Climate Research Has A Serious Conflict-Of-Interest Problem
Recently I was surprised to see a Tweet from a climate researcher who I’ve known for a while that looked like an advertisement for a particular renewable energy company. The researcher was promoting the company to his many followers
Reading on, I saw that the researcher disclosed that he was being paid by the company and had an equity interest. So it was an advertisement. Academics can also be investors, right?
So, no problem? Well, there is a problem.
This researcher was one of the central analysts whose work was used to design and then promote the passage of the Inflation Reduction Act.
The company he is promoting is a direct beneficiary of that legislation. At the same time, the researcher claims that his analyses offer an “independent environmental and economic evaluation of federal energy and climate policies.”
BS. There’s a sucker born every minute.
I called out the researcher on Twitter for taking money not just from one but from many companies that are direct beneficiaries of the legislation he helped to design and sell to policymakers and the public.
All that may well be true, but this absolutely stinks.
I’m not naming the researcher (you can find him easily enough), because his case is far from unique in climate research these days, and this post is about a far bigger more important issue.
There is a gold rush going on in climate research right now, as researchers scramble to cash in on their new-found access to politicians and philanthropists.
As Professor Jessica Weinkle of the University of North Carolina-Wilmington stated in her opening remarks in testimony before the U.S. Senate last week:
“Today, it is not easy to separate the goings-on in climate change research from the special interests of financial institutions.”
She continues:
The landscape of climate change research is made complicated by an outcropping of non-profit advocacy organizations that double as analytic consultants, hold contracts with private companies and government entities, and engage in official government expert advisory roles—all while publishing in the peer-reviewed literature and creating media storms.
This is not really an issue of any one entity. It is pervasive.
Experts monetizing their expertise is one important reason why people become experts, and there is no problem with people seeking to make a buck.
But where expertise and financial interests intersect, things can get complicated.
That is why there are robust mechanisms in place for the disclosure and mitigation of financial conflicts of interest (COI), a subject I’ve focused on for decades.
All of this is just common sense. Your doctor can’t prescribe you drugs from a company that pays him fees.
You wouldn’t think much of a report on smoking and health from a researcher supported by the tobacco industry.
Should climate researchers play by a different set of rules, because the cause is so important?
Call me a stickler, but in my view, the more important the cause, the more important it is to enforce standards of research integrity.
Following her testimony, Weinkle addressed a few questions that were raised at the Senate hearing.
Here is her response to the first one:
Well… I don’t know if it was really a question. It was a set up to imply that the only conflicts of interest that should matter are those coming from the fossil fuel industry.
I don’t agree. At. All.
Frankly, that’s absurd.
In fact, when people argue that the only conflicts of interest that matter are those held by their opponents, they are saying that the rules of the game don’t apply to themselves or those that support them.
Conflicts of interest are a concern for scientific integrity no matter where the money is coming from.
Further, it was implied in the hearing that only the fossil fuel industry hides what they are doing by donating to non-profit groups that then do research.
No.
I encourage you to read Professor Weinkle’s testimony in full.
She cites three examples of many that raise serious questions of financial conflicts of interest in climate research (see the testimony for all the footnotes, which I removed here):
- Central bank stress-testing scenarios are developed by researchers who are also lead authors on IPCC reports and have important roles in organizing the international modeling community in developing IPCC scenarios. Funding for central bank scenario development and the most recent meeting of the scenario-modeling community comes from influential organizations including, Bloomberg Philanthropies, ClimateWorks, and the Bezos Earth Fund.
- McKinsey & Company used a climate consultancy to produce a series of widely influential reports on climate change financial risks. In defense of their use of RCP 8.5, the report cited a peer-reviewed publication written by its own consultants. The researchers did not declare their COI as consultants for McKinsey or their association with the asset management firm, Wellington. Shortly after the publication of the article, one of its authors landed a political position while the authors’ home institution announced coordinated efforts with Wellington to influence SEC regulatory decisions.
- The Risky Business Project, an academic-industry research collaboration was organized by three wealthy politicians with the goal to “[make] the climate threat feel real.” Research products are important components of national climate and sea-level rise assessments, and a policy advocacy tool used to evaluate real estate flood risk. Core members of the research collaboration move seamlessly between private consulting, policymaker science advisory positions, and academic research.
Again, this stinks.
Nothing could be more delegitimizing to climate science and policy than a toxic combination of unmitigated financial conflicts of interest and claims that climate researchers, by virtue of the noble cause, are exempt from the rules that govern every other setting where expertise and money intersect.
