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.
…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.