A couple of months ago, I was at one of my favorite beer halls and over heard a curious conversation. There was a young guy in the next table talking about how he works with Roy Spencer at UAH and claimed 'he is a cash cow.' According to this overheard, beer hall, conversation, Spencer's research funding provides a lot of money. I've been sitting on this for several months because the source, an overhead conversation in a beer hall does not meet any sort of criteria for 'facts and data.' But then this article came out: source: Not just the Koch brothers: New study reveals funders behind the climate change denial effort I avoid conspiracy theories inevitably they fail as the members are unable to hold to their original, common goal. But there is a concept of 'parallel evolution' that different species, even genus, can evolve similar characteristics in similar but disconnected environments. But now I'm looking with new eyes when climate deniers claims climate scientists are doing it 'for the money.' Bob Wilson
"FUNDING SOURCES: - NASA Advanced Microwave Scanning Radiometer-E Science Team Leader (NNG04HZ31C) - NASA Discover Program - NOAA Microwave Temperature Datasets - DOE Utilization of Satellite Data for Climate Change Analysis - DOT Program for Monitoring and Assessing Climate Variability & Change"
http://nsstc.uah.edu/climate/2013/june/June2013GTR.pdf "Neither Christy nor Spencer receives any research support or funding from oil, coal or industrial companies or organizations, or from any private or special interest groups. All of their climate research funding comes from federal and state grants or contracts"
From the phys.org link: "This study is part one of a three-part project by Brulle to examine the climate movement in the U.S. at the national level. The next step in the project is to examine the environmental movement or the climate change movement. Brulle will then compare the whole funding flow to the entire range of organizations on both sides of the debate." That Spencer was called cash cow in no way demonstrates that he gets research funding from 'motivated' sources. It only suggests that he gets a lot. I presume that funding agencies support his group based on scientific merit (I always presume that ) I am also pleased that Spencer's acknowledged errors in analysis of microwave radiometer data have not led to Culcinelli-type fraud charges like those leveled against Mann at U Va. Those led nowhere and cost Va. taxpayers some money. This Donor's Trust may have first come into the public eye in the Hearltand documents we weren't supposed to see. It still seems rather vague, but again I presume if there were something actionable taking place, it would get investigated. The entire pie totals about 550 millions per year by my math. Not trivial, but less than govt.-funds research defined broadly for climate/energy research as we have discussed before. We'll have to wait for Brulle's next installment to find out what WWF, NRDC, Sieirra Club, and those other 'motivated' groups are bringing to the table. But there is really nothing like Donor's Trust on the other side. right?
Understand this comes from a life-long understanding that any system consists of three parts: hardware - why I like satellites and just about any other automated data collection systems software - the parts that take the raw data and refine it into credible models and understanding people-ware - the electro-political parts that allow use of the hardware and software So treat climate deniers pretty much as something else to study and analyze . . . without making a judgement. The natural world works without concepts of "good" and "bad" but just how things work. So climate deniers and others who use similar thought processes are just another phenomena that merits study. I have to admit some surprise about "Donor's Trust," a group one suspects as part of a broader collection of organizations dedicated to hiding their donors while presenting 'framed' claims. Bob Wilson
I guess it would be newsworthy if there were an environmental organization disbursing 70 million $/yr of untraceable money. Because in fact I don't know whether WWF (etc) are obliged to disclose. If they are not, them we should be nonplussed about Donor's Trust, right?
Last night I saw a PBS climate fright piece on Nova about glaciers. It had Richard Alley scaring us into believing sea levels will rise 3 ft by 2100. But the weird part was the episode was funded by the Koch foundation. WWF Greenpeace all take hugh amounts of oil money . Ironic
The most recent paper I have seen on sea level rise (SLR) projections : 10.1038/srep03461 and it is open access. It reviews other recent work and shows the range of projections. They do include 1 meter by 2011. It would not seem to matter whether someone is trying to frighten you into believing something. Rather, to judge work by its merits. If a particular likely future suggests that more coastal defenses are appropriate, here and there, then see about the costs. SLR in subsequent centuries would appear more frightening, if that is actually a measure of interest. But here our topic is to fret about who is spending money to influence whom. One could almost see that as a distraction on its own. Because the important matters are: 1. What range of futures are likely? 2. Do we welcome them? 3. If so, great. 4. If not, better take a look at mitigation and adaptation options.
Dark money or any other concealed funding to any organization should be outlawed!! I know it is not; but it should be. It is not right for big money to buy influnce and destort the truth.The Koch brothers are at the top of the list!!
That or connections I have seen nothing that says he got funding from evil people, only the government. The highest paid climate policy maker at the EPA, did awful work if he did any at all recently. Then again he finally has been caught and is going to jail. Climate change expert's fraud was 'crime of massive proportion,' say feds - Investigations Spencer does research in an area that should be government funded. If some don't like his results, they should not do name calling and false accusations of being a paid shill, but criticise the research itself. The government seems to like it, and continues to pay for it. +1 Yep. A key thing is to allow peer review, and when those peers find errors, to acknoledge them. Mann actively resisted peer review, but eventually disclosed his data. Culcinelli may have had a point before mann released the data, but it seemed to be a witch hunt after the data was disclosed. Slowly yes IMHO some on both sides get motivated. Exxon hasn't funded this type of research in a long time, but certain groups seem to blame them even today. On one side is the bloomberg group, on the other side is the koch group. Many scientists feel their research is tainted if they take money from one or the other. Still many take the money.
Beale did a heckuva job (so to speak) and his actions (apparently covered by friends) seem likely to interfere with EPAs broad mission. I support that mission, but it may not mean much to say so.
I support the EPAs mission also. Unfortunately we have very bad apples like Beale, and those that are incompetant or helped him like McCarthy are still in office.
