Bishop Hill Waiting for a Guardian outcry
So, in the wake of Pielke Jr's comment yesterday, we know that Kerry Emanuel has been citing a paper without disclosing that he had been involved in its preparation. We know that the paper was commissioned and paid for by green billionaire Tom Steyer. The question that now springs to mind is whether Emanuel has disclosed this activist cash in his academic work; in the wake of the recent rumpus over Willie Soon's papers, readers will recall that environmentalists are very keen that such disclosures are made.
Emanuel has disclosed in one of his papers that his own business, WindRiskTech, is involved in the same line of work:
Conflict of interest statement: The technique used here to estimate the level of tropical cyclone activity in CMIP5-generation climate models is also used by a firm, WindRiskTech LLC, in which the author has a financial interest. That firm applies the technique to estimate tropical cyclone risk for various clients.
However, the argument made about Willie Soon's COI disclosures was that all of his papers should disclose his funding from an oil company, whether directly connected or not. So in this case I feel certain that environmental activists will be loudly condemning Emanuel's failure to disclose Emanuel's income stream from a green billionaire.
No? Why ever not?
Reader Comments (38)
"No? Why ever not?"
Well because....er, because...errr , I'll get back to you on this, err
Well hung!
...I feel certain that environmental activists will be loudly condemning Emanuel's failure to disclose Emanuel's income stream from a green billionaire.
No? Why ever not?...
Because anything with the word 'Green' in it is right, and moral, and good, and perfect. So, even if it's an obvious untruth, it's ultimately beneficial to humanity, and should only ever attract praise.
Whereas, anything that points out ANY problem at all with anything that is claimed to be 'Green' is obviously attacking humanity, and is an evil mixture of satanism and genocide. With a side order of eating babies. No matter how much you can show that it's mathematically correct.
The trick here is to make your comments - for instance, that Emanuel should cite disclose an interest, and CLAIM THAT YOUR COMMENT IS GREEN.
This will completely confuse the activists, who won't know whether to attack or support it...
As by far the largest and most powerful organisation in society, and with by far the biggest vested interest in climate science conclusions, any government funding should especially always be explicitly mentioned. Preferably in large bold letters.
Will the Guardian print this? Of course not.
That's because most environ-MENTALIST are either gullible conspiracy theorists or if they are not, they are in it for the money and morally corrupt.
I wonder how many times society has fallen flat on its face by making one rule for 'good' people and another for everyone else?
Don't be silly.
The Guardian, the BBC and the climate alarmists are saving the planet so they ar above the law.
I expect the Grauniad will get one of their best science writers, called Dana, to write a rebuttal. In this rebuttal, Dana will cross reference to articles written by a chap called Dana, and other highly respected authors at SKS.
This is normal practice in Climate Science, and the Grauniad sees no problem with it at all.
@CharmingQuark: "The Guardian, the BBC and the climate alarmists are saving the planet so they ar above the law."
Let's shorten it to
"activists consider themselves above the law"
Climate change is just one special and particularly successful case.
Two wrongs don't make a right.
And two irrelevancies don't become significant.
Is his conclusion justifiable or not? Who cares how he's funded?
MCourtney, two wrongs don't make a right, but are an excellent start to a career in climate science and the Grauniad
Of course its 'different' when supporters of CAGW do the very things they attack others for doing , such has taken money form 'evil fossil company's, or racking up the the amount of air-miles in years it would take others a life time to do .
If you could give words a colour , hypocrisy would be a deep green.
Do we get to find out who has been kitting out the hockey team? Colouring pens and stick repair glue don't come cheap.
The Hockey Stick deserves its own entry in the Guinness book of records, as the most expensive, and bodge repaired false religious relic of all time.
Can you provide any evidence for this? It's not what I've seen, but then I haven't looked very hard. What I've seen are people who are suggesting that he should have disclosed his sources of funding, and others - myself, for example - who don't particularly care, as no amount of disclosure was going to make his obviously extremely poor work, not obviously extremely poor. Of course, disclosure is good, so by "don't care" I don't mean that I don't think that we should be disclosing our COI's, I simply mean that I can't really get too bothered about Soon, given how poor his work is.
Yes, let's play tit-for-tat, illustrating why if anyone asks me for a single word to describe the online climate debate, it would have to be "infantile".
Or Jeremy Leggett writing as part of the Guardian's fossil fuel divestment campaign without revealing he's a former director of Greenpeace (curiously now deleted from Wikipedia) and now has an £80m solar power company.
Coal Baron Steyer
Finances phony alarms;
Rejoice, re-insure.
============
Why ever at all ?
Because in a free society journals are at liberty to set their own disclosure policies or have none at all.
As many still do-- most, including Nature , had none until PC arrived on the scene.
But if they have such polices , they tend to be part of the publishing contract and copyright release authors must read and sign to see their papers in print-- or on the screen, as dead tree subscriptions are increasingly rare
Soluble science,
Kerry Emmanuel, Good Guy;
Roast in Tech oven.
===============
Ken Rice would try to marginalize the sun rising soon.
============
II neglected to ask an obvious question :
What is this blogs conflict of interest disclosure policy ?
It would be most amusing to see the answers the Bishop got were he to emulate Nature!.
After buying the Virginia Governorship, the Coal Baron swung mightily even more than three times this last election. There's no joy on Ol' Tom's Purebred Farm, Mighty Steyer's muck struck out.
