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.
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.