Guest Post by Willis Eschenbach
According to a biased article in the Boston Globe, a man named Kert Davies, the Executive Director of something called the “Climate Investigations Center” (CIC) has penned a scurrilous letter to the journal Science Bulletin, accusing Dr. Willie Soon of a conflict of interest. The article says he was accused because in the past he received funding “from companies and interests supporting studies critical of climate change.”
Now it is important to know that Dr. Soon did not get a grant for the scientific study in question. That work was done on his own time and at his own expense. He does not profit from the work in any way, he was not paid for it, and thus he has absolutely no conflict of interest of any kind.
So let me get Kert Davies claim straight. For example, his claim is that if a scientist ever received funding from say Greenpeace or the World Wildlife Fund, in any future study whether funded by Greenpeace or WWF or not, the oh-so-noble Kert Davies thinks you need to disclose that.
Now there are dozens of scientists out there who have received funding from Greenpeace. Heck, a number of IPCC authors are not just funded by but have been employed by Greenpeace.
Curious, isn’t it, how Kert Davies seems to ignore the dozens and dozens of scientists who have received funding from a host of funders with a clear axe to grind … and focuses on Dr. Soon regarding work that he did on his own dime? I gotta confess, a man like Kert Davies that is involved in that kind of underhanded and deceptive action is … well … I fear my opinion is not fit for expressing on a family blog.
…
Now, after writing the above I had an interesting thought … I thought “I wonder who the CIC is when it’s at home?” And I have to admit, I laughed out loud when the first page I pulled up said this:
Who We Are
The Climate Investigations Center (CIC) was established in 2014 to monitor the individuals, corporations, trade associations, political organizations and front groups who work to delay the implementation of sound energy and environmental policies that are necessary in the face of ongoing climate crisis.
Kert Davies, Executive Director
CIC was founded by Kert Davies, a well-known researcher, media spokesperson and climate activist who has been conducting corporate accountability research and campaigns for more than 20 years. Davies was the chief architect of the Greenpeace web project ExxonSecrets, launched in 2004, which helped expose the oil giant ExxonMobil’s funding of organizations and individuals who work to discredit the validity of climate science and delay climate policy action. More recently, Davies established the PolluterWatch program at Greenpeace, which launched the report Koch Industries: Secretly Funding the Climate Denial Machine.
Well, I guess that explains a few things …
But despite all of Kert Davies’ claims about “secret funding”, I don’t find one word on their website about who funds the CIC … although I did find this intriguing snippet on the web:
… the Climate Investigations Center, a collaboration between former Greenpeace Research Director Kert Davies and the Guardian …
So Kert wants to bust others for where they get their funding, but either he doesn’t have the courage to divulge his own backers, or he thinks that revealing your funding is for the common people and doesn’t apply to him …
In any case, in the past I’ve had jobs working for both extremely liberal and extremely conservative groups … so freakin’ what? Unless they are funding my current work, I fail to see the relevance … and just like with Willie Soon’s study published in the Science Bulletin, nobody is funding my current work. But according to Kert Davies, I should have to put a conflict of interest statement on my work because obviously I’m conflicted from both sides, liberal and conservative.
Kert Davies, however, doesn’t reveal who is funding his current work …
In any case, I just used the CIC Contact Us form to send the following questions:
Dear Kert Davies:
You are attempting to discredit the work of Dr. Willie Soon, not because of someone funding a piece of work that he got published in Science Bulletin, but because of funding that he received in the past. This brings up a couple of questions.
1) Are you going to do the same with every scientist who ever received any funding in the past from e.g. Greenpeace, WWF, or any of the many AGW supporting organizations?
2) Since you are so concerned about funding, why is it that I cannot find out anywhere on your website just who it is that is funding the Climate Investigations Center?
3) Since you are so concerned about funding, are you planning to bust the ex- and current Greenpeace and WWF scientists and others involved in the IPCC Reports for not declaring their conflicts of interest? I mean according to you, because at some time in the past they received money from groups like Greenpeace and WWF who advocate and advance the anthropogenic warming hypothesis, their work is forever tainted and their conflict of interest must be declared in any future work … or does that just apply to people you disagree with?
