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.
The following link claims to link ‘big oil’ to green groups.
http://freebeacon.com/issues/foreign-firm-funding-u-s-green-groups-tied-to-state-owned-russian-oil-company/
Will be interesting to observe the AGW reaction if it is proven to be true.
There is another aspect to corporate funding which is consistently not reported, or mentioned only minimally. Many US corporations match some portion of employee gifts. My employer for example matches charitable gifts dollar for dollar (or “one for one”) up to $2,500 per year. I take advantage of this. Coca Cola matches employee gifts two for one up to $10,000 per year, and every Coke employee I know uses this provision to the extent they can afford. Corporations report these gift matches on their US federal tax returns, which reduces corporate net taxable income, but they don’t control the gift recipients; the employees do.
So it is not at all uncommon to see the same corporation “giving” money to groups on both sides of every political divide you can think of.
Is there no limit to the sleazy underworld political interference perpetrated by the Guardian? This “newspaper” is not solvent financially but is subsidised with millions of pounds annually by a UK government which bizarrely feels the need for a publically funded extreme socialist North Korea style media mouthpiece. The Grauniad is a criminal organisation which should be broken up by the UK serious fraud office.
@ur momisugly willis E.
The Copernican Revolution as it relates to AGW was a victory of science over religion.
The revolution is named after Nicolaus Copernicus, but he was not the first to put forth the theory.
He championed the heliocentric model of the Heavens.
He challenged the geocentric model championed by the church-state attributed to Ptolemy.
He did so very carefully in a toxic environment, without rage.
He advocated further research to prove or disprove same on merit.
Your biblical slight in my direction invited that response.
I prefer to take the secular approach and champion science and repeatable experiments.
Namecalling and pejorative statements are by definition displays of contempt.
I posit that frequently they are ‘contempt prior to investigation’.
If we consider that you do not know me, and pass judgement for stating what you happily declare, I don’t get it, what is your objection? You do advocate personal attacks as valid.
The fact that you tell me that I am not doing enough or that you fight the ‘good’ fight and I do not is my example. I consider it nothing more than a rallying cry for you to round up support and discourage dissent among the ranks directed at you.
Your behavior towards me here is your sample of what they can expect. Well played.
I find your denial regarding you accusing me of sin to be outside your self stated MO.
Another flaw with namecalling IMneverHO is the frequent implication that the names confirm intent on the part of the recipient.
I don’t read minds and I don’t write headlines that imply I do.
It is rarely apropriate to declare you know the intent of another.
Even when you guess correctly it is a weak arguement IMneverHO.
A notable exception is Climategate, they display intent and actions to disguise same.
I think it is sub optimal even when it is accurate.
You champion rage, I do not.
Your primary tool is the put down IMneverHO.
I don’t get much satisfaction from shouting down opponents.
I prefer to convert opponents into allies.
Then _they_ declare my arguement superior.
You are welcome to re-declare yourself the winner, just don’t expect or demand I champion your MO.
I don’t expect you to even listen to my arguement.
You state that it is poorly articulated.
I suggest you have not tried to understand my point of view.
You have declared rage as your goto tool.
Raging persons rarely listen.
Can you follow that logic?
Unlike you, towards others with whom you dis-agree, I have assumed you posess the mental capacity.
Rage is often accompanied by violence.
The AGW crowd does have a few proponents openly advocating violence.
You have declared you respond in kind.
Do you also advocate violence?
I do not advocate violence or rage unless I have used up more effective options.
Do you STILL not get the jist of my arguement?
Preaching to the choir does not float my boat.
You do appear to have a willing market right here.
Challenging the effectiveness of a popular contributors behavior definately has risks.
I expected more to rise in your defence.
Perhaps they feel it unnecessary as you claim to have defeated me or my position.
An amazing feat considering you also stated I am unable to convey it effectively.
Time will tell if A.W. encourages or discourages the headlines I find counterproductive.
His playground his rules.
Contrary to your accusation that I would resurface with a different alias, I am capable and willing to not post further if I am asked.
I don’t claim to be capable of not lurking though. I visit one or more times a day and rarely am I motivated to opine. My posts prior to my exchange with you have been poor attempts at humor or links on topic.
Other than sparring with you, a willing mutual combatant, I refrain from personal attacks.
I have made the occasional quip directed at the AGWists. <<–example.
I defend my position without shame.
Unless I am mistaken anon tags ARE allowed here.
There are often repeated examples, shall I cite some for you?
The email address I provide is valid and I trust A.W. to not make it public.
I invite A.W. to email me and I'll provide more accurate info.
He can also change or enforce unenforced rules, I'll respect that.
I still don't get your logic that my anon has any bearing on my position.
I consider it a valid position regardless of source.
At any rate I thank you for sparring, I do occasionally indulge via jungle rules 🙂
Your one handed jibe was spot on. I call it a self test. At my age I'm just thankful it still works without chemical enhancement. Guilty as charged but not while surfing! 😉
Regarding your declaration of fact as it relates to my mental health. (paranoia)
Dayum, you DO read minds! Again I must admit defeat, with skills like that your declarations of fact regarding others mental capacity in the headline of this thread of must be spot on. Your exibitions of similar behavior may only be a necessary part of the process. My previous thought that you were unqualified to make that judgement was obviously in error, but you already knew that didn't you?
I published the following article in E&E in early 2005, in defence of legitimate climate scientists Baliunas & Soon and Veizer & Shaviv.
The thuggish conduct of the global warming alarmist gang has been demonstrated again and again, and was fully proved by the ClimateGate emails.
Warmist thugs have caused several principled and competent scientists to be dismissed from their positions, and have incited their lunatic fringe to death threats and actual acts of violence against skeptical scientists. In a rational world, some of these warmist thugs would be in jail – and that may yet happen.
Hypothesis:
1. The next act of this farce will be characterized by global cooling starting by about 2020 or sooner, cooling that may be mild or severe. Global cooling will demonstrate that climate sensitivity to increasing atmospheric CO2 is so small as to be insignificant. The scientific credibility of the warmist gang will be shattered and some may face lawsuits and/or go to jail.
2. The scientific community will gradually accept the fact that CO2 lags temperature at all measured time scales, and that temperature (among other factors) drives atmospheric CO2 much more than CO2 drives temperature.
3. The foolish green energy schemes to “stop global warming” will be shelved and dismantled, but not before they contribute to a significant increase in Excess Winter Mortality, especially in Europe and to a lesser extent in North America, where energy costs are much lower (thanks to shale fracking).
4. The warmist thugs will still be bleating about a warmer world, wilder weather, etc., all caused by the sins of mankind, but nobody will listen.
Regards to all, Allan
Full article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/#comment-811913
Drive-by shootings in Kyotoville
The global warming debate heats up
Energy & Environment 2005
Allan M.R. MacRae
[Excerpt]
But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.
Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.
Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”
Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect. Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder. Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.
In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.
In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.
In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.
*************