Article linked below:
Media beats up Willie Soon, but turns a blind eye to EPA-funded researchers shilling for EPA’s biggest rule...
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?
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....
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.
*that was past work (which was disclosed) and not for the current article on climate models running too hot which was not funded by industry.
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…
http://junkscience.com/2015/05/05/m...d-researchers-shilling-for-epas-biggest-rule/
Junk Science provides direct links to the EPA grant info on the above and more links to relevant EPA actions.
Judith Curry writes about the funding bias issue:
Here is how $$ motivates what is going on. ‘Success’ to individual researchers, particularly at the large state universities, pretty much equates to research dollars – big lab spaces, high salaries, institutional prestige, and career advancement (note, this is not so true at the most prestigious universities, where peer recognition is the biggest deal). At the Program Manager level within a funding agency, ‘success’ is reflected in growing the size of your program (e.g. more $$) and having some high profile results (e.g. press releases). At the agency level, ‘success’ is reflected in growing, or at least preserving, your budget. Aligning yourself, your program, your agency with the political imperatives du jour is a key to ‘success’.
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/06/is-federal-funding-biasing-climate-research/#more-18616
When I worked for the state, one governor decided to investigate agency spending and duplicative work in an effort to reduce spending. It was a difficult position for me; watching the depts banding together to hire someone to review our jobs and justify the need (that was the mandate for the study) vs knowing full well there was a lot of waste (especially with the top positions).
And it is related. EPA has motive to hire researchers who will produce the desired outcome which increases/solidifies their existence. And it is no different than the IPCC mandate:
Today the IPCC's role is as defined in
Principles Governing IPCC Work, "...to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of
human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy, although they may need to deal objectively with scientific, technical and socio-economic factors relevant to the application of particular policies."
http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization_history.shtml
As a side note, Curry has been asked follow-up questions regarding her recent testimony:
http://judithcurry.com/2015/05/05/follow-up-questions-re-my-recent-house-testimony/#more-18620