See more here climatechangedispatch
Header image: Global Integrity
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Geraint HUghes
| #
Hi,
RGHE is a lie and its simple to explain to people really. If something has a lower temperature than an object near it of a higher temperature, the atoms in the item of lower Temperature, are oscillating at a lower frequency and do not have ability to induce a higher rate of frequency of oscillation in the higher temperature object (which is already oscillating at a higher frequency.)
Therefore ANY climate research which indicates higher temperatures as a result of CO2 in atmosphere due to RGHE, CAN ONLY BE WRONG and therefore should be discredited in full and all funds relating to it halted.
All Climate Crisis, RGHE education should be banned as it is all based on a provable LIE!
Reply
Barry
| #
Well said , why don’t people understand this is clown science. I have these discussions with people all the time where they can’t seem to understand that this is the only science or engineering discipline that is allowed to violate thermodynamics. But when you explain that to them it just becomes a religion and has nothing to do with reality.
Reply
JaKo
| #
CORRECTION!
It is not just just a “clown science” — it is a whole “Well Paid for Clown Science” (aka Propaganda) — that is, Billy Boy or whoever with virtually unlimited funding ability can sway dumbed-down public in any way they choose… This time again, the truth will not prevail!
Cheers, JaKo
Reply
Barry
| #
Totally agree , the problem is to wake the sheep. Won’t happen until they get dumped on and then go well we don’t want this. It is funny right now because of the covid debacle no one can still grasp that the govt are not in it for you. What a stupid society we live in.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint and Herb,
Herb just wrote: “The violation of the laws of physics is the belief that because the gases in the atmosphere are not absorbing visible or infrared energy radiated by the sun they are not absorbing radiated energy. ”
Given this statement I ask; Is it true or false that “the gases in the atmosphere are not absorbing visible or infrared energy radiated by the sun they are not absorbing radiated energy”?
I believe the observe evidence is that it is true. For we observed that the troposphere generally, but not always, cools with increasing altitude above the earth’s surface. So, how could oxygen and nitrogen molecules cool if they observed energy from the solar radiation passing through them in the higher altitudes of the troposphere?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You are wrong. If a form of matter did not absorb radiated energy it would drop to absolute 0 as it radiated energy.
You still believe that the thermometer is reflecting the kinetic energy of the gas molecules (Feynman and Einstein said it, so it has to be true.). Look at a graph of the recorded temperatures at different altitudes and explain how energy can flow in this fashion. Do you believe that as gas molecules cool the gas expands, which is what happens in the atmosphere? The thermometer is recording the momentum of the molecules striking it and in the higher altitudes the fewer molecules transfer energy to it.
The N2 and O2 are absorbing 95% of the uv coming from the sun and radiating energy as IR. The O3 and NO molecules in the upper atmosphere are a result of the O2 molecules absorbing 450,000 joules/mole and splitting into oxygen atoms. These atoms combine with O2 molecules to form O3 in the stratosphere and at higher altitudes with partially split N2 molecules to form NO compounds.
Your degree is in chemistry. Look at the types of molecules at different altitudes. The only way high energy unstable molecules could exist, is if they cannot lose energy and convert to a more stable molecule. The higher the altitude the greater the energy of the gas molecules.
Herb
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Geraint, Barry,
You’ve accepted thermodynamics as a tenet of your religion when it is incorrect. Objects do not radiate or transfer heat (both mass and energy), only energy (V^2). In the troposphere this transfer of energy is almost exclusively done by convection (collisions) with radiation a minor factor. A gas molecule with high velocity and low mass will transfer energy to a larger object (ice cube) with less energy (conservation of momentum) even though the gas molecule has less kinetic energy (temperature). A piece of ice in the shade at below 0C will gain the energy to evaporate (sublimation) from collision from air molecules, even when the temperature of the air is lower than the surface of the Earth.
The violation of the laws of physics is the belief that because the gases in the atmosphere are not absorbing visible or infrared energy radiated by the sun they are not absorbing radiated energy. The N2 and O2 molecules absorb over 90% of the radiated uv energy and convert it to ke. The idea that the less than 10% uv that reaches the surface will burn your skin off in a couple of minutes but the 90% absorbed by the atmosphere for hours does not increase the energy of those molecules is complete nonsense. The greater the altitude the greater the energy of the molecules.
Herb
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Hi Herb.
Here we are both correct. 🙂
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint, Barry, and PSI Readers,
Geraint, I recognize you as a regulator PSI commenter, hence reader. I am not sure about Barry. So I ask you and other regular PSI readers why no one commented about my yesterday’s comment (March 9, 2023 at 12:10 am) in which anyone could have read the following.
