Dark-Moneyed Denialists Are Running 'Fixing Science' Symposium of Doubt

authordefault
on

Theย โ€œFixing Scienceโ€ symposium, which is hosted by the National Association of Scholars and kicksย off today in Oakland, California,ย includesย credible speakers who want to improve some areas of science hurtย by the use of poor statistical methods or making irreproducibleย claims.

Unfortunately, they are outnumbered by people who have often cast doubt on mainstreamย climate, environmental, and health sciences. For starters, who thinks that long-time fossil fuelโ€“funded Patrick Michaels, a senior fellow with the climate scienceโ€“denyingย Competitive Enterprise Institute,ย will โ€œfix scienceโ€?ย  UPDATE 02/10/20: NAS Brochure atย Symposium.

I was first tipped off to the swarm ofย climate science deniers at this meeting byย Lenny Teytelman on Twitter, who said he found seven climate deniers (an undercount), and by Oxford professorย Dorothy Bishop in her January 12 blog post,ย โ€œShould I stay or should I go?โ€ฆโ€ย about this meeting and whether scientists should engageย with those with dissenting views in a situation likeย this.ย 

Both provided useful insight and information, which I’ve consolidated with other researchย here.ย 

Professor Bishop summarizedย well:

โ€œBut, I reiterate, the main point is not whether NatAsSchlols is left- or right-wing. It’s the weird structuring of the meeting, which juxtaposes a set of experts in the ‘reproducibility crisis’ with a set of individuals who promote scientific views that are far from mainstreamย โ€ฆ You know your arguments would not survive scrutiny by experts familiar with evidence in the area, so you don’t invite those (and to be fair, it’s unlikely that they’d come anyway, as there are diminishing returns in engaging with those whose minds are fixed).ย But what you can do is to cast doubt on all scientific evidence by inviting along those who are questioning the solidity and credibility of current scientific practices. That’s what is happening here.โ€ [emphasisย added]

Many speakers at this meeting have beenย affiliated with groups known forย anti-science efforts, eitherย ideologicallyย or financially, funded mostly by dark money. When their funding sources are accessible, theyย include the usual companies (fossil fuels, tobacco, and chemical) and privateย conservative foundations, which lines up with 2013 research by sociologist Robert Brulle, summarized in my post โ€œStudy Details Dark Money Flowing to Climate Science Denial.โ€

A few other speakers have often worked in โ€œproduct defense,โ€ an areaย covered well by David Michaels inย Triumph of Doubtย (2020) (review). I’m compiling here a list of the speakers and organizationsย who are more often denying science than trying to fix it. People should be very wary of those listed in red, and I’ve included links to more information for those who want to do their ownย research.

The Fixing Science symposium sponsors are the National Association of Scholars (NAS, which should not be confused with the reputableย U.S. National Academyย of Sciences, which also goes by NAS) and The Independent Institute (TII).ย The former is led by Peter Wood and the latter byย David Theroux, both vocal (but non-technical) climateย scienceย deniers.

Anti-scienceย Groups

I’ve scoured IRS Form 990 data (line 8) for the four organizations affiliatedย with the most symposium speakers, a search that yielded total grants received each year fromย 2003-2017, shown in Table A.ย But such 501(c)(3)ย โ€œpublic charitiesโ€ need not report the sources of those grants. Using theย candid.orgย website,ย I’ve compiled the information in the spreadsheet, โ€œGrants To Think Tanks,ย whose two sheets each contain a Table 1 thatย listsย all 1,528 grants, andย a Table 2 that summarizesย them.

The first sheetย sorts by Recipient-Donor-Year, the second by Donor-Recipient-Year.ย Donor Advised Funds (DAFs) likeย Donors Trustย and Donors Capital Fund do report grants they make, but their legal structure makes it impossible to know the original sources of the funding. Perhaps that was not dark enough for some donors.ย The huge Fidelity Charitable DAF started making grants to the same four organizations in 2015. It is impossible to know who got the idea first, but by 2016, Charles Koch was routing millions of dollars through that DAF.

In Table A, the Miss % is the fraction of total grant money given directly by corporations or others, so not reported on 990PF forms, and therefore, invisible to the public. Addingย DAF% and Miss % yields Dark %, which shows the extent of dark money.ย Theย Heartland Institute‘s DAF% is high, as it receives roughly a third of itsย money (32%) via Donors Trust/Capitalย Fund.ย 

In the tables below, CD indicates promotion ofย Climate Denial andย TD shows persistent Tobacco Defense, with lower case implying a lesser degree. Appearing in red shows clear, well-documented anti-science behavior, generally to create doubt about science that conflicts with businessย interests.

