
Dr. Lindzen made a very cogent comment in response to question “My only funding has been from the government funding agencies: NSF, NASA, and DOE. They actually do influence scientific work.” Maybe the shoe fits the other foot. Groups like NSF, NASA, DOE, EPA, USDA, define the only research work they will fund through their proposal mechanisms. By defining what is acceptable they have forced scientists to work on the issues they will fund .
Poptech and JohnH.
None of the individuals were asked the simple question: “Have you received funding from Exxon?”
Because that question was not asked, this exercise is flawed.
Why was the simple question not asked?
Why were the individuals only asked about “direct” funding?
Why weren’t they asked if they’d received indirect funding from Exxon?
Because that question wasn’t asked, it is not possible to make the claim that this exercise shows that the individuals involved have not received funding from Exxon, and I’m afraid the Carbon Brief’s challenge remains unanswered.
Dean Morrison says:
“There is clear evidence that the majority of individuals quoted have received funding from Exxon Mobil through agents working on behalf of the company… The fact that Exxon Mobil and other companies ‘launder’ their donations through a complex web of think tanks, trusts and foundations; many of which themselves choose to hide the source of their funding is well established.”
“Well established??”
I challenge you to produce verifiable evidence. Put up or shut up, troll.
[snip – Dean – take a 24hour timeout and cool off, you are trolling several threads at once, heed this cartoon http://xkcd.com/386/ – Anthony]
So if you are defending scientists, will that extend to unsupported attacks on climate researches and claims they are “doing it” for the money” on dozens of skeptic sites conspiracy theories that variously claim scientists are lying and getting money from the UN, Green Tech, Al Gore or whoever it is this week.
Didn’t think so!
From a legal stand point was there a reason for the wording of Q. 1
“Have you ever received direct funding from ExxonMobil?”
why not “Have you ever received funding from ExxonMobil?”
Given that Exxon themselves have admitted they fund skeptic web sites and that many of those listed above are also linked to skeptic websites it would seem the word “direct” is needed.
Dean continues with posting libelous claims against reputably scientists and refusing to provide any evidence for them.
Dean, I’ve heard you conspiracy theories multiple times now. I’ve heard your desperation by trying to play with words. Either provide evidence for your libelous claims or retract them.
All the scientists admit above that they do not get funded by Exxon.
Now Dan has joined the conspiracy theorists. Dan, please provide documented evidence that would hold up in a court of law demonstrating funding to any of the scientists above from ExxonMobil.
There are about 30 “skeptical view” websites listed in the sidebar here. I’m sure Exxon funds none of them, and never did.
What you mean by “skeptic web sites” is something different: free market websites that Exxon would fund, like other large businesses, even in the absence of any global warming controversy. Those sites happen to disbelieve in global warming, but that fight isn’t their main focus, or even an important minor focus (with a couple of exceptions), and they haven’t had much of an impact in the battle over the matter.
A few skeptical scientists are closely allied with a few of them, but that’s it. The money involved is relatively trivial, and the allied scientists are not hired guns who’d say anything for money, but sincere disbelievers who are trying to keep their noses above water financially while steering an unpopular course. They’d be saying the same thing as they are now if they were being funded by the NSF.
See my comments upthread for more on the way the warmists have distorted the amount of funding involved on the skeptical side, and what it is being spend on, and where.
Reply to Roger K
OK look at the answer for S. Fred Singer
“Singer: “Yes. An unsolicited and unexpected donation of $10,000 more than a decade ago.”
He seems to forget to mention his links to the Cato Inst, The National Center for Policy Analysis, The Frontiers of Freedom organizations and The American Council on Science and Health. Which in 2002/3 got almost half a million dollars from Exxon.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=S._Fred_Singer#Oil_Industry_Contractor
This link also shows he did considerable amount of work for a number of other oil companies (Exxon is not the only oil company)
He even says Exxon gave him 10,000 (for unknown reasons) I’m sorry but even companies as large as exxon don’t just give away 10,000 for no reason.
Had question 1 been, have you ever received any funding directly or indirectly from any oil or energy industry his answer may have had to be very different.
Then you have Ross McKitrick: again a nlanket No to question 1, yet his own info here has him as a senior fellow at the Fraser Institute which was funded by Exxon to the tune of 60,000 (and a group of similar companies for unknown amounts)
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Fraser_Institute#Funding
Skeptics started the smearing, but it has not gone that well as judging by the answers above there is nothing to support it but hear say, yet the linkages of skeptics to oil money is real so it’s hardly a smear, on the last one for McKitrick the info comes from Exxon themselves as the Fraser Institute wont reveal where much of it’s funding comes from.
I can’t really be bothered looking further but as I said many of those listed are linked to groups like Cato, SEPP and a number of others and these groups are most defiantly funded by oil and energy interests and that includes Exxon.
In fact SEPP’s source watch bring up S Fred Singer again here he states (in 1994) he did get money from Exxon and others, what was his answer to Question 1 again?
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=SEPP#Funding
Dan, you are just perpetuating ignorance. Guilt by association is not “funded by”. I have irrefutably demonstrated above that SourceWatch is a worthless site that cannot be trusted.
Let me know when you can get a reputable news source to back up any of your nonsense.
An interesting reply poptech, perhaps you can explain how you created an account and logged in, given that there is no such facility on Co2 science, whoops!
Given that the amounts in quetion have been on the source watch site for some time, if they were not true Co2 science could easily sue for fraud, as that does not seem to have happened I think we can safely say they are correct, and as there is no way to create an account on Co2 your comment speaks for itself.
As for Idso and Co2 Science, o.k. you don’t like Sourcewatch, how about something from Co2 Sciences own site (or is that unreliable as well)
http://www.co2science.org/about/position/funding.php
Quote
“That we tell a far different story from the one espoused by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change is true; and that may be why ExxonMobil made some donations to us a few times in the past”
That would seem to be from the mans own mouth, yes he did get money from Exxon.
Are you really this clueless? I didn’t log into CO2Science, I logged into Guidestar.org.
Anyone who is computer literate does not reference Sourcewatch because they understand it is as worthless as Wikipedia.
Your computer illiteracy is noted, come back when you get a proper computer education.
The European Climate Foundation grants page says this about it’s grant to The Carbon Brief… (search by org)
http://www.europeanclimate.org/index.php?option=com_grants&Itemid=34
Carbon Brief
United Kingdom, London
Capacity Building / 2010
To support the launch of an online communications and media relations project aimed at monitoring, investigating and countering biased or inaccurate reporting of climate science in the UK.
Not that tthey have a vested interest of course (lobbying for a 90% reduction in CO2in Europe by 2050)
Hewlet’s money well spent…..