- JoNova - https://www.joannenova.com.au -

EPA authors, media, miss $31 million dollar potential conflict of interest

media biasSteve Milloy at JunkScience holds the media and EPA scientists up to the same standards they expect from skeptics like Willie Soon.

The Headlines are everywhere:

E.P.A. Carbon Emissions Plan Could Save Thousands of Lives, Study Finds “— NY Times

And the media go out of their way to make sure everyone knows what independent angels they are:

Peer-reviewed, non-partisan academic study finds that the EPA emissions rule will save thousands of lives (Lindsay Abrams) — Salon

In most articles the study authors were just researchers from Harvard and Syracuse Uni, who declare “they have no competing financial interests”.

Milloy wonders if $31 million in EPA grants could be a competing interest?  Five of eight authors are paid grants by the EPA.

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?

The NY Times headline, Feb. 21, 2015about Willie Soon: “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher.”

Being good fair and balanced journalists, I expect the NY Times will rush to show it is not a one-eyed propaganda sheet pumping the political whims of its staff. I’m looking for the headline: Deep Ties to EPA cash for scientists that promote EPA policies. Though there are many alternatives, “Work of Prominent Scientists Supporting EPA exposed as funded by EPA.” How about “Could big-government grants buy “independent” scientists”? Perhaps we might see   “Documents spur investigation into conflict of interest declarations for scientists”?

And what about a full feature article: “Pro-government but paid by government? When independent scientists are not so independent.“The full story on JunkScience

Of course, any scientist’s work stands or falls by the reasoning and evidence, not by its funding source. The point of this post is about hypocrisy of those who call themselves “independent” when they have million dollar dependencies,  and those who call themselves “investigative journalists” when they ignore the big stories that conflict with their personal religion. It’s about those who throw stones at Willie Soon.


9.7 out of 10 based on 95 ratings