Introduction
The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline, immune to the biases and financial conflicts that plague other scientific domains. However, a recent preprint study by Jessica Weinkle et al, Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes, challenges this assumption, shedding light on an alarming lack of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in climate research, particularly in studies linking hurricanes to climate change. She also has an excellent write up of the study on her Substack, Conflicted.
The study’s findings reveal a disturbing trend: not a single one of the 331 authors analyzed disclosed any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest. Moreover, the research found that funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricane behavior.
This revelation should prompt serious scrutiny of the integrity of climate science, particularly in areas with high policy relevance. Given the influence of climate research on regulatory frameworks, financial markets, insurance policies, and public perception, it is imperative that the same rigorous COI disclosure standards applied in other scientific fields be enforced here.
The Study: A Long-Overdue Investigation
Weinkle and colleagues analyzed 82 peer-reviewed studies on the relationship between climate change and hurricanes published between 1994 and 2023. Their objective was to determine whether author affiliations, research funding, and COI disclosures were associated with study outcomes or policy recommendations.
Their key findings include:
- NGO funding was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricanes (odds ratio = 8.72, p-value = 0.03).
- Studies published in 2016 or later were more likely to report a climate change-hurricane link (odds ratio = 9.19, p-value = 0.002).
- Not a single author out of 331 disclosed a COI, a stark contrast to biomedical research, where COI disclosure rates range from 17% to 33%.
- First authors with government affiliations were more likely to make policy recommendations (odds ratio = 9.6, p-value = 0.01).
These findings suggest a profound bias in climate change research, one that aligns suspiciously well with the interests of NGOs and policymakers rather than an objective pursuit of scientific truth.
The Role of NGO Funding: A Clear Bias
One of the study’s most critical findings is that NGO funding was a strong predictor of studies concluding that climate change influences hurricanes. This should raise immediate red flags, considering that NGOs often have clear political and financial incentives to promote catastrophic climate narratives.
Environmental NGOs and progressive philanthropic organizations have become major players in climate policy and research funding. Unlike industry funding, which is typically scrutinized for bias, NGO funding operates under an assumption of moral superiority. Yet, as Weinkle et al. demonstrate, this funding significantly correlates with specific research outcomes—suggesting a funding effect similar to the well-documented bias introduced by pharmaceutical industry sponsorship in biomedical research.
In other words, just as pharmaceutical companies fund studies likely to support their drugs, climate-focused NGOs appear to fund research that supports their policy agendas. The absence of scrutiny here is a glaring double standard.
The Stunning Absence of COI Disclosures
Perhaps the most shocking finding of the study is that none of the 331 authors disclosed any conflicts of interest. This is practically unheard of in other fields where COI disclosures are mandatory. For comparison:
- In biomedical research, approximately 22.9% of articles disclose COIs.
- In public health, COI disclosure rates range from 17% to 33%.
- In contrast, climate science appears to exist in a COI-free utopia, despite clear financial and political entanglements.
Weinkle et al. found multiple instances of undeclared COIs, including:
- Authors holding relevant patents and advising climate risk analytics and financial firms.
- Authors serving as advisors for climate litigation.
- Authors affiliated with insurance industry associations.
- Authors collaborating with advocacy organizations to develop research for climate litigation.
These are classic COIs that should have been disclosed under any reasonable scientific ethics standard.
Policy Implications: Manipulating the Narrative
Beyond individual researcher biases, the study highlights a broader institutional issue: government-affiliated authors were far more likely to make policy recommendations. This finding challenges the perception that government-funded science is inherently neutral.
Climate research heavily influences public policy, and recommendations based on biased or financially motivated research can have immense societal costs. Policies driven by flawed or selective research include:
- Carbon taxes and energy restrictions based on exaggerated climate risk projections.
- Legal frameworks that enable lawsuits against energy companies.
- Increased insurance premiums based on inflated hurricane risk models.
If climate research is influenced by undisclosed COIs, as this study suggests, then many of these policies are based on potentially compromised data.
The Urgent Need for Reform
The Weinkle study highlights an urgent need for climate science to adopt rigorous COI disclosure policies comparable to those in biomedical research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides a solid template for financial and non-financial COI disclosures, which climate journals should implement immediately.