My thanks in advance for your response,
w.
We’ll see how that goes over … their “Contact Us” form is here if you wish to contact them, please keep it polite …
w.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Funny, I saw “mental midges”, as some are of the biting, bloodsucking variety.
It’s funny how another social disease which has infected public discourse dovetails nicely with climate science.
It’s called political correctness.
Political correctness attempts to shut up, denigrate or intimidate opposing views and climate science does the same.
Progressive ideology has become maliciously regressive. No ideology that suppresses open speech and a free exchange of ideas should ever be called progressive.
Yeah, I’ve posted this before but nothing teaches you more that they are totalitarian regressive wannabes than the fact that they call themselves liberal progressives. Some people were just born to lie their way through life.
But, but, but …
Willie Soon is a Koch brothers, big oil, industrialist funded tool. Greenpeace, IPCC, environmental NGOs, Kert Davies and the Climate Investigations Center are working for the Nobel Cause (and therefore get a pass).
I’d bet Kert Davies is funded by his mommy.
Hilarious, I read metal midgets. Immediately it brought to mind a a swarm of small metal bots sent out to bite the ankles of Willie Soon. I guess the difference in this case is the materials they are made of, not the software they are running on.
Borg nanoprobes
Is it Kert or Kurt?
http://heartland.org/media-library/MP3s/070512LIGLOBALWARMING.mp3
Donna Laframboise might be worth a ring-up.
http://heartland.org/media-library/MP3s/070512LIGLOBALWARMING.mp3
http://heartland.org/media-library/MP3s/070512LIGLOBALWARMING.mp3
The reason I ask
http://blog.heartland.org/2012/07/global-warming-debate-on-laura-ingraham-show-heartlands-james-m-taylor-vs-kurt-davies-of-greenpeace/
Follow that link
Heartland Institute Senior Fellow for Environment Policy, James M. Taylor, was invited on the Laura Ingraham radio show the other day to debate Kert Davies of Greenpeace.
OK, I’m back from the WUWT test page.
KDaviesMP3
[Thank you for using it profitably. .mod]
dead air, for me
Now it works… oh well.
Why do they [alarmists] always play the man, not the message?
To all involved – on the side of the warmists – you really must try to do better than this, otherwise we’re all going to have our thoughts confirmed………………oh WAIT!
Here’s a scientific rebuttal of the paper http://www.carbonbrief.org/blog/2015/01/factcheck-scientists-hit-back-at-claims-global-warming-projections-are-greatly-exaggerated/
?
Really? Your version of a scientific rebuttal is a blog site linking to a magazine article?
You are aptly named Patsi.
Do you actually know what the word “scientific” means?
Mark
From your link, PAtsi:
“Allan tells us it is not appropriate to compare long-term projections of future changes in surface temperature made in 1990 with recent observed temperature change, calling it a comparison between “apples and oranges”.”
No, it’s called the Scientific Method. If the predictions are wrong then so is the science. It’s really that simple.
If they want to change their predictions out to 2050 to 2100, which is new trend, that’s fine. In 2051 and 2101 we can discuss whether their theory was correct, until then it remains falsified. It’s really that simple
wrong paper Patsi
Back in 1988 James Hansen told Congress that natural variation couldn’t explain the spike in temperatures.
Now we have Lovejoy saying,despite increased CO2 since then, “the pause is no more than natural variability”.
http://www.physics.mcgill.ca/~gang/eprints/eprintLovejoy/neweprint/Anthropause.GRL.final.13.6.14bbis.pdf
Can you find any Big Oil ties?
Patsi
Your post at January 27, 2015 at 6:21 pm says in total
OK. I have read every word in your link but I have failed to find any “scientific rebuttal” in it. Conclusions based on stated evidence are scientific information, and mere opinions are not evidence.
Please cite (preferably quote) the “scientific rebuttal” in your link for the benefit of those of us who have failed to find it.
Also, your complaint is that Soon has – you assert – obtained funding you disapprove, so please state who you are and who has funded you otherwise it has to be assumed that you are afraid to reveal your funding which discredits you.