DeSmog readers are likely familiar with many of the better known groups, or can click on the profiles, so this section will focus on lesser knownย groups.

Table A – Think Tank Affiliations of Fixing Science Attendees
Abbrev

Organization Name
# of affiliated attendees (ofย 22)==>

#ย ย  2003-17 $1,000s DAF % Miss % Dark % C D T D DeSmog Profile SourceWatch Profile Wikipedia Profile
NAS National Association of Scholars 5 $14,004 3% 48% 51% C T ย  NAS NAS
TII The Independent Institute 3 $38,524 2% 68% 69% C T TII TII TII
HI Heartland Institute 7 $72,349 32% 53% 85% C T HI HI HI
ACSH American Council on Science & Health 2 $24,651 2% 80% 82% C T ACSH ACSH ACSH
GMUCSPC George Mason University (Econ, Law);ย  ย  ย  ย  Center for the Study of Public Choice 3 Hard to extract ย  ย  ย  C T GMU GMUCSPC GMU
CEI Competitive Enterprise Institute 1 ย  ย  ย  ย  C T CEI CEI CEI
TASSC The Advancement of Sound Science Coalition 1 ย  ย  ย  ย  C T TASSC TASSC TASSC
CO2CO CO2 Coalition 1 ย  ย  ย  ย  C ย  CO2CO CO2CO CO2CO
GWPF Global Warming Policy Foundation (UK) 1 ย  ย  ย  ย  C ย  GWPF GWPF GWPF
ย  # distinct people, given overlap above 11 +others ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
Other markers include APS2009 (1), Happer2016(3), IDL (Industry Documents Library on tobacco), explained below

NAS has long been funded by the same conservative foundations highlighted in Brulle’s 2013 study, including the Charles Koch Foundation, Lynde and Harryย Bradley Foundation, and especially Sarah Scaife Foundation, whose biggest investments were in tobacco and oil (CCCย p.ย 47-48).

NAS was examined in detail in โ€œBottling Nonsenseโ€ย Mashey (2011), and the financials are now updated in the spreadsheetย NASfinancials.ย It is not really a membership organization in the same sense as the better-knownย American Association of University Professors (2017 Form 990).ย Unlike NAS,ย AAUP elects leaders and receives most of its income from dues forย services.

Table B – AAUP vs NAS from 2017 Form 990s
Group 8. Contributions & Grants 9. Program Service Revenue 10. Investment $ 11. Other 12. Total Dues Dues % of Total
AAUP $146,804 $2,914,182 $9,831 $41,510 $3,112,327 $2,615,328 84%
NAS $1,197,090 $0 $44,478 $13,064 $1,254,632 $133,895 11%

The NAS 2018 Annual Reportย p. 21ย is instructive, showing 2,591 (2,778) members at close of 2017 (2018, average $52/member, of whom 65% (71%) carried over into 2018 (2019). Their chart implies no more than 40% of the members (โ€œfull-timeโ€ and ambiguously โ€œlifetimeโ€) are active academics. Half are retired.ย  To the extent visible, the membership does not seemย science-oriented.**

NAS seems to employ the same business model as other small conservative think tanks, although more targeted at conservative academics. It is funded by grants from Koch and alliesย to attack โ€œthe leftโ€ and raise doubts about climate change, sustainability, diversity, and even tobacco.ย Among many articles, NAS published George Leef’sย โ€œThe Push for Tobacco-Free Campusesโ€ (2009).ย 

โ€œMost schools now compel students and personnel who desire to smoke to do so in designated outside areas, but that isn’t enough for a group that wants a complete tobacco ban. Inside Higher Ed has theย story.ย This ought to worry the โ€œdiversityโ€ advocates. Smokers are a minority group with some distinct cultural traits. If colleges drive smokers away, as the proposed campus-wide bans would tend to do, won’t that deprive other students of the opportunity to learn about them and benefit from the perspective they’d bring to class discussions involving personal freedom and trade-offs? Or do those concerns only apply to certain groups and notย others?โ€

This is a public health issue, but NAS seems to see everything through an ideology lens.ย Or maybe this is something for itsย biggest funder, whose foundation has invested heavily in tobacco.ย It recalls the โ€œsmokers’ rightsโ€ front groups funded by tobacco companies that sprang up during theย 1990s.

NAS continually publishes strident, ill-informed articles on climate change, often laced with personal attacks, as DeSmog described in aย 2011 article,ย โ€NAS President Peter Wood: wrong, dishonest or hopelessly compromised?โ€

My 2011 report, โ€œBottling Nonsenseโ€œย (p.11-17), excerpted many NAS articles on climate. Distinguished MIT climate scientist Kerry Emanuel tried valiantly to educate NAS, but to no avail, which is excerpted onย p.16.