“Now a historical fact is that Richard Feynman was aware that many physic and chemistry [students, as I correct one of my numerous mistakes] were directly taught about his rigid ideas of PHYSICS and Chemistry. For in a 1974 commencement address (Cargo Cult Science) at Caltech he addressed this problem, which I severely edit in an attempt to keep it brief.
“But this long history of learning how to not fool ourselves—of having utter scientific integrity—is … something that we haven’t specifically included in any particular course. .. The first principle is that you must not fool yourself and you are the easiest person to fool. … After you’ve not fooled yourself, It’s easy not to fool other scientists. … I’m talking about a specific, extra type of integrity that is not lying, but bending over backwards to show how you’re maybe wrong, … One example of the principle is this: If you’ve made up your mind to test a theory, or you want to explain some idea, you should always decide to publish it whichever way it comes out. If we only publish results of a certain kind, we can make the argument look good. We must publish both kinds of results.” (This address was published at the end of his book “Surely You’re Joking, Mr. Feynman!”)
The problem about which you now comment was offered a solution by Feynman in 1974 which seems to have been ignored by those listening to his address at time and could have been read when published in his book and an my edited version of the key point of his address could have been read yesterday here at PSI. What is your excuse for not trying to create more attention to Feynman’s effort to correct this problem in 1974?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
I now see I must have misspelled, or mistyped, “regular” but AI knew what I had intended.
Reply
Geraint Hughes
| #
Jerry,
I am regularly pointing out that climate researchers are biased and only put forth their false theory, pretending to themselves and others that it be true. So I am not sure what you are getting at.
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint,
Climate researchers are NOT biased and only put forth their false theory, pretending to themselves and others that it be true any more than you are when you wrote truthfully “I am not sure what you are getting at.” For it seems that you are not sure what Feynman stated in his address which I had just reviewed for PSI readers. Feynman was addressing a fundamental problem of too many who claim to be SCIENTISTS. They claim to know and not to be uncertain, while they overlook obvious, observable facts (data).
Have a good day
Have a good day, Jerry
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint and other PSI Readers,
Now a fact is the Richard Feynman gave a lecture series at Caltech which has been published in 3 volumes of The Feynman Lectures On Physics. In the 1st volume he gives his ideas (theories) of a phenomena of light (radiation) scattering by atoms and small molecules of gaseous matter and the larger, but still invisible, particles of liquid and solid matter. Then in later chapters of the 1st volume he, Feynman, briefly reviews Einstein’ laws of radiation which I observe are about as unknown about as his explanations of radiation scattering.
As I read about these two seemingly different phenomena it becomes apparent to me that oxygen and nitrogen and water molecules and other gaseous matter do sometimes absorb solar radiation and then almost immediately radiation in a random direction relative to the direct direction the photons were traveling before being absorbed. The evidence of this rapid absorption-emission process (mechanism) we term twilight.
What are your (PSI readers including Geraint and Herb) explanations of twilight?
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You don’t understand twilight because you don’t understand the interaction of energy snd matter. What wavelength (light is a disturbance traveling in the electric and magnetic (energy fields not a particle/photon) an object absorbs depends on its bonds. The shorter the bond the shorter the wavelength it absorbs. Atoms will absorb gamma radiation (creating the ionosphere), N2 and O2 with their double and triple bonds absorb UV, visible light is an absorption across multiple bonds, infrared larger structures, and radio waves larger structures still. Wavelengths that are too long or too short to be absorbed will be transmitted through the objects like x-rays penetrating objects or radio waves going through walls while visible light is either absorbed and converted to iR or reflected (why objects have different colors). When energy is absorbed by an object’s bonds it causes a vibration of the atoms across the bond and it is this vibration that causes the object to radiated electromagnetic energy (in all directions, not random directions) at a longer wavelength than it absorbs. All matter absorbs radiated energy and all objects with energy radiate energy. The reason infrared and radio waves travel further through space is because there are fewer large objects absorbing these wavelengths.
Evaporated water is not a gas but a liquid crystal These liquid crystals, like the liquid water in clouds, will reflect and refract transmitted visible light to cause twilight.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I know I don’t have to understand twilight to see twilight. And I read that others who have studied twilight observe that it has three stages what understand is due to the fact there are three ‘atmospheres’ beginning with the one in which most of us live (the troposphere), then as we go upward there is the stratosphere, and finally as these atmospheres become less dense (fewer molecules per a given volume) the mesosphere. So I suffer under the illusion that might understand something about twilight. And I also claim to understand a little about Feynman’s explanation of radiation scattering by tiny atmospheric molecules and about the greater scattering by the condensation nuclei found in the cloudless troposphere.
