UPDATE: About an hour after this story was posted, Monbiot backs down, see below. – Anthony
===========================================
Sheesh, can’t these people read? I find the timing of this more than coincidental.
George Monbiot tweets:
Secret funding of climate change deniers exposed again: bit.ly/m6Yjlp. Key issue here is that interests never declared.
Soon and Balliunas 2003:
Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579),…
Paper here (PDF)
here’s the full acknowledgment:
Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from
the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air
Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1-
0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration
(Grant NAG5-7635). The views expressed herein are those of
the authors and are independent of the sponsoring agencies.
We have benefitted greatly from the true and kind spirit of
research communications (including a preview of their
thoughts) with the late Jean Grove (who passed away on January
18, 2001), Dave Evans, Shaopeng Huang, Jim Kennett,
Yoshio Tagami and Referee #3. We thank John Daly, Diane
Douglas-Dalziel, Craig and Keith Idso for their unselfish contributions
to the references. We also thank the Editor, Chris
de Freitas, for very helpful editorial changes that improved
the manuscript. We are very grateful to Maria McEachern,
Melissa Hilbert, Barbara Palmer and Will Graves for invaluable
library help, and both Philip Gonzalez and Lisa Linarte
for crucial all-around help.
There’s been a swarm of such news items happening this week in an attempt to discredit climate skeptics. ICCC6 is getting some press, and in response these claims of “secret” get circulated. How transparent. The other LOL is from washed up science writer David Appell (who runs an angry blog called Quarksoup) expressing “being stunned” that WUWT readers haven’t denounced a supposed recent death threat that occurred in Australia 5 years ago that was “repackaged” for the present. Trouble is, the press is onto the scam.
Monbiot also tweets:
Is there a single prominent denier who won’t turn out to have been funded by an oil or coal company, or by the Koch brothers?
Well I once had a Shell Oil credit card for which I got cashback credits on purchases, so I guess that makes me guilty.
Bishop Hill quips:
Now obviously there’s a bit of Monbiot “puff” going on here, but I think we should look on this enthusiasm for disclosure of conflicts of interest as an area in which widespread agreement should be possible.
Perhaps George would like to consider a joint call (a) for the IPCC to activate its COI policy for all AR5 working groups with immediate effect and (b) for climate journals to require disclosure of conflicts of interest in the way that medical journals do. I’ll write and ask him.
How about it Monbiot? Goose, gander, and all that.
h/t to reader PaulM
================================================================
UPDATE: About an hour after this story was posted, on his Twitter feed, Monbiot recognizes his error.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
I agree with Rod Everson . That was a non-apology, just smearing even more. We need to hold his feet to the fire on that as well!
But no conflict of interest for this fiasco:
Farce of the wind farms: Power produced drops 6% after calmest year this century
“Government has spent £5billion on turbines to date
Changes to jet stream mean winds are unpredictable over next 40 years”
‘But a damning report from conservation charity the John Muir Trust found that the UK’s wind farms were working at just 21 per cent of capacity last year.
Stuart Young, the author of the report, said: ‘Wind power is not what it’s cracked up to be.
‘Over the two-year period studied, the wind farms in the UK consistently generated far less energy than wind proponents claim is typical.’
Developers of wind power have been accused of grossly exaggerating the amount of energy turbines will generate in order to get their hands on government subsidies.
Director of the Renewable Energy Foundation Dr John Constable said that even though wind farms had received subsidies of £5billion in the past nine years, they were failing to generate decent levels of power.”
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2010156/Where-wind-Six-cent-drop-power-UK-wind-farms-lowest-wind-speeds-CENTURY.html#ixzz1Qs7Znzb1
Joshua says:
July 1, 2011 at 7:15 am
Ah yes, another day, another thread at WUWT …………………….
============================================================
So, you believe we should ignore the facts and allow the alarmists to continue to fabricate information and continue to attempt to assassinate the character of any and all skeptics. Is that what you’re saying? And, if we say anything about the character assassination and fabrication, in your mind, we’re hypocrites?
Nice try…….. but I do love your lack of logic and reason. Thanks Joshua.
“Acknowledgements. This work was supported by funds from the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579) … ”
Why should we fear or hate “Big Oil”, who creates wealth, opportunities and jobs for the entire planet?
“Big Government” is the one to fear, who destroys jobs and opportunities, and devours the wealth of those who do succeed.
Ironic that Big Government’s funding (secret or not) of the CAGW scam causes no concern at all.
Comrade Lysenko would be proud.
RockyRoad says:
July 1, 2011 at 5:11 am
Monbiot is a tweeter hack. That’s it. He’s completely irrelevant to the discussion. (Or is “useful tool” a better description?)
Useful or not, he is a tool.
Jim says:
July 1, 2011 at 5:57 am
Great journalists lead a debate, not take sides in it.
Respectfully, great journalists report the debate.
I have to agree with Bernie. At least Monbiot admits error. He changed position In this case, and in the case of nukes.
Joshua says:
July 1, 2011 at 7:15 am
Ah yes, another day, another thread at WUWT whining incessantly about accusations regarding the influence of funding on “anti-consensus” scientists – from people who whine incessantly about the influence of funding on “consensus” scientists.
Joshua I want you to know that when people accuse me of whining they go to the top of my list of people I pay attention to. The more you insult me the more I listen. Thanks.
“unlike many”
You mean like the Air Force and NASA are also in big oils pocket?
