5 May 2015
Ms. Marge Dwyer, Harvard T.P. Chan School of Public Health
mhdwyer “at” hsph.harvard.edu
Dear Ms Dwyer:
Research-related fraud at Harvard institutions
A series of connected frauds surrounding research into climate change and related questions at Harvard has come to light because an environmental advocacy group had falsely accused Lord Monckton’s distinguished research colleague Dr Willie Wei-Hock Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics of having failed to disclose a funding conflict in a paper in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Dr Soon, like all his co-authors, had received no funding for his research into climate sensitivity modeling. That did not stop Dr Charles Alcock, the Center’s director, from allowing it to issue a statement alleging Dr Soon had failed to disclose a conflict of interest and claiming that it proposed to “investigate” him, when in fact it had itself negotiated a contract with Dr Soon’s funder for solar research that forbade it or Dr Soon to disclose the funder’s identity. Dr Soon had played no part in those negotiations. The Center alone was responsible. Dr Alcock also falsely told a journalist that the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics had no legal existence and alleged that, therefore, Dr Soon ought not to have described his affiliation as “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics”, falsely implying that Dr Soon had improperly inflated his credentials.
Your name appears as the contact for a press release at http://www.hsph.harvard.edu/news/press-releases/clean-power-plan-health-benefits-hinge-on-policy-decisions/, entitled Clean air and health benefits of clean power plan hinge on key policy decisions. The press release constitutes a gushing encomium of a commentary entitled US power plant carbon standards and clean air and health co-benefits by Charles T. Driscoll, Jonathan J. Buonocore, Jonathan I. Levy, Kathleen F. Lambert, Dallas Burtraw, Stephen B. Reid, Habibollah Fakhraei & Joel Schwartz, published on May 4, 2015, in Nature Climate Change: doi:10.1038/nclimate2598.
Two of the co-authors of the commentary, Buonocore and Schwartz, are researchers at the Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health. Your press release quotes Buonocore thus: “If EPA sets strong carbon standards, we can expect large public health benefits from cleaner air almost immediately after the standards are implemented.” Indeed, the commentary and the press release constitute little more than thinly-disguised partisan political advocacy for costly proposed EPA regulations supported by the “Democrat” administration but opposed by the Republicans. Harvard has apparently elected to adopt a narrowly partisan, anti-scientific stance.
The commentary concludes with the words “Competing financial interests: The authors declare no competing financial interests”. Yet its co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575. The total is not far shy of $50 million.
Would the School please explain why its press release described the commentary in Nature Climate Change by co-authors including these lavishly-funded four as “the first independent, peer-reviewed paper of its kind”?
Would the School please explain why Mr Schwartz, a participant in projects grant-funded by the EPA in excess of $31 million, failed to disclose this material financial conflict of interest in the commentary?
Would the School please explain the double standard by which Harvard institutions have joined a chorus of public condemnation of Dr Soon, a climate skeptic, for having failed to disclose a conflict of interest that he did not in fact possess, while not only indulging Mr Schwartz, a climate-extremist, when he fails to declare a direct and substantial conflict of interest but also stating that the commentary he co-authored was “independent”?
Would the School please tell His Lordship, who has standing as Dr Soon’s lead author, how to lodge a complaint of research misconduct in respect of the massive, direct and undisclosed conflict of interest on the part of its researcher Mr Schwartz, and of the School’s misrepresentation of the commentary as “independent”?
Yours truly,
James Rowlatt
Clerk to Lord Monckton
I wish them luck. Willie Soon is an innocent and definitely deserves a defense. The attacks on Willie are character assassination pure, simple, and evil.
On the other hand Mr. Rowlatt’s prose suffers from a bad case of run-on-sentence-itis. His letter would be more effective if it were more pithy. One idea per sentence, Mr. Rowlatt. It makes for easier reading, stronger presentation, and greater impact.
Mr Rowlatt, like Thucydides, is semper sibi instans. Thus, he packs more into one page than most can into a lifetime. Don’t knock him.
Mr. Rowlett (and others) should resist the temptation to write
@opluso
A matter of opinion. On reflection his usage is more correct than the usual “Democratic” adjectival form. Consider; it is the Labour government, or the Tory government, not the “Laboritic” or “Toryitic” government. It is an accident of history that the GOP’s “Republican” label serves as both noun and adjective.
D.J. Hawkins:
It is a matter of being correct (Democratic Party) or incorrect (Democrat Party). The proper noun “Democratic” is the proper form. The incorrect spelling is the creation of Republican consultants (like Frank Luntz) who learned that the word “democratic” left a favorable impression with voters. Their talking points memo was distributed years ago. Perhaps you missed it.
opluso: It’s the Democrat Party
MarkW:
I suggest you Google it.