Thank you for giving me a reason to review the little I know about twilight.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
There is one atmosphere that has been divided into layers using different criteria. The one you mention is a division according to increasing and decreasing temperature as measured by a thermometer and has 4 layers: troposphere (decreasing), stratosphere (increasing), mesosphere (decreasing), and thermosphere (increasing). Since the thermometer is inaccurate in a gas this division is meaningless. The atmosphere gradually changes with altitude as its composition, energy, and characteristics change so there are no distinct demarkations or layers. Try looking up twilight on Mars where there is no water and the scattering of light is a result of dust particles.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
I didn’t realize there was anybody on Mars to see twilight. Twilight is a cloudless, dustless phenomena. I realize I mentioned condensation nuclei but I doubt if many exist in the Stratosphere. And even the troposphere I can plainly see mountains and a horizon 50 to 60 miles away before I see the direct solar radiation of the sun which rises before it should because of the refraction of the decreasing molecules’ density at increasing altitudes.
Do you realize that when you disagree about Feynman’s theory of molecular scattering, you are disagreeing with him and not me?.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
I thought that twilight was when the sun illuminates the atmosphere but not the surface of the Earth. The gas molecules in the atmosphere are transparent to visible light so you would not see any refracted light from these molecules.
There are cameras on Mars that show the sun setting. Look it up.
Feynman was a thinker and did not consider his beliefs or any other theory to be gospel. I am of the opinion that he would abandon theories that contradict itself.
Herb
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Geraint, Herb, and any other PSI Readers,
Please stick with me and questioning what I write (comment); for I just discovered a second book—Solar and Terrestrial Radiation (1975) by Kinsell L. Coulson. The 1st volume of Feynman’s lecture series was published in 1963. And if one read Coulson’s book one would never learn that Feynman and Einstein existed.
This even though in the first chapter Coulson review the four fundamental laws of radiation: Planck’s Law, Kirchhoff’s Law, Stefan-Boltzmsnn Law and Wien Displacement Law. Which laws form the basis for Feynman’s and Einstein’s ideas which attempt to explain these laws using the new physics introduced by Einstein’s E=mc^2 and Schrödinger’s assumption that an electron had a wave-like quantum-mechanical behavior which could not be explained by classical physics.
My favorite meteorologist, R.C. Sutcliffe, in this preface to Weather and Climate (1966) began: “This is not a textbook on meterology, neither a general introduction, nor a formal course, but it has a serious purpose and that is to explain to the general reader what it is that meteorologists are doing and trying to do. Much is heard of the two cultures and of science and technology becoming intolerably specialized and sophisticated with concepts often unintelligible to the non-scientist.” And I add with concepts often unintelligible to classical physicists.
I now to believe to understand how, or why, Feynman never referred to the old terms Rayleigh scattering and Mie scattering because he knew his physics was a new physics.
Less anyone challenges the validity of this new physics I point out the facts that Einstein urged the start of the project using this new physics in which Feynman was critical component of the modern physicists who designed and constructed the first 3 nuclear bombs which worked the first time they were tested.
So keep questioning what I write so any interested non-science readers can learn the general features of modern physical science and meteorology and other natural physical sciences.
Have a good day
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi Jerry,
You know nothing of modern physics. Einstein was talked into supporting the development of the bomb because of his celebrity status not because the bomb had anything to do with his mistaken theories. The bombs you refer to are a result of an uncontrolled chain reaction similar to the chemical reaction of standard bombs but from the exothermic fission of nuclei.
Herb
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi Herb,
Sorry, I omitted a word and really did not clearly describe that the twilight from the entire sky was illuminating all the earth surfaces from all directions so there were no shadows.
Have you ever observed, that which I just described, at least 15 minutes before direct sunrise?
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers and Herb,
This (https://gml.noaa.gov/grad/surfrad/ave_check.php) is the reason I make a BIG DEAL about twilight. For when NOAA technologists designed the instrument package tor the SURRAD PROJECT (surface radiation project) they ignored twilight (diffuse solar radiation). What you can see at this link is proof of their mistake. Which NOAA technologists, to their credit, have not tried to hide or excuse..
Have a good day
Reply
Jerry Krause
| #
Hi PSI Readers,
I now find that clicking on the link does get to what I was seeing when I copied the link. One has to play around a bit to see that NOAA originally had no instrument to measure the diffuse solar radiation (twilight). But trust me that one can with effort find this information.(evidence).
Have a good day
Reply