Faux outrage over Willie Soon's disclosure? Joe Romm failed to disclose his political financial ties in a scientific paper

Romm YouTube Image
Joe Romm, of the political activist group: Center for American Progress

After the Willie Soon imbroglio there came news that Dr. Roger Pielke Jr., who is not a climate skeptic, is also under investigation (in what can only be seen as part of a broader witch-hunt). Pielke Jr. writes on his blog, “the Climate Fix” about undisclosed Conflicts Of Interest (COI):


 

I have Tweeted that undisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing. I have had several requests for elaboration.

Here is a great example.

This paper was published by ERL in 2010: http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014017/fulltext/

It has a list of 53 co-authors. The ERL publication policy states:

“All authors and co-authors are required to disclose any potential conflict of interest when submitting their article (e.g. employment, consulting fees, research contracts, stock ownership, patent licenses, honoraria, advisory affiliations, etc). This information should be included in an acknowledgments section at the end of the manuscript (before the references section). All sources of financial support for the project must also be disclosed in the acknowledgments section. The name of the funding agency and the grant number should be given, for example: “This work was partially funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) through a National Cancer Institute grant R21CA141833.””

There was no COI disclosure whatsoever associated with this paper.

The 53 authors include (for example) Joe Romm, Hal Harvey and Amory Lovins each of whom had massive undisclosed financial COI (obviously and easily documented) associated with renewable energy and political advocacy. No doubt other co-authors do as well. Further, several of these co-authors have also testified before Congress without COI disclosure.

Two points:

  1. The lack of COI disclosure in this case does not mean that the paper is in any way in error.
  2. The lack of COI disclosure in this case does not in any way justify or excuse similar lack of COI disclosure by Willie Soon. But it does point to the incredible selectivity of outrage in standards of COI disclosure, e.g., as applied by the NYT and US Congress. The Soon case and the example here are exactly parallel.

If COI disclosure is a good idea, and I think that it is, then it should be applied consistently across academic publishing and testimony, rather than being used as a selectively applied political bludgeon by campaigning journalists and politicians seeking to delegitimize certian academics whose work they do not like.

 


 

To be clear on Pielke’s point, Romm is paid to run the political attack blog “Climate Progress” by the Center for American Progress, a progressive (liberal) political action group in Washington, DC. according to his bio there. According the the lastest IRS form 990 on file (required for tax exempt 501c3 organizations) Romm’s outfit collected over 39 million dollars in revenue in 2012. See form 990 here: CAP_300126510_2012_09818b30

The Center for American Progress has a long history of big political money:

Center-for-american-progess-moneyFunny how Joe Romm didn’t see the need to disclose such potential conflicts of interest to a highly paid political organization that politicizes climate, while writing a scientific paper about climate. Meanwhile his blog attacks Willie Soon saying:

Climate Deniers’ Favorite Scientist Quietly Took Money From The Fossil Fuel Industry

Joe, pot, kettle.

The label “paid shill” doesn’t really do justice here to Romm’s hypocrisy.

 

Get notified when a new post is published.
Subscribe today!
0 0 votes
Article Rating
168 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
hunter
February 27, 2015 8:56 pm

It takes faux outrage to sustain a faux climate crisis.

RomanM
February 28, 2015 5:41 am

The abstract of the paper contains the phrases “climate change solutions” and “coal-fired power plants.” Furthermore, the body of the text states:

The amount of carbon savings calculated in this letter for one Rosenfeld (based on an avoided existing coal plant) assumes that one or more additional things happen to affect this economic calculus.
(1) A price on carbon emissions will be put in place that significantly raises the marginal cost of coal plants;
(2) increased regulation of criteria pollutant emissions will create large retrofit costs or increased marginal costs (many existing coal plants have up until now been `grandfathered’ so that they are allowed to emit many more criteria pollutants than new coal plants); and/or;
(3) retiring coal plants will become an explicit policy goal and incentives or standards will be put in place to encourage this outcome.
Because of the urgency of the climate problem and because of coal’s significant contribution to it, we believe these changes are likely for many countries in the coming decade. Each of these actions represents a significant shift from the status quo, but more importantly, they represent an internalization of societal costs that heretofore have not been included in the operational and investment decisions of electric utilities. They are not by themselves sufficient to guarantee significant coal plant retirements, but in combination with investments in energy efficiency or new low carbon power generation resources (which would be the driving force for such retirements) they would allow that outcome.

This goes beyond the simple definition of a unit of measurement. It includes advocacy of policy for changes in society by eliminating one sector of electrical energy production and replacing it from other sources. To think it unnecessary to provide COI information from the authors is clearly risible.

Brodie Johnson
February 28, 2015 2:49 pm

Free Willie Soon!

Simon
Reply to  Brodie Johnson
February 28, 2015 8:01 pm

Clearly Willie is not free… but he may be Soon.

Reply to  Simon
February 28, 2015 8:25 pm

And Michael Mann of Penn State may Soon be Michael Mann of the State Pen. ☺ 

Dudley Horscroft
February 28, 2015 7:19 pm

Not sure that the original – or any – press statement on the subject has been posted on this site – I may (probably) have missed it. Here is a link to the Guardian rag sheet, which may be of interest to you.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2015/feb/27/what-happened-to-lobbyists-who-tried-reshape-us-view-climate-change
To Mod – perhaps this may be more suitable for another posting, if not already posted somewhere?

Mervyn
March 1, 2015 5:19 pm

Rather than concentrating on the nature and sources of research funding, how about critics directing their attention to the contents and findings of research papers by scientists like Soon?
But no… that would be too dangerous to the global warming establishment in case it finds out the IPCC mantra is childish nonsense.

JimBob
March 4, 2015 9:07 pm

May I be so bold as to suggest a new Reference Page on WUWT?
This would be to ‘crowd-source’ (or whatever term is popular now) to encourage WUWT readers to post the financial backers of the various ‘Warmist-mongers’, so that we may better see who is backing the pseudo-science.