On p.17, you can find an excerpt fromย NASAshley Thorne, Director of Communcations, who wrote,ย โ€œThe Father of Global Warming Skepticism: An Interview with S. Fredย Singer.โ€

โ€œS. Fred Singerย is a man you should know about. He is a genius in the literal sense and a key figure in one of the biggest policy debates of our day. A pioneer in rocket science, weather satellites, and air traffic control; an expert in oil economics and the Earthโ€™s atmosphere; and the author of numerous scholarly books, Dr. Singer is a distinguished and respected scientistย โ€ฆ In addition, he is the founder and president of theย Science & Environmental Policy Projectย (SEPP), an organization that, among other things, seeks to promote scientific integrity in research on global warming. The National Association of Scholars, as we have stated before, takes no position on global warming.โ€œย [emphasisย added]

That wasย a demonstrable falsehood, shown by numerousย examples.

I wrote onย p. 29: โ€œPeople are entitled to express their opinions, but not all opinions are equally credible. People sometimes have nonobvious strong backgrounds in topics, but for either Wood or Thorne it is hard to find any trace of significant training or expertise in physics, math, statistics, chemistry, biology, geosciences, computing or climate science itself. Frequent errors on basic facts argue againstย such.โ€

Did Thorneย know much science? NAS President Peter Woodย from 2005-2007 served as provost of a small Christian school, The King’s Collegeย (see Table D at end), which teaches little or no real science, as seen in its course catalogs.ย Thorne left a few years ago, but NAS currently employs three more King’s graduates: Policy Director Rachelle Peterson (2013 (Desmog, also a Heartland Policy Advisor)), Chief Development Officer Christopher Kendall, and Communications Coordinator Chance Layton, all graduating with a degree in โ€œPolitics, philosophy andย economics.โ€ย 

The only scienceย course in the currentย catalog was first offered aroundย 2012:

โ€œScientific Reasoningย This course is an historically informed introduction to modern physics, astronomy, cosmology, chemistry, and biology, with the goal of attaining a broad conceptual understanding of contemporary science, its empirical basis, and its harmonious relationship with the Christian worldview. Given the intellectual authority of science in modern Western civilization, it is impossible to engage the surrounding culture effectively with the claims of Christ without having a broad-based scientific literacy, a deep understanding of the deleterious effects that naturalistic presuppositions have had on both science and culture, the philosophical and scientific basis on which assumptions may be challenged, and a well-defined understanding that relates the biblical worldview to the world of science. The course will involve lecture, discussion, and laboratory components.ย ย โ€ฆย COURSE CODE: SCIย 212โ€

TIIย andย Fred Singerย have been affiliated for decades.ย TIIย published hisย 1990sย book Hot Talk, Cold Science, still publishes numerous climate-denial blog posts, and an occasional video, which I share in laterย examples.

SourceWatch’s profileย has good coverage of TII‘s work on behalf of Bigย Tobacco:

โ€œin (about) 1992 the Institute underย Robert Higgsย took over the administration of the tobacco industry’sย Cash for Comments Economists Networkย fromย Robert Tollison,ย James Savarese,ย and theย Center for the Study of Public Choice.โ€

Heartland Instituteย and American Council on Science & Health are well-covered in the profilesย above.

Most of George Mason Universityย seems to be a typical university,ย but the GMUย law school and especially the economics department areย funded and strongly influenced by Charles Koch and allies. Tracking funding through GMU is challenging, as gifts are often labeled โ€œGeneral support.โ€ย However, the Sarah Scaife Foundation regularly donates (2015, 2017), explicitly to the Law and Economics Center and the Center for the Study of Public Choice (CSPC) within the economics department. The law school gave usย David Schnare, Ken Cuccinelli, his helper (in pursuing climate scientist Michael Mann, unsuccessfully) Wesley Russell, and his ex-law partner Milton Johns.

โ€œSee No Evil, Speak Little Truth, Break Rules, Blame Othersโ€ (2012) p. 54-57, covered GMU funding known at the time, and p. 58-61 described many members’ involvements with climate denial and/or tobacco defense. The current head of CSPC is Donald Boudreaux (DeSmog), who has spoken for Heartland, and has been affiliated with theย Competitive Enterprise Institute, TII, etc. His name will reappear, as will that of Robert Tollison (Sourcewatch), who created and ran the Cash for Comments Economists Networkย from GMU‘sย Center for the Study of Public Choice.

None of this should be taken to imply that all of those working in these departments are anti-science, but there is a long history of defending companies that โ€œprivatizeย profits and socialize the damagesโ€ and writing articles and reportsย to cast doubt on science, which is unsurprising given the funding sources. Others need to be very cautious in accepting claims about science from these parts ofย GMU.

Given space constraints and lower frequency, Table C’s Other columnย just uses one letter codes for the followingย organizations:

CEI, TASSC, CO2 Coalition (CO2CO)ย ย and GWPF should be well-known to DeSmog readers, but links areย provided.

APS2009 was aย silly petition by Will Happerย (aย key player in climate science denial:ย DeSmog, SourceWatch, WIkipedia), Fred Singer (DeSmog), and others to weaken the American Physical Society’sย statement on climate. Happer and Singer were angry about my exposure of it in 2009. James Enstrom signed it, although he was a particleย physicist-turned-epidemiologist.

Happer2016 was my name for aย letter from Happerย to Rep. Lamar Smith (R-TX) to hassle and obstuct the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), a letterย signed by a long list of people,ย including Peter Wood, Stanley Young, and James Enstrom.ย  NOAA does great data qualityย work.

IDL Isย  the University of California-San Francisco Industry Documents Library, whichย started with the tobacco industry, but has growing collections of chemical, drug, food, and fossil fuel documents. It is a great source for historicalย research.

The Program and itsย Speakers

This listsย Speakers and moderators (all also Speakers), in order by first appearance, but listed only once. LT and DB mark those discussed by Lenny Teytelman (LT)ย onย Twitterย and Dorothy Bishop (DB)ย inย โ€œShould I stay or should Iย go?โ€ฆโ€

Stanford postdoc Noah Haber attended most of the first day, esxcept dinner and posted an informative 60-tweet thread.

Table C – Fixing Science Attendees (Speakers/moderators) Feb 7-8, 2020
Time Role Name Affiliation(s) in Program (unsaid) TII NAS HI ACSH GMU, CSPC Oth er C D T D LT DB
15:00 S,S 01. David Theroux Founder and President, Independent Institute TII ย  HI ย  ย  I C T LT DB
15:00 S,S 02. Peter Wood President, National Association of Scholars ย  NAS ย HI ย  ย  H C T LT DB
15:30 S,m

03. Nathanย Schactman

Of Counsel to Ulmer & Berne LLP, and Lecturer in Law at the Columbia Law School

Likely โ€œproduct liabilityโ€ defense lawyer for corporations.ย Unclear if still atย Columbia.

ย  ย 
16:30 m,S 04. Lee Jussim Chair, Psychology Department, Rutgers University ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
16:30 S 05. David Levy Prof, Economics Department, George Mason Uย  ย  ย  ย  ย  GMU CSPC ย  C ย  ย  ย 
17:30 S,m 06. Richard Vedder Distinguished Emeritus Prof of Economics, Ohio University TII NAS HI ย  cspc G C T ย  DB
17:30 m,S 07. Elliott Bloom none given, but retired SLAC particle physicist TII ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  C ย  LT DB
17:30 S 08. Deborah Mayo Professor emerita, Department of Philosophy, Virginia Polytechnic Institute and State University ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
17:30 S,m 09. Anastasios Tsonis Emeritus Distinguished Prof, Dept of Mathematical Sciences, Atmospheric Sciences Group, U Wisconsin Milwaukee; Adjunct Research Scientist, Hydrologic Research Center, San Diego, CA ย  ย  HI ย  ย  G C ย  LT DB
19:00 S 10. Barry Smith SUNY Distinguished Prof of Philosophy and Julian Park Chair, Philosophy Department, U at Buffalo ย  NAS ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
09:00 S 11. Daniele Fanelli Fellow in Quantitative Methodology, Department of Methodology, London School of Economics and Political Science ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
10:00 S 12. Tim Edgell Principal, Environmental Services, Stantec, Inc. ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
10:00 S 13. Patrick Michaels Senior Fellow, Competitive Enterprise Instituteย  ย  ย  HI ACSH GMU T,COย  C T LT DB
11:15 m,S 14. David Randall Director of Research, NAS ย  NAS HI ย  ย  ย  C ย  LT DB
11:15 S 15. Stanley Young Chief Executive Officer, CGStat, LLC (but NAS also) ย  NAS HI ย  ย  H C ย  LT ย 
11:15 S 16. James Enstrom Retired UCLA Research Professor and President, Scientific Integrity Instituteย (basically, his website) ย  ย  HI ACSH ย  A, H, T C T ย  ย 
12:45 S 17. Louis Anthony Cox University of Colorado and Cox Associatesย  (โ€œproduct defenseโ€) Product defense gmu I ย  T ย  DB
13:45 S 18. Mark Regnerusย 
(Controversial)
Professor, Sociology Department, U Texas, Austin Statistics & viewpoints controversial, role unclear in fixing science.ย  ย  ย  DB
13:45 S 19. Michael Shermer Founding Publisher,ย Skeptic ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
15:15 S 20. Yuri Lazebnik CSO, Scite, Inc. ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
15:15 S 21. David Trafimow Prof, Psychology Department, New Mexico State U ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
17:00 S 22. Ronald Wasserstein Executive Director, American Statistical Assoc ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
ย  ย 

11 worrisome of 22, a few ambiguous, someย credible.

Brian Earp & Diego Reinero were on original program. The only woman, Mayo, was added much later. 3 5 6 2 4 6 10 5 7 9

The following covers those who are clearly problematic when it comes to anti-science efforts, or who might have beenย but for which evidence was notย strong.

01. David Theroux founded and runs TII, which has promoted anti-climate science efforts for decades and ran Big Tobacco’sย Cash for Economists Network starting in 1996.ย Nicotine addiction really only works for most people during adolescent brain development (roughly 10-24) and youthย are especially deterred by higher prices, so this was an effort to help Big Tobacco addict adolescents and kill them slowly. Anย Industry Documents Libraryย search for โ€œDavid Therouxโ€ returnsย 13 hits, such asย this letter, from Philip Morris to Theroux inย 1994:ย 

โ€œOn behalf of Philip Morris USA, I am pleased to enclose a check in the amount of $5,000 to officially maintain our company as a patron sponsor of the Institute ($1,000) for 1995 and to support the Institute’s research activitiesย ($4,000)โ€ฆ.โ€

William F. Shughart II wrote a 1995 book against โ€œsin taxesโ€ like those onย cigarettes:

โ€œHence, when David Theroux of the Independent Institute contacted me to ask whether I might be interested in putting together a volume that would explore the purposes and effects of tax policy in regulating consumption choices, I eagerly accepted. Let me here acknowledge the Independent Institute’s financial sponsorship and David Theroux’ encouragement along theย way.โ€

02.ย Peter Wood got a PhD in anthropology, but seems to have published little if any peer-reviewed research. He has writtenย several booksย viaย Encounter Books, which has publishedย three books for Roy Spencerย (DeSmog). Do they publishย science?ย  He has also been affiliated with Heartland Institute sinceย 2017.***

For a sample of his style, read his two Chronicle of Higher Educationย articles cited in our reply, โ€œBottling Nonsense, Misusing a Civil Platform.โ€ย He was apparently upset by a 2011 profile of me in Science as defending climate scientists, so he wrote personal attacks against me and his more frequent target, Michael Mann. Wood persists in this style, as in his October 2019 blog post,ย โ€Polar Bear Researcher is Unbearable According to the University of Victoria:ย Controversial Scientist Deserves Academicย Freedomโ€:

โ€œAmong Crockfordโ€™s enemies numbers Penn State ‘climatologist’ย Michael Mann, who has a troubled history with facts but a celebrity status among warmists. Mannย characterizedย Crockfordโ€™s website as a ‘denier blog.’ย โ€ฆ Crockfordโ€™s dismissal is a striking example of how the academy attempts to police scientific opinions on climate change. Scientists โ€” including very well-known figures such as Crockford, William Happer, and Judith Curry โ€” are subject to a constant barrage of ad hominemย attack.โ€

Susan Crockfordย (DeSmog)ย ย has been an (untenured) Adjunct Professor at University of Victoria, has never studied polar bears in the field, or published any peer-reviewed papers on them, but she has strong opinions, a website, speaks at Heartland Institute conferences and has been on theirย payroll.ย 

DeSmog readers may be familiar withย Curryย (DeSmog) and Happer, but for more,ย this threadย includes personal experience with him, including being attacked as a โ€œdestrucive forceโ€ in the same 2011Science article that upset Wood.

Wood attended a 2011 climate denial conference and was on a panel with Steve Milloy (DeSmog) and Christopher Monckton (DeSmog), whose talk (which displayed aย swastika) he praised for โ€œwry delivery,โ€ย described in Mashey (2011),ย p.12,18.

03. Nathan Schactman is a lawyer who has published much on evidence.ย Product liability lawsuits can range from bogus to strongly merited and either may have good or bad lawyers. He may or may not be a โ€œproduct defense lawyerโ€ (akin to Louis Anthony Cox)ย defending companies against legitimateย complