Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule

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:

EPA study headline NYTimes 050515

The study authors,

Driscoll 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:

Driscoll disclosure

Article co-author Driscoll even told the Buffalo News that he had “no dog in the fight”:

Driscoll no dog in fight comment

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”:

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:

Driscoll EPA not part clip

A Harvard School of Public Health media release described the researchers as “independent”:

Driscoll Harvard clip 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:

Driscoll wanted to bring attention

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.

Oh and by the way, the claim that EPA’s carbon dioxide rules is going to save lives is total nonsense.

Update: Lord Monckton has filed a research misconduct complaint with Harvard University.

7 thoughts on “Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule”

  1. Actually, the global warming crowd loves UHI’s. They put enough of their temperature monitors in a hot asphalt parking lot and (presto) you have global warming.

  2. In a brief letter I terminated my subscription to Smithsonian. I identified that organization’s mistreatment of Dr. Soon as the specific reason for the termination and invited a response. Haven’t received a response and don’t expect to.

  3. No argument. Presumably you have heard about Urban Heat Islands, right? Unfortunately, even the alarmists have long since recognized that the rural areas surrounding these heat islands show no impact from the UHI. Furthermore, UHIs make up a very small portion of the earth’s surface (70% being water, and, where there is land – there is mostly forests, deserts, jungles, mountaineous areas, plains, etc.,

  4. EPA has funded various organizations to support their rulings to the tune of $ 50 billion the last ten years.

    James H. Rust,

  5. Humans can definitely change the local climate. Walk on a road in southern California on a hot day. Asphalt changes the local temperature significantly.

  6. The EPA has blinders on, whatever logic they choose, reality is something different. So if we have less CO2, temperatures will be cooler? That saves lives how? Hotter is good, more CO2 good, thinking that humans can change climate foolish. Being able to measure the effects of mankind’s actions, unmeasurable. Making a ton of money by regulations is the goal. Killing millions of people with regulations, true but ignored.

  7. The study (funded by EPA grants) claims that by reducing carbon dioxide we would save lives?
    Plants would not grow as well and without plants the animals would not thrive and without plants and animals, we are in trouble.
    That is a poor definition of saving lives – even by EPA standards.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.