Given that Mr. Rowlett was writing on behalf of a gentleman who suffers frequent, unwarranted challenges to his title, I would expect greater sensitivity to proper form. Leave schoolyard taunts to the schoolyard.
opluso … Nice try. No cigar. It had always been the Democrat party until a couple decades ago. Then the ‘Democrat Party’ decided that the ‘Democratic Party’ had a better ring to it and changed it’s name. Now, as they are wont to do, they have conveniently ‘forgotten’ and are trying to alter history by saying ‘it has always been thus.’ Many of us have better memories and refuse to play along.
And why is it, every time you all try to change language AND history, you always drag Frank Luntz into it??? Y’all need to upgrade your scapegoats … Luntz is getting a bit frazzled.
Teapartygeezer:
Wrong. The roots of today’s Democratic Party go back to Thomas Jefferson’s Democratic-Republican Party. The formal name “Democratic Party” was adopted in 1844. The only thing that changed “a couple decades ago” was that Newt Gingrich hired Frank Luntz. Luntz did not invent the idea of controlling the political vocabulary (the technique goes back far beyond Orwell) but he did a remarkable job of refining the process. Gingrich, taking his cues from the history of radical-Left activism, organized House Republicans around a series of issues and heavily relied upon Luntz to produce the talking points and help conduct the training. Even though Luntz is no longer the favorite of the Republican Party’s leadership, his focus on the exclusive use of specific words and phrases remains part of the training of all Republican candidates.
In my opinion, those who criticize the inaccuracies and false statements that are so common in the climate debate should avoid becoming targets for silly, distracting criticisms themselves. Unless, of course, you have no desire to win the public debate and simply wish to antagonize your opponents.
One of the most persuasive writers for me is Sir Thomas More’. I find it amazingly clear and unambiguous once you get used to the style.
Effective is what gets the job done. It doesn’t need your approval or mine. It does have many “dog whistles” which are attention-getters, a subtle warning of things to come if ignored.
Good letter, but if the object is to embarrass Harvard in the court of public opinion, I doubt if this will see the light of day outside of blogs like WUWT. Are there any grounds for a lawsuit? That would get Harvard’s attention, and maybe that of the press, too. Obviously Lord Monckton has no standing, but Dr. Soon might—for what? Defamation of character? Maybe, if it could be argued that Harvard’s actions resulted in Dr. Soon’s diminished opportunity to win more grants, thus inability to practice his profession, and loss of income.
/Mr Lynn
You miss the alumni impact, their major endowment source. See a comment below.
The alumni won’t see this post, unless somehow it ends up in the New York Times (or perhaps Harvard Magazine). Unless of course major donors happen to be Climate Realists and subscribe to the ‘skeptical’ point of view. Apparently you qualify, judging from the attention you got: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/05/05/fighting-back-against-the-double-standard-on-climate-funding-at-harvard/#comment-1926653 Are there more here?
/Mr Lynn
Mr Lynn
We have not only seen it, we are spreading the word.
Best
If the EPA sets strong standards for the gas necessary for photosynthetic respiration? Talk about regulatory overreach! Where are the peer reviewed studies? The only ones I know about are for optimal levels of CO2 for plant growth which endorse concentrations by far beyond than any thing dreamed of by the AGW bunch
I see the Climate Liars have used their standard practice of conflating real pollution with the fake pollution, CO2.
So,
This letter belongs in a full-page ad in the Harvard Crimson.
Now that would be something to see. However, the Crimson would tell you it was “hate speech” and as such, not run the letter. Remember, this is Haaavaaad. Their the bastion of the left, anti-free speech and all.
I wonder if the Lampoon would run it?
Helicopter leaflet campaign?
+1,000,000
What a perfect letter! I look forward to the response and some decent action from Harvard. I won’t hold my breath on the latter, but I’ll enjoy watching them squirm. We need a lot more of this. Excellent, excellent stuff.
Every time they get busted, a new study comes out the next day. The truth doesn’t phase these climate liars!
As the lies grow mold and the gene code of the liars is passed on “down”, still yet too Lt. for life John F. Kerry still struts on his lie built stage the hero of the lot of these new temperature frauds who lie down his well healed path.
So much judgement needed, so many who sin with lies, and the liar media hunched over with the load on and on it goes as we who were lied to and about yearn for just one of the guilty in the docket call by any passing judge with a smidgen of honor.