Further recommendations include:
- Mandatory COI disclosures: Climate science journals must require authors to disclose all financial and non-financial COIs, with clear definitions of what constitutes a conflict.
- Independent COI audits: An independent entity should oversee COI compliance in climate research to ensure transparency.
- Centralized COI database: Similar to the U.S. government’s Open Payments database for physicians, a centralized system should track COIs in climate science.
- Balanced funding sources: Governments and private entities should ensure diverse funding sources to prevent any single ideological influence.
If climate scientists genuinely care about maintaining public trust, they should welcome these changes.
Time to Clean House
The Weinkle et al. study is a wake-up call for anyone who still believes climate science is an objective, bias-free discipline. The overwhelming correlation between NGO funding and climate change-hurricane research outcomes, coupled with the complete absence of COI disclosures, exposes a deeply entrenched problem.
The fact that not a single author among 331 disclosed a conflict of interest should be viewed as a scientific scandal. If such a pattern were observed in pharmaceutical or medical research, there would be widespread public outcry and immediate reforms. Yet, in climate science, this level of opacity is tolerated—perhaps because it serves the interests of powerful political and financial actors.
At the very least, this study proves that climate science is not above bias. The question is: Will the scientific community acknowledge and correct these issues, or will it continue to operate under a veil of selective transparency?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Color me Shocked… Great work, this is what we all knew and others remained silent because they like the money. NGO spending needs to end. DOGE to the rescue. Send these names to DOGE office and cut off all of their funding.
Being funded by an environmentalist NGO or a government whose policy is NetZero or The Green New Deal is itself an obvious conflict of interest. Notably, most of the nonTrue Believers on “Climate Science” are retired, or soon retire, like Pielke or Judith Curry. Not toeing the party line is a way to not be funded.
“This revelation should prompt serious scrutiny of the integrity of climate science, particularly in areas with high policy relevance.” No shit Sherlock. Trump may be <insert nasty adjective here> but he’s in the process of blowing up NGOs for what they are …. paid shills.
Santa Clause, The Easter Bunny, & Tooth Fairy have long been presented to children as non-fiction characters that are never seen but are never the less real entities, as opposed to obvious fictions produced by the entertainment industry.
Just another concrete example of what has been obvious for a very long time.
’Don’t bite the hand that feeds you’ has been a ‘climate science’ motto for a long time. It was always only classic ‘climate science’ projection to repeatedly claim that climate skeptics are paid shills for big oil.
Please check out https://datarepublican.com/, you can enter a name and see all public NGO connections with the name. An amazing website, super sophisticated, very easy access to query multiple public databases. The data has been public all along, but with no easy, meaningful way to access and associate the data. That has now changed!
Thanks, good to know. As far as not specifically climate marine science papers I suspect that an unknown fair number don’t know they have an ‘ethical’ or COI problem. Such admittance is rare. Also frequently an IPCC de facto reference and never(?) the NIPCC (non-governmental). Maybe someone has counted the large number which have management recommendations which are often also de facto, just do something with climate often mentioned directly or indirectly. For example, after the Louisiana oil spill I only found one that cited the earliest large study on the effect of oil research project (1947-1962), Projects 9 and 23 of the Texas A & M Research Foundation. The director (Sewell Hopkins) happened to be my major mentor. Some got published but much only available as reports. I did not work on the project but went to college with several that did. Search for Project 9 and you get music or brewery.
Some is just cultural (get it done yesterday) some survivalist, some ignorant (too much information), and some nefarious. I’ve known all types but don’t know the ratios. Minor bias is hard to avoid but not about these egregious areas of concern. Ethical committees came along well after it degenerated.
Looks like Elon is aware of this website. Would love to see one of the next exec orders coming out shutting down funding of these NGOs.
USAID funded the fraudulent Gas Stove causes asthma study, then 3 weeks later the Biden administration started the campaign to ban gas Stoves.
Nice Coordination.
It’s almost as if they knew what the results of the study would be before it was published. /sarc
Almost?
What study would that be?
Studies linking gas stoves to asthma
A 2013 meta-analysis of 41 studies found that gas cooking increases the risk of asthma in children.
A 2022 study found that 12.7% of childhood asthma cases in the U.S. can be attributed to gas stove use.
Other studies have shown that nitrogen dioxide (NO2), a lung irritant, is linked with childhood asthma.
OMG I love that a meta-analysis study what is next a study of ouija board results
The original comment said USAID funded “the study” I asked which study that was and pointed out there were dozens of studies on the subject.
Best known are the studies by NIAID, which is NOT USAID…. USAID does not fund the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID). Congress funds NIAID through public laws, which are bills and resolutions that are passed by both houses of Congress and signed by the President.
It is hard to believe the childhood gas/asthma connection was based no just ONE study, that just happened to be funded by USAID, as stated in the original comment..
The National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), part of the National Institutes of Health,. NIH Establishes New Childhood Asthma Clinical Research …
Maybe your overweight people get asthma?
If AGW is “settled” science, why are any more studies on the subject & funding required?
If funding grants are stopped, do the lucrative income streams for universities’ “overhead costs” of commissioned studies dry up?
If the grants money tree is felled, does that put an end to the “climate crisis” narrative / propaganda?
If the foregoing points were realized, wouldn’t younger generations have a more positive outlook about their futures?
It occurs to me that the lack of COI’s is evidence of the suppression of alternate views on climate. The assumption in this post is that people with a financial interest are those who are promoting AGW. For other topics, there would be people with COI’s on both sides. There should be articles on the climate that oppose AGW and are written by people with a stake in the energy industry or some other beneficiary of the continued access to cheaper energy. The absence of those could be caused by those people not submitting a COI statement but is more likely caused by most such voices being silenced.
This does not surprise me in the least !.
Everyone who has an income has a conflict of interest
They would prefer not to say or do anything that could endanger their income
So what?
This BS article is just a generic character attack
Address the science of a study
Not how the author earns a living
The hypocrite author of this article does not list his own source of fus or whether he was paid for this article.
Based on HUGE conflicts of interest Musk ad his merry me, one of whom is a tech CEO, should never get near any government agencies and their confidential data.
They would prefer not to say or do anything that could endanger their income
You omitted the most essential word that would give your critique some credibility, Richard.
That word is –egregiousadjective
So your comment should have read –
“They would prefer not to say or do anything egregious that could endanger their income”.
Which is the whole point of the article –
egregious conduct by climate researchers, funders and publishers.
Everyone is biased
Everyone has conflicts of interest
Everyone has beliefs not based on facts, data and logic … No one is like the logical Vulcans on Star Trek
“The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline”
WRONG
Much of consensus climate science is predictions of the future climate not based on any objective data. And almost always wrong. There are no data for the future climate. Calling a wrong prediction objective is a lie.
“These findings suggest a profound bias in climate change research, one that aligns suspiciously well with the interests of NGOs … ”
You need a Ph.D. and a study to state the obvious: The people paying for studies influence the conclusions? We knew that when cigarette companies paid scientists and doctors to claim cigarettes were safe from the 1930s through the 1960s.
The goal of this article is to discredit climate science studies in general without an analysis of the science presented in any particular study.
The article implies a study with the “right” funding that does reveal conflicts of interest is automatically better than a study that is funded by the “wrong” organization that does not. reveal conflicts.
The author of the study referenced here is somewhat of a mystery. I could not dowload a copy of the study or read it online. And her other work is paywalled at Substack She appears to be associate professor with a Ph.D. Environmental Studies and Public Policy
Everything after WRONG is your opinion. Full statement of funding and COI can support science, particularly when readers can see that the findings are in opposition to the source of funding. Which, oddly, never seems to happen in climate research.
The first rule of holes should apply at this point. Why dig deeper instead?
Here we go again with a character attack
Accorig to yurt lack of logic: A study ca be attacked without eve reading and analyzing it, merely because of the source of income of the authors?
I suppose you celebrate all studies by authors financed by conservative groups and boo all studies by authors financed by liberal groups?
Finaced by a “wrong” NGO = automatically a bad study, no need to read it.?
If there is no COI note, the study is automatically wrong?
Is it even necessary to read a study before opining about it?
Or do you just agree with studies that say what you already believed?
Leftists dismiss studies based on who wrote them. The Appeal to Authority logical fallacy. You sound like the conservative mirror image of a biased leftist.
The guy who specializes in attacking the character of anyone who disagrees with him, is complaining about a very mild character attack?
Well, you are a leftist.
Here we go again with a character attack.
Funny. That is exactly what you did in your opening salvo.
Pot meet kettle.
Sure.
But still, there’s a world of difference between unknowing / unconscious bias, conflicts & unrealized beliefs, and egregious conduct in full knowledge of demonstrated bias, conflicts and beliefs.
Conservatives and liberals BOTH guess at the long term effects of CO2 when the answer is unknown. Why believe one side is right and the other side is wrong based on your politics? They’re all guessing.
Then why invest trillions of dollars (pounds, euros) on changing your existing energy systems on a guess? And don’t give me any hogwash about the precautionary principle.
Perhaps had you written this the goal you state would apply. To discredit climate science studies in general.
There’s a link to the study right at the top. !
The prit weas too small I could not read it.
[keep complaining ~ctm]
The print was too small I could not read it.
Besides, I knew in 1997 that the climate models and climate studies would say whatever the governments financing them wanted to hear.
Money talks
GUESSING?! Who needs to guess?!
Until you can explain where CO2’s “climate driving power” was 450mya when Earth plunged into a full-blown GLACIATION with TEN TIMES TODAY’S ATMOSPHERIC CO2 LEVEL, the the “actual,” as opposed to purely hypothetical, “effect” of CO2 cannot be differentiated from ZERO.
I am still puzzled how CO2 bypasses Kirchhoff’s law so easily.
So you have trouble with the colour red. OK.
The prit weas too small I could not read it.
Funny that. I have bad vision and I was able to read it.
Funny that. Are you aware you can enlarge text with simple computer controls?
Excuses. Excuses. Excuses. Mixed in with insults and whining.
[taunting~ctm]
The senior author of the paper was a she!
Typos: “fus” should be “funding” and “ad” should be “and”
You should be more careful!
I wonder who, or what, influences his comments. !
“ just a generic character attack”
Oh — the ironing !!
He is enraged and his mouth is foaming 😀
Hairy Krishna. that was funny
Was that a character attack?
If we apply your standard, this means that we must ignore everything you have written.
So you like government waste and fraud?
I want Congress to follow the law and sharply reduce government spending. My position since 1973. I don’t want dictator Trump ignoring Congress. That is much worse than all the money wasted by government spending
But Trump and all other POTUS use executive orders legally
It’s only legal if they are doing as Richard says 🙂
Trump is illegally impounding funds and closing Congress funded agencies approved by Congres, and implementing new taxes (tariffs are taxes) that are the responsibility of Congress.
He is also ignoring some court orders. So far the worst president in modern times for illegally seizing power from Congress and the courts. He must be stopped or we will have a monarchy, and a king.
So far, the courts have refused to stop Trump. Can you name any of these court orders that Trump has ignored?
I can’t think of any. So far Trump has been winning most of the cases. Those he hasn’t won are either still being heard at the first level or are being appealed to higher levels.
Trump is doing exactly what the people elected him to do..
To cut corrupt and wasteful spending
He has the absolute right.. no.. the absolute OBLIGATION to do so.
He has not ignored any court orders, he waited for them to be rescinded, as they have been.
He as not taken any power from congress and has not gone against the constitution.
Only people listening to far-left whingers like “The View” think that.
He is doing exactly what the people of America ELECTED him to do.
And doing a pretty good job of it so far.
Trump highlights the old age of Americans on the social security roles….
.. and exposes some of the waste and corruption.
Trump Brings The Receipts To Read Off Shocking List Of Taxpayer-Funded Government Programs
DOGE have found well over 10 million, maybe up to 15 million, people on the Social Security register that are over 120 years old.
I wonder how many of them are still getting payments and how many vote for the Democrats ! 😉
btw. USAID was established by an Executive Order by Regan.
So Trump can close it by EO.
It is great that he exposed the total and utter leftist BS and corruption and waste in doing so.
More and more Americans are getting behind him. !
It’s more complicated than that, but the administration is following the law by rolling the remnants in the State Department.
I never suspected the fraud and corruption and waste on totally pointless and inappropriate agendas was so wide-spread and insidious.
It is totally bizarre !
An annotated version of the results of the “first pass” DOGE algorithms that I came across yesterday.
“Humo[u]r … a difficult concept” — Lt. Saavik
That shows 2. There can be only 1!
Is there a sequel in the making?
Maybe Biden will star in it?
You quoted my quote!
Excellent!
Your sleight of hand is obvious since it is how the money is being misused is found in the ADMINISTRATIVE branch not Congress that is under discussion.
Did Congress ever sign off on USAID wasting all money on far-left agenda aimed at destabilising foreign countries.
Nope, I don’t think so
It is USAID that went totally gone off the rails with their corrupt woke agenda.
Totally outside their remit of providing actual “aid”.
Musk and his DOGE team are doing a great job exposing the disgusting, underhanded nature of these agendas.
Same looks like happening in other departments…
… and the Left do not like it, because they are being EXPOSED !
Truly the “Streisand effect” happening on the far leftist media.
Think you meant Executive branch.
Both terms apply.
“I want Congress to follow the law and sharply reduce government spending.”
When has that EVER happened?
He is. Just because you hate him, doesn’t make his actions wrong.
This ^
also, TDS is why they will lose again.
Congress sets budgets. While congress could set the budget for every department, sub-department, office and agency, it has never done that. What it has always done is to set a broad budget, then leave it up to the executive branch to detail out how the money allocated is to be spent.
Even you have admitted that Trump is the head of the Executive branch, as such it is within his constitutional authority, to tell the agencies that are under him, how to spend the money that congress has authorized.
Again, congress does have the power to micromanage how the budget is to be spent.
However, congress has chosen not to do this and instead has left it up to the executive branch. There is no constitutional crisis, and Trump is not abusing his power. I realize that you hate the guy, but that doesn’t mean that everything he does is wrong.
In addition to your comprehensive analysis, the President has discretion as to when the money is spent so long as it is obligated within the fiscal year.
Pony up the evidence or shut up.
The author only reports on research performed and did not perform the research itself.
There is no more a COI than a reporter for the NYT.
Lighten up Frances.
Unfortunately, the rot in so-called “climate science” is systemic, and permeates throughout it. The more you dig, the more you’ll find.
Seems like there is a consensus of 99.9% of self-styled “climate scientists”, that are swilling from the climate trough.
There has certainly been conflict of interest for those trying to link ‘storms to the climate change narrative’ so far this month over on this side of the Atlantic.
As the weather has not been ‘on message’ due to the utter lack of named UK storms so far this month. Should this continue to the end of the month, then this will be the second February in a row to have no named storms.
A rather inconvenient fact when you have the ‘weather extreme linked to climate change’ narrative to peddle.
Climate science has given the science community a black eye. Weinkle et al are far to kind to the publishers, researchers and NGOs/funders. They know exactly what they are doing and they know it isn’t right. These are not grade schoolers we are talking about here. They are well educated, knowledgeable and aware people. They do this because we allow it. Shame on us. This proves that all government agencies who create or initiate policy using climate science research must be audited for deficiencies. By audit I mean all government agencies who have created or initiated climate policy must present the policy and the research and justify their findings to outside ethics reviewers.
In other chilly “news”
https://edition.cnn.com/2025/02/18/weather/frigid-cold-us-flooding-tuesday-hnk/index.html
>> climate science is not above bias
lol.. for many years I am trying to find a discussion by Mann, Bradley or Hughes (yes there were 3 authors in that 98 paper) if there is any potential selection bias in picking this predominant proxy.
And since IPCC6 figure 1a summary for policy makers, I am able to say that nothing has changed in over two decades as Neukom et al. apparently also do not discuss potential selection bias for their Cape Ghir proxy (which shows a nicely alarming trend over 2000 years, but does not match local climate of Morocco at all with well documented roman and middle age warm periods)
At least proxy science does not seem to care about bias.
(And yes I know this is not what is discussed in this article)
They may “present” it as such, but no thinking person believes it for two seconds.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in labaratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.
The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
(From President Eisenhower’s farewell address)
Eisenhower was a prophet.
Technocracy has been the goal since at least Plato.
Go watch Gladiator II and in particular, pay attention to the discussion of politics and power.
Might be relevant.
Al Gore.