Is the Pope a climate hysteric?
You may recall the harsh attacks that the warmist-inspired mainstream media launched in February on skeptic Willie Soon for an alleged failure to disclose a financial conflict of interest in a study he co-authored.
You may recall that warmist-friendly politicians like Raul Grijalva (D-Ariz.), Barbara Boxer (D-Calif.), Ed Markey (D-Mass.) and Sheldon Whitehouse (D-R.I.) piled on by sending menacing letters about funding climate skeptics to universities and energy companies.
You may also recall that all this hoopla was really just a marketing effort for the then about-to-premiere documentary “Merchants of Doubt,” a film version of Naomi Oreskes eponymous climate skeptic-smearing book.
You may also be aware that on May 7, a study co-authored by Naomi Oreskes appeared in the journal Global Environmental Change.
The study claimed that climate skeptics were distorting scientific debate by forcing the “scientific community” to overstate uncertainty and to understate knowledge. Whatever.
But what is noteworthy about the study is the acknowledgements section, in which the authors are supposed to disclose their funding and conflicts of interest. Here is that disclosure.
As a member of the Harvard University faculty, presumably “Harvard University Faculty development funds” was intended to cover any disclosures required for Oreskes.
However, the Harvard faculty is covered by its own conflict of interest code, which provides in pertinent example the following [note the highlighted portion]:
Now we don’t know how much money Naomi Oreskes made from her 2010 book “Merchants of Doubt” and the documentary (which grossed $192,400 in just its first month in release and with the DVD version yet to come) — plus whatever related paid speaking gigs Oreskes snagged — but it sure seems like all that financial interest was something in excess of $5,000. And it sure looks like, under Harvard rules, Oreskes should have disclosed her financial interests in the study.
Here are the conflict of interest disclosure rules for the journal Global Environmental Change:
These standards clearly cover profits from intellectual property and personal politics/opinions.
But of course, all that is just silly rule-breaking which only matters when it comes to destroying demonic climate skeptics.
What’s really astounding is the arrogance of Naomi Oreskes.
In the New York Times “hit piece” on Willie Soon, Oreskes had the chutzpah to chime in as follows:
So what about a dose of her own medicine? Should her Global Environmental Change paper be retracted? What about her other publications on climate and skeptics?