We wait,
When will the demon of History judge these low liars, he sees them, he knows them, he has the long hot anger, still he sits, on his huge red eyed horse, the steel hooves send up hot sparks of anger, back in the tree line, just there in the shadows, they should fear him, they will fear him, he will come for them.
Clop, Clop, Clop, CLOP, CLOP, CLOP,,,,,,
You know that Ms. Dwyer will somehow get Harvard off the hook on this. The left has always known how to sweep their disasters under the rug.
Just ask Hilary…..
Scott, Cannot answer for Hillary, but sure as H am working on that other H. I promise.
co-authors have received these grants from the EPA: Driscoll $3,654,609; Levy $9,514,391; Burtraw $1,991,346; and Schwartz (Harvard) $31,176,575.
Mine Gott in himmell! Surely this is federal, criminal, fraud?
Harvard certainly won’t like this exposure. This is the sort of information they don’t want out, but out it is now. It might seem that it will only be viewed on these blogs, but these blogs reach a far wider audience than is realized and the news – and truth – will spread. Harvard will have to respond, even if only to try and contain the damage.
That letter packs a punch! 🙂
It might also be useful to send a copy of the note to Revkin and other influential reporters in a very public way.
They will undoubtedly see it here, but they could plausibly deny having done so. If they decide not to publish it, it must be made clear that it was a willful decision on their part.
Good thinking!
Time to send in the Lawyers.
You have written evidence of fraud.
This post is personally painful. But, as a triple grad, at least I have had the privilege of already telling Pres. Drew Faust Gilpin in writing that so long as Naomi Oreskes remains a (new) Harvard faculty member, they won’t get a further dime from me. Three of Harvard’s alumni solicitors have flown down to visit, incredulous. Each was treated to a very nice lunch on me, and each firmly received the same message. Decisions have consequences. The climate tide is starting to ebb.
Ristvan, good on you.
It would be interesting to know whether other alumni are taking your principled stand. I suspect that you are making a significant impact.
Follow the money – or lack of same!
Yes, we are.
Jim, what are you doing? I never donate, but I can write. Maybe an alumni petition?
/Mr Lynn
Mr. lynn
write me at bubbapbuh at gmail.com and we’ll talk.
are you also an alum?
Well thanks to you, the Harvard endowment is down to 32 billion.
Now tweet it. 😉 You, too, Monckton.
Sorry, Rud.
Oreskes is the perfect employee for those who really pull the strings at Harvard. She is a tool, used to accomplish a task. Do you think that the reputation of Harvard matters a whit to those people? Harvard is their toolkit.
About 5 months ago, I read an article that the CO2 Extremists realized the Polar Bear schtick wasn’t working; thus they decided to use health concerns to baffle the low-information public. The idea also included aspirations to use ‘children’ to trigger an emotional appeal (to the dimwits). As we know, fer and emotion are the major trigger points affecting opinion.
Since then, I have come across a number of articles on health issues, caused by GloBull Warming (of course).
I too would love to see this letter published across the universe.
I believe we will all find that the tide is now turning.
People are susceptible to emotional appeals, it is true.
But once they have an inkling that they are being manipulated, the tactic backfires on the manipulators.
Telling people that they are roasting to death, while instead they are freezing their tushies off, is bound to alert all but the most brain-dead sycophants that something is amiss.
Don’t count on it. Just look at the wealth of information out there which refutes every claim of the climate fear mongers. Have you heard POTUS, or the head of EPA, or any other bureaucrat recant any official climate pronouncements, in even the slightest degree?
None of us call the shots. There are very few people that call the shots and they are not elected and they do not have your best interests in mind, They are the ones who employ Harvard graduates, primarily in upper management positions throughout the bureaucracy, where elections do not matter. Only the agenda from on high matters. We have no say, despite appearances.The rules may be subtly adjusted to stave off the heads- in- baskets sentiment from time to time, but it’s all smoke and mirrors.
There will be no notice by the MSM.
This is a great post! Sad, but great.
Thank you.
I have on rare occasions lamented not going to Haaa-Vaaad. I shall never lament again. This is shameful, blatant, unconscionable, and ignoring it will only make it more so.
Gets a mention at Jo Nova’s
http://joannenova.com.au/2015/05/epa-authors-media-miss-31-million-dollar-potential-conflict-of-interest/
“….As they keep us afraid fortunes are being made,
In the name of saving our earth;
From climate scientists to Al Gore, now all earning much more;
Alarmism increasing net worth…..”
