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.
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.