Remember just two months ago when the media savaged climate skeptic Willie Soon for supposedly failing to disclose industry funding? It’s a pity the media doesn’t.
Yesterday, the media trumpeted a new article in the journal Nature Climate Change supporting EPA’s claim that its carbon dioxide rule would save thousands of lives per year. Here’s the New York Times headline:
The study authors,
were simply and innocuously described by the media as:
- “researchers at Syracuse and Harvard Universities” (New York Times);
- “scientists from Harvard and Syracuse universities and four other institutions” (Washington Post)
- “from Harvard and Syracuse University” (Associated Press).
And, of course, why would the articles authors be described in any other way since they made the following disclosure at the end of the article:
Article co-author Driscoll even told the Buffalo News that he had “no dog in the fight”:
But is this really true? Do Charles Driscoll, Joel Schwarz and Jonathan Levy really have NO competing financial interests?
Anyone who follows EPA air quality “research” is no doubt convulsing at this claim.
Below are listed the article’s authors and the dollar amounts of EPA grants with which they are associated as principal investigators”:
- Charles T. Driscoll: $3,654,608
- Jonathan J. Buonocore: $9,588
- Jonathan I. Levy: $9,514,391
- Kathleen F. Lambert: 0
- Dallas Burtraw: $1,991,346
- Stephen B. Reid: 0
- Habibollah Fakhaei: 0
- Joel Schwartz: $31,176,575
Now how could Schwartz’s $31,176,575 or Levy’s $9,514,361 or Driscoll’s $3,654,608 from EPA possibly be considered as a “competing financial interest” in an article they wrote in support of EPA’s flagship regulatory effort?
Comically, the US News and World Report reported:
A Harvard School of Public Health media release described the researchers as “independent”:
Right… the $45 million these researchers have been paid by EPA over the years — plus the prospect of more money — had no influence over them.
Let’s not overlook that Driscoll admitted to the Pittsburgh Post-Gazette that the result of this study was predetermined:
It’s like shooting fish in a barrel. Anyway…
Willie Soon was repeatedly raked over the coals by the media for his alleged failure to disclose industry funding of his work. Democrats in Congress (Rep. Raul Grijalva, and Sens. Boxer/Markey/Whitehouse) launched attacks on universities and businesses for funding climate skeptics.
Soon defended himself by saying:
… In submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.
“If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors-on all sides of the debate-are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists…
The hypocrisy (is there a stronger word?) is breathtaking.