======================
Herewith, a flagship journal's current disclosure policy:
Nature journals' competing financial interests policy
In the interests of transparency and to help readers to form their own judgements of potential bias, Nature journals require authors to declare to the editors any competing financial interests in relation to the work described. The corresponding author is responsible for submitting a competing financial interests statement on behalf of all authors of the paper. Authors submitting their manuscripts using the journal's online manuscript tracking system are required to make their declaration as part of this process and to specify the competing interests in cases where they exist. In other cases, usually for articles that have been commissioned by an editor, the journal office will send the author a form to complete and sign before publication of the article. A sample of the form sent to authors by the journal office is available. Authors who have made a competing financial interest declaration as part of the online manuscript submission process do not need to complete and send a separate form.
Authors are required to include a statement at the end of their article to declare whether or not they have any competing financial interests. If the statement is more than a few lines long, the details will be made available in the online version of the article.
Definition
For the purposes of this statement, competing interests are defined as those of a financial nature that, through their potential influence on behaviour or content or from perception of such potential influences, could undermine the objectivity, integrity or perceived value of a publication.
They can include any of the following:
Funding: Research support (including salaries, equipment, supplies, reimbursement for attending symposia, and other expenses) by organizations that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
Employment: Recent (while engaged in the research project), present or anticipated employment by any organization that may gain or lose financially through this publication.
Personal financial interests: Stocks or shares in companies that may gain or lose financially through publication; consultation fees or other forms of remuneration from organizations that may gain or lose financially; patents or patent applications whose value may be affected by publication.
We do not consider diversified mutual funds or investment trusts to constitute a competing financial interest.
Application to authors
Unless/until the article is published, authors' declarations will be considered confidential, and will not be disclosed to peer-reviewers.
The published article (Article, Letter, Brief Communication, Review, Perspective, Insight) indicates the authors' response using one of the following standard sentences:
The authors declare competing financial interests: details accompany the full-text HTML version of the paper at (url of journal website).
The authors declare no competing financial interests...
We recognize that some authors may be bound by confidentiality agreements. In such cases the editors will investigate further and may at their discretion invite the authors to state in the online version, in place of itemized disclosure:"The authors declare that they are bound by confidentiality agreements that prevent them from disclosing their financial interests in this work."
We do not require authors to state the monetary value of their financial interests.
Application to referees
The Nature journals invite peer-reviewers to exclude themselves in cases where there is a significant conflict of interest, financial or otherwise. However, just as financial interests need not invalidate the conclusions of an article, nor do they automatically disqualify an individual from evaluating it.
We ask peer-reviewers to inform the editors of any related interests, including financial interests as defined above, that might be perceived as relevant. Editors will consider these statements when weighing reviewers' recommendations.
Application to editors
All Nature journal editorial staff are required to declare to their employer (Nature Publishing Group) any interests — financial or otherwise — that might influence, or be perceived to influence, their editorial practices. Failure to do so is a disciplinary offence.
Application to publishing policy
The Nature journals thrive on their independence. Their strict policy is that editorial independence, decisions and content should not be compromised by commercial or financial interests, or by any specific arrangements with advertising clients or sponsors. Our policy is to disclose such arrangements where there is any risk of a perception of compromise.
A list of all sponsors associated with Nature Publishing Group is available.
Russell, My conflict of interest is that I seek to do what is right.
So I oppose trying to corrupt the scientific method by reversing the null hypothesis.
I oppose politicising institutions so as ones own interests are promoted.
I oppose acknowledging that ones bias kills millions but promote that bias anyway.
My interest is not financial or career ambition. I work in the medical devices industry - I have no dog in this fight save my desire to do what is right.
Now Russell, how about you?
Seitzkrieg, Riceblitz,
Shivers and pantshits.
==============
No Mr.Ken Rice, it's called "what's good for the goose, is good for the gander". You're as hypocrite as ever.
ATTP, do you have the self-awareness to realise that the polarisation of debate has been fuelled more by the rabid certainty of people who post on your site, such as Steve Bloom and BBD, and the lofty disdain of people such as Seitz and Josh Halpern than by the people who think you guys are just odd, vacuous and unable to comprehend the impacts of what they say?
Russell
Like M Courtney, I have no dog in this fight. I earn my living in the Arts area, but that does not prevent me from pointing out utter hypocrasy when I see it.
Diogenes,
Are you actually serious? Don't bother actually answering that, as I rather fear that you are.
MCourtney
I published my first peer reviewed critique of the polemic abuse of global systems models in Nature in 1985.
As to the parallel problem of the polemic abuse of global systems modelers, how long have you been a part of it ?
ok ATTP
carry on in denial
" [ ... ] green FASCIST billionaire Tom Steyer [ ... ]"
Oooh, gravitas! Three decades of whining incomprehensibly about people who have noticed that worthless models are worthless.
Some career, eh Seitz?
Oooh levitas--- haven't read anything I wrote , have we?
SayNo if it isn't so.
diogenes, well said - but don't let Kenny off with that arrogantly smug pseudonym. Lord Kelvin thought he knew all there was to know about physics too.
OK Russell, so you're a denialist and a hypocrite - why did you give up objectivity and become an activist?
What was that omeone said earlier about " the polemic abuse of global systems modelers "?
Check out "In the Eye of the $torm - Kerry Emmanuel - The Non Political Scientist"
http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/originals/eye_of_the_storm.html
Emmanuel has considerable vested interest in the disaster insurance business. He has co-authored in the past with Michael Mann.