Richard
This is my new response to all of the liberal warmanistas I encounter who claim the science is both solid, and settled.
http://www.fastcompany.com/3041493/body-week/why-a-fake-article-cuckoo-for-cocoa-puffs-was-accepted-by-17-medical-journals
You’re a good man, Willis.
Thanks, Willis. I had a laugh!
Dr. Soon stands tall on his record.
Two years back, Greenpeace invited me to present a talk on agriculture vesus climate change in Mumbai. They paid for my trip. They also invited a contributor to IPCC’s AR5 -II report relating to India from Pune. Also Greenpeace regularly send me mails for support. What does this means??? Am I working for them!!!
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
I worked in Brazil on a project funded by World Bank to EMBRAPA and executed by IICA a USA consultancy. I wrote several notes against World Bank. Two years back I countered their report relating to climate change – agriculture, appeared in the daily newspaper Deccan Chronicle along with world bank report [published on the same page].
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
[Will you please provide a link to that paper? It may become valuable as a thread here on WUWT. .mod]
Deccan Chronicle, Hyderabad, 20th June 2013 — title of the report is “World Bank releases report, paints grim picture of future: Global Warming to dry up rivers, inundate cities”. This was taken from the World Bank report release titled “Turn Down the Heat: Climate Extremes, Regional Impacts and cause for resilience” warns that by the 2040s, India will see a significant reduction in crop yields because of extreme heat. —. Below this report my version is presented with the title “Too much heat over global warming”. — I don’t know how to copy this report and paste it here.
Dr. S. Jeevananda Reddy
maybe this is what you are talking about:
http://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/climatechange/publication/turn-down-the-heat-climate-extremes-regional-impacts-resilience
The family – with 2 brothers – mentioned above appears every time someone new arrives to jump on the catastrophic warming bandwagon. Several years ago when I first heard this (and yes that too had to do with the MWP paper of W. S. & S. B.) I found the paper and read it. It is worth reading. Then I investigated the charitable contributions of the brothers and the families. They have given millions of dollars for medical research, hospitals, art, and on and on. Very impressive. These folks have used their abilities to build companies and employ thousands. There is so much that they have done that it is not easily summarized. Go and find some of it – and be glad they exist.
Saw a Youtube video of a lecture he gave. His spelling skills appear to be primary-school level (can’t spell basic words) and the influences he cited on his own life seem to indicate poor decision making or perhaps a tendency to be easily led by others.
Who?
michael
After he quits trying to look thoughtful and finishes removing his finger from his nose, he will pose with “the tilted head of concern.”
[Snip. Sorry, but apparently posted on the wrong thread. ~mod.]
How about Monbiot who works for the Guardian, his employers write editorials which pressurise politicians to act to avert climate change and then there are journalists who work for New Scientist, everyone of them should be fingered as biased.
If I were to name the most important figure in the history of the corruption of climate science who was openly in the employ of an environmental lobby, it would be Michael Openheimer working for the Environment Defence Fund while on the organising conmittee of the Villach-Belligio climate policy conferences in 1987. His influential activism as a scientific expert continued through the first two assessments of the IPCC. There was no hiding his affiliation and no question of double standards in the vilification of Big Oil. That was the whole thing: there were no constraint on that side and no one would ever have compared the interest of EDF with, say, the interests of a drug company in drug trials, and certainly not withe the fossil fuel lobby on the other side. There was no comparison. It just would never occur to them. Never. I know because they have told me.
Thanks, berniel; I consider you authoritative on the history of the genesis of this ‘Extraordinary Popular Delusion and Madness of the Herd’. Insofar as this madness was instigated, you seem to know who breathed and bellowed together.
=========
Look, there Kert Davies has stated his false premise that invalidates his criticism of Soon.
Kert Davies’ self-stated false premise is that he claims his assessment of the climate situation must be ‘a priori’ true.
Soon, on the other hand, is critically assessing the actual climate situation and he is showing that false premised positions like Davies’ are not supported by open science..
Davies’ criticism of past funding is absolutely irrelevant to the validity of climate assessments.