Read more: http://wp.me/p3KQlH-ID
Regardless of the scientific research being conducted, grant applicants have long learned that simply adding the phrase, “…and the possible impacts of CO2 induced global warming on (fill in the blank), will greatly increase the probability of getting grant approval…
The worse “the possible impacts” projected, the more brownie points the “researcher” earns for future “research” grants; a self-licking ice cream cone.
This corrupt process will continue until CAGW is finally disconfirmed, which shouldn’t take long given almost 19 years with no global warming trend and counting, and all the other dire CAGW predictions that are now so laughably wrong.
I can’t believe this silly hypothesis is still taken seriously.
Verbose.
Simply put:
1) A lead Author wrote in a press release:
2) This endorses the US EPA position.
3) They claim independence from the US EPA with the words:
4) Yet four of the co authors have received grants from the US EPA totalling close to $50 million.
Summary:
The report is not independent and they hid they fact.
(Poor peer reviewing too).
Mr Courtney is not, perhaps, experienced in establishing a legal case. He seems to think that listing the names of the study’s authors or the doi: reference to their commentary or a summary of the mistreatment of Dr Soon is “verbose”. No: it is the minimum necessary to establish that a fraud by misrepresentation has occurred. The single-page letter makes all the necessary points and provides all the necessary information to enable a third party to verify those points at once. The police, when they get the file, will be able to read the single page and grasp the matter straight away.
As for the four questions with which the letter ends, it was necessary to ask those questions so that Harvard would have a fair chance to reply before the file was sent to the police. So far, Harvard has not replied. My experience of corrupt entities – for I used to investigate frauds for HMG – is that when they are confronted with the unanswerable they do not answer. To any experienced fraud investigator, failure to answer what is on any view a serious and well founded allegation of criminality is a red flag. It is not proof of guilt, but it is strongly suggestive of it.
Bottom line: there is very little in that one page that did not need to be there. So why not stick to the main point in future, which is that Harvard has become corrupt, instead of complaining about such secondary considerations as style?
I concede that I am not a lawyer and so may not speak legalese.
But I do question your confidence that the police, when they get the file, will be able to read the single page and grasp the matter straight away. It isn’t that clear.
And the difference between a press release statement and the paper itself is not addressed. For criminal charges to be brought (rather than a slap on the wrist for poor practise) I think it does need to be addressed.
But I am not a lawyer.
M Courtney says “I question your confidence that the police, when they get the file, will be able to read the single page and grasp the matter straight away.”
As Obi-wan-kenobi would say, “This is not the file you are looking for.” This is a warning shot. You may be right about police not grasping the matter right away but that’s rather insulting of police.
Mr Courtney deludes himself. The matter is entirely clear. A researcher from Harvard took £31 million in grants from the EPA. He co-authored a paper praising the EPA’s politically contentious shut-down-America policy. He declared that he had no conflict of interest. Harvard then described the paper he co-authored as “independent”. The misrepresentation was drawn to Harvard’s attention and it was foolish enough and corrupt enough not to withdraw or even to amend the offending press release, thereby establishing that it intended to deceive. Various Harvard officials had falsely accused Willie Soon of failing to declare a conflict of interest when he had nothing to declare and was in any event under a contractual obligation not to declare. The double standard is palpable. That’s it. Let us not argue about style. Let us stick to the substance, which everyone except Mr Courtney has had not the slightest difficulty in comprehending at once.
Sure there’s a double standard but has any particular law been broken ?
J Martin should read the head posting. Fraud by misrepresentation is the offense.
Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
I wouldn’t want to be in Marge Dwyer’s shoes and look forward to watching this story unfold.
Its hard being humble when you are always right, and my double standard is therefore ok because i’m always right.
I find this to be a dire and catastrophic situation for an institute like Harvard to find itself in. Inept and crass statements leave a fractured picture of the quality of academia in relation to climate science.
The reality is that when Ms Dwyer look at the balance sheet what they will see it that much if the money the EPA has paid out has not actually gone to the researchers but to Harvard itself , as is normal [practice] .
Now if you remember why Penn State said Mann was ‘innocent’ it was has much has anything to do with the fact that he brought in a lot of money to Penn State, so could not have done wrong . along with the fact he told them he did no wrong.
You have the same case hear and indeed in much of the USA university system,where the value of staff comes at least as much has the cash they bring in has the [academic] work they do .
Star ‘academics’ do not have be ‘good academics’ but they do have to be those that ‘attract funding ‘
Given that you have snow balls chance in hell of Dwyer offering more than smoke and mirrors at best to this letter .