All this anti-global warming fossil fuel funding from NASA and the Air Force….
…give them enough rope………..what a dimwit
Stacey says:
July 1, 2011 at 6:23 am
That’s called “post normal economics”. Soon it’ll be coming to a theatre near you, too.
Rod Everson says:
July 1, 2011 at 8:16 am <blockquote.
…
The quote: “Unlike many, it turns out he (Soon) has” (listed his oil funding). Again, who are among the “many”? It seems reasonable to ask him for names. You have an excellent point, Rod, so (because I’m sure Monbiot reads these comments), I’ll ask:
Hey, Mr. Monbiot, who are the “many” in your statement (quoted above) that you claim are taking oil funding and are not listing it? First and last names, please.
Crap.
I hate to do this folks, but Monbiat’s a distraction. Wasn’t the original claim, as put forward by Greenpeace and widely circulated, that Soon had *testified before Congress in 2003* saying that he had not received funding from “big oil”? I saw nothing in the original press release that is debunked by Soon’s 2003 paper — in fact it might raise an issue of perjury if he told Congress that he never received any grants from oil companies, but acknowledged their support in a paper published that same year.
My fingers crossed, I’m hoping that this is more of Greenpeace’s usual shenanigans and that Soon’s actual quote before Congress was considerably different or in a completely different context.
Monbiot also ‘claimed’ in his 2009 blog ( http://www.guardian.co.uk/environment/georgemonbiot/2009/dec/07/george-monbiot-blog-climate-denial-industry ) that Naomi Oreskes put smoking gun evidence online about the fossil fuel industry corruption of skeptic scientist. She actually did not, she only had partial quotes, just like all other accusers, traceable to anti-skeptic book author Ross Gelbspan, who himself has never showed the ‘evidence’.
She instead had oddball notes on her PPT presentation that said the 1991 coal industry memos (which I spoke about in my WUWT guest post http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/25/the-end-is-near-for-faith-in-agw/ ) were at American Meteorological Society archives. My email to the AMS asking about that has gone unanswered, and my inquiries to AMS members and even AMS Fellow Richard Lindzen yields the same result: none of them know what AMS archives she refers to.
One has to wonder if she is referring to deeply buried inaccessible material…. As usual, all of this is the same ‘ol predictable unsupported guilt-by-association accusation, devoid of a scintilla of proof that industry money prompted fabricated science assessments.
Ah, lay off Monbiot.
At least he sputters while swallowing the Kool-Aid.
When facts, science and sense go against the warmista what else can they do, bang dustbin (trashcan) lids. It’s just the noise of losing it!!
I always scratch the back of my head when I see this “skeptics are paid by big oil” accusation. It is hard to believe that out opponents are so primitive and gullible.
One would think that it would be obvious that large oil and gas companies profit from high prices created by environmentalist hysteria. No doubt this is why they sponsor such nests of fraudulent “science” as University of East Anglia and University of Pennsylvania.
This is funny – even Exxon gives credence to the science behind AGW. Are they going to do anything significant to curb carbon? No, it’s bad for business… But still. It’s telling.
[snip. d-word violation.]
Monbiot is mentally unstable IMHO. Maybe bipolar.
That’s some “apology” by Moonbat. We’re sorry too – that he’s such a dingbat. It’s always hilarious when they try to point to funding of skeptics, when the Alarmist Industry dwarfs any funding skeptics/climate realists (actual scientists, in other words) might have received. Sort of like how natural climate forcings dwarf any insignificant warming caused by man.
Rod Everson,
” …’Unlike many” comment’… ”
My thoughts exactly!
Also:
1. Energy/oil companies and governments will invest in promising alternative energy research through grants and other funding. Hopefully, only the former will buy out any good ideas and companies started, to put these ideas to market. I don’t want the government running energy. The large companies doing it now are far better prepared to provide the equipment and services for alternative energy and related products than the government. It’s their business.
2. Money from the US government is run through NSF, NASA and other taxpayer supported government organizations. It’s my opinion that NO tax supported research company has either copyright or intellectual property rights. They have been paid for their work and the results belong to the citizens. I would think the same would be true in the UK. What significant resources does CRU have, beyond grants?
3. I believe activism is mostly supported by the Kochs and Soroses of the world. They help to show what they think is needed, which in turn helps to generate funding from other sources and action from politicians. I hope the socialists aren’t successful.
We, on the West Coast, have had to deal with Mr. Appell’s histrionics for quite a while. We have the reduction, The Afpel Rule, which states that any belief, if you really, really, really believe it, makes it so.
http://maxredline.typepad.com/maxredline/2011/02/yknow-that-whole-global-warming-thing-about-that.html
Monboit:
Until Monboit produces substantive evidence to back up this allegation (other than third-hand anecdotal evidence) that “many others” hide their fossil fuel funding, I will take him to be a dishonest shill for the green technology industry.
A note from Soon in 2003:
“Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all … But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1—judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences …
Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively … we will really accomplish A LOT!
In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science …”
I believe Soon is a speaker at the forthcoming conference, themed ‘Restoring the Scientific Method’. Perhaps ‘Taking irony to the next level’ would be more apposite?
Someone might to tell Moonbat that when you openly admit your sources of funding and acknowledgments, it isn’t ” covering up.”
Now I’m sure that this little exercise has showed ol George the error in his ways, and he is now going to release a paper showing every single one of his supporters.
I’d be very interested to see it.