John
The thrust behind this thread has appeared here and elsewhere many times, and it is based on the false assumption that money is the driving factor in much of this. Yes, of course money can corrupt but it is rarely the main driver. Ideas are the driver: Tie your flag to the flagpole of an idea, and you’ll find yourself defending that flagpole even at some personal and financial cost. Thousands of intelligent boys and girls are currently leaving comfortable European homes to fight for ISIL in the mideast. They have been seduced by an idea, not by money. It’s the way human beings are made, and in that sense the work of Lewandowsky et al, appalling standard though it is, is not exactly barking up the wrong tree. We are all driven by forces we little understand, and that goes for warmists and sceptics alike. Our duty is to recognise that this is happening, and to leave our minds open to logical persuasion and ultimately, to strive for truth, despite the deep instincts we may feel to hold on to the ‘idea’.
As to the more specific issue of ‘Big Oil’ funding, I actually doubt that much of this is going on, as they recognise the bad public relations and the poor chance of influencing the outcome, and they may as well save their bucks. But many corporations – Big Oil included – are providing very large funds to lobby FOR alternative energy, and what is more, having those funds multiplied handsomely by governments. Fossil fuels are hard to get, rewards uncertain, and are taxed to a vast extent, but windmills and solar are FREE MONEY to these guys. They don’t have to work, and governments will pay them under guarantee whatever the markets do. If there is a damaging financial corruption then that’s where you should look for it. Only in the cold light of history will all this become apparent.
mothcatcher,
Very well thought out comments. Thanks. Whitman’s and Ferd’s, too. This is a good thread.
While I agree with you that ideas not money are the driving force for both sides.
In this case the lie that money is the driving force for Dr Soon is being pushed just to make him look insincere and thus worthy of being ignored.
It’s a dirty trick from a Greenpeace officer.
You do well in pointing out this thread has evolved in a rather thoughtful way. At the root, I think Willis has often teed up thoughtful discussions at this wonderful venue of Anthony’s.
John
I wonder if they would be so kind as to investigate me, then I might be able to make some sort of claim against big oil for any outstanding payments as so far I have received none.
when the facts are on your side, argue the facts. when the facts are not on your side, argue the man.
thus, by arguing the man, greenpee shows the facts are not on their side, and they know it.
I just want to know what IPCC = ________ ” _________” on Einstein’s chalkboard in the image behind Dr. Soon. My view of it doesn’t have definition enough to read it. My imagination is running wild.
Gigantic Caca. (that’s Austrian Yiddish urban slang for “big pile of smelly poop.”)
In normal science the funding is less of an issue because the results drive the conclusions that are published and the results and methods are published can be replicated and if necessary refuted. If the methods when repeated somewhere else don’t produce the same results then you have a cold fusion or stem cell fiasco. In other words the results are objective and not dependent on beliefs. You do the work to refute it. It’s only after research is refuted that a discussion of motivation is to be had.
In post-normal science we have arrived at a situation where the conclusions are less objective. It’s easy to detect with a simple semantic test, look for subjective wording like ‘could’, ‘might’ etc in the abstract. Naturally funding will colour the subjective results. And it should be a red flag to reviewers and editors. The fact that it isn’t shows that they are in a post-normal mindset where ‘inconclusive’ can become ‘medium confidence’ by agreement.
So the question’s that need to be answered are: Is Soon’s work verifiable? Do the conclusions contradict the results? Can the inputs or references be questioned? Can the results be because there is a problem with methodology and data? Are the conclusions open to any other interpretation?
I have to admit I’m nowhere near qualified to say.
If the answer to those questions is no then it doesn’t matter who funded it. It is the current objective understanding of the science. All that is left, if it doesn’t fit your narrative, is to attack the motivation.
This works both ways of course. Just because green money is involved it doesn’t invalidate research if proper method has been followed.
I agree with much of what you say about funding. Thank you for articulating it so well.
John
Kert Davies most recent Greenpeace report states, as its first sentence, “The Koch Brothers: Funding $67,042,064 to groups denying climate change since 1997.”
This sort of statement about “groups denying climate change” is common from alarmists. It deceptively is intended to give readers the false impression that the recipient groups are devoted entirely to denying climate change. Here’s what a WUWTer had to say about a similar, earlier claim by Greenpeace: