Understanding the Ties Between Corporate Funding and the Findings of Climate Scientists
I doubt we’ll even know the entire truth behind money’s influence on climate change research. Here’s an article in the New York Times that discredits one of the few remaining climate deniers who had any real academic qualifications.
From the article:
Wei-Hock Soon (pictued), known as Willie, (is) a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.
But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.
He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.
The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
We all need to grant the possibility that some advocates for climate mitigation could be influenced by their sponsors.
Having said that, as the years go by and as I get to know more of these scientists personally, the more convinced I become of the validity of the AGW (anthropogenic global warming) theory.
Even if it weren’t for my personal connections, I would go back to what Jeremy Grantham says here, as I find him to be the most level-headed and credible voice on the subject. A few years ago I wrote that I don’t get too passionate on the subject, and normally try to change the subject when it comes up on a radio or television interview. After all, why not simply talk about any one of the less confrontational aspects of the fashion by which humankind is busily ruining its only home?
Obviously, there are few who don’t believe that human activity is causing climate disruption. (That very few of them are scientists doesn’t seem to matter.) But are there people who don’t believe in lung cancer? Terrorism? In any case, I wrote:
However, when pressed for my true beliefs on AGW, I have to admit that I get really stern. What remaining hair I have on the back of my arms stands up and blood vessels swell in my forehead as I forcibly . . . . suggest that they read Jeremy Grantham’s piece on the subject: Everything You Need To Know About Global Warming in Five Minutes. It’s a short essay that, in my estimation, sums up the world’s best thinking on the subject.
His analysis of the science and the logic of the subject is excellent. But his analysis of the idea of climate scientists’ motive to cheat on their findings is even better. He writes:
“… They formed a conspiracy to pull off a massive hoax because they…?”
There really is no good answer to that question — and who but Grantham (pictured right) could have made that point in such a casual, unadorned style? Everyone reading this knows a few scientists, but I don’t think anybody knows one who likes limelight, drama, testifying in front of Congress, or loud, embarrassing arguments with ultra-rightwing radio talk-show buffoons.
If you told me that the moguls of Hollywood, or Madison Avenue, or Wall Street were trying to pull off such a conspiracy, you might have earned my attention. But the overwhelming majority of university professors? Sorry.
Grantham’s hardly a bleeding-heart liberal; he’s an icon of modern-day unapologetic super-capitalism, managing $107 billion in assets. I hope you’ll enjoy his level-headed common sense thinking on the topic.
Ah, good. Having written this has calmed me down. Those pulsating blood vessels have subsided. But don’t get me started again, or I swear by God I’ll . . . . refer you to another article.
For any who aren’t utterly solid in their understanding and conclusions on the issue, here’s one very rational way to examine this human climate disruption debate:
Let’s say that there are two possible conditions, and two possible responses.
Here are our opposing conditions…
Condition 1: The overwhelming majority of all our climate scientists are quite correct about the disruption that modern human activity is now causing in global temperatures, and are conservatively understating aspects of the actual threat.
Condition 2: The weight of science is totally misplaced, and the disruptive climate effects produced by modern human fossil-fueled activity are negligible and highly overestimated.
Here are our opposing responses…
Response A: We do all that we can to reduce our output of all the contributing pollutants, and to increase our energy efficiency, and we do our best to scrub the atmosphere by considerable reforestation with carbon-retaining trees, etc.
Response B: We do nothing at all, and simply continue with accelerating our present inefficient and polluting behavior.
So, four scenarios become possible, depending on the reality and our behavior…
Scenario 1A: The science is quite sound, and we act to lessen the impact considerably, by changing our behavior so that we pollute far less – this makes us, our children, and future generations far safer and much more comfortable.
Scenario 2A: The science is all wrong, and we lose some money and effort changing our behavior to reduce pollutants and increase efficiency (things that would be good anyway).
Scenario 1B: The science is quite sound, but we fail to act and we condemn ourselves and our offspring to shattering worldwide turmoil and severe and enduring harm to the biosphere for many centuries, and conceivably for millennia.
Scenario 2B: The science is all wrong and we change nothing, stay inefficient, and keep on polluting our world.
This strikes me as very much like buying insurance – if you dodge a bullet and nothing happens, then you lose some money in exchange for peace of mind – but then if something does happen, and you’re not insured, then may God help you.
Question: Do you have insurance, or do you prefer to dodge bullets?
Yes, I have seen this type of analysis before. Unfortunately it doesn’t take in the political realities. From the perspective of some of the wealthiest corporations on the planet efficiency and reducing our pollution sounds too much like eliminating their market. They will and do use the vast capital at their disposal to maintain their livelihood. Any solution that attempts to proceed without the oil companies at the table had better have some alternative form of political and economic power to bear. To the extent that this is missing from the equation of course there is inaction.
When I hear rumors of oil companies funding everything from scientists dubious research and political influence to assassination and even murder… I am not surprised considering their potential motivations to stockholders, an ongoing business, and not to either act morally or for the general welfare of the planet. We have created this monster and to somehow pretend that it does not exist or has any say in the climate debate seems the most sophomoric of all possible perspectives.
Our belief in “Science” is so fundamental that we somehow expect that the power to change also rests in the science. Rather the challenge should also be going to economists and political scientists that we need a path from our present to the future.
Which version of “climate change?” There is a ‘media narrative” and a “political rhetoric” as well as any science going on. It is the “media narrative” that most of us hear. The “political rhetoric” follows, but well ahead of any science. Many ‘scientists’ quoted in the media and cited by politicians are stumping for research grants and little acknowledge the fact. There are, in fact, scientists who disagree, but we have to search to find their opinions. Why?
The main article above and petrochemical company motivations suggest that scientists who disagree are in the 3 percentile, are practicing dubious science, and are being paid for specific results. Perhaps it is not true, but I will have to hear something more convincing than a cry of “Why” as if invoking some common law doctrine of “Res ipsa loquitur” (the thing speaks for itself.) On the contrary, a minority opinion at a vote is overruled. Unfortunately we are not voting but listening ad nauseam to the voice of a vocal and disproportionately powerful minority.
Science, logic, morality, social and environmental welfare are all against the minority opinion. If corruption and political influence keep us from moving forward continuing to stress “the science” is a myopic failure to acknowledge economic and political realities.
There are no economic or political realities. These ideas are illusions supported by beliefs concerning how we choose to operate the systems of the world we choose to see.
Reblogged this on Energy post.
Unfortunately for me, I have never received any offer from anyone let alone any fuel organisation, but then I am only a small fish it seems.
However I did, with only a little digging, find this information about one of the most dangerous lobbiests in the world who made his initial fortune by having an almost complete monopoly on fossil fuel in the United States until his company was broken up by the introduction of the Sherman Act, which I know a little about because I studied it as an undergraduate.
I am of course talking about the Rockefeller family.
Here are some facts which I looked up recently. The Rockefellers are a bit sneaky and tend to show their allegiances with discretion and one has to chase them a bit. However this is what I found.
Simply a fraction of where they are involved I suspect.
The Rockefeller family are supporters of the following and I give the web address so you can look for yourself. However they tend to use slightly different names and often support organisations via another organisation. If you follow the financial trail, of which most “non profit” organisations are usually required to display by the law of their origin, very often the Rockefellers appear.
Here are some examples of what I have found.
1 United Nations http://www.unfoundation.org/what-we-do/partners/organizations/rockefeller-brothers-fund.html
2. ICLEI http://www.iclei.org/en/climate-roadmap/advocacy/global-lg-events/worldmayorssummit/high-level-dialogue-on-financing-local-climate-action.html
3. Resilience http://www.100resilientcities.org/ http://www.un.org/climatechange/summit/wp-content/uploads/sites/2/2014/09/RESILIENCE-Resilient-Cities-Acceleration-Initiative.pdf
4 Oceanwatch Sailing via http://www.conservation.org
http://www.conservation.org/publications/Documents/CI_FY14_AnnualReport.pdf
5 IUCN http://www.iucn.org via 6. WWF http://www.iucn.org/about/union/donors/companies/
Are Rockefellers involved with the WWF? A little tricky to trace but http://assets.panda.org/downloads/wwf_international_corporate_partnerships_report_2014.pdf
Which mention 7 IMD as one of its major supporters. Lets check there.
https://extranet.who.int/iris/restricted/bitstream/10665/65575/1/WHO_EIP_IMD_99.1.pdf
IMD seems to be an arm of the WHO.
Who is a supporter of W.H.O. then? And why does the WHO support the WWF?
http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/en/ search for “rockefeller”
http://www.who.int/en/ search for “rockefeller”
Of course someone else has already catalogued this:
http://www.discoverthenetworks.org/funderprofile.asp?fndid=5322&category=79
Oops, I almost forgot to include this beneficiary of the Rockerfellers.
350.org
https://globalwarmingsupporter.files.wordpress.com/2015/06/350-funded-by-rbf.pdf
Here is a little history.
https://cut2thetruth.wordpress.com/2014/10/07/economics-rockefellers-leaving-oil-business/
It seems that no matter where you go in the “green” or “sustainability” world you trip over the Rockefellers .
Exactly who has Big Oil on their side then?
And believe me, the Rockefellers are not the sort of people who give out money without thinking of whats in it for them!
Actually fossil fuel energy organisations love green, sustainability and AGW.
These “philosophies” ( If they are worthy of the name) will actually benefit oil companies and the like. I don’t mean the miner at the bottom of the heap but those who control it.
Here is why.
Greens bleat out “Don’t use oil it is about to run out and it is heating up the planet.
Oil companies interpret that as “Fossil fuel will always be needed but restrict the supply? Great, can do – We know that will make the price sky rocket, so we can produce less oil, get a huge price and still make as much or more money as before but with fewer expenses! A businessman’s dream!
Read more about the Rockefellers here.
http://www.green-agenda.com/agenda21.html
This blog above is generally quite reliable as I have verified many of the things said there from other sources.
Cheers
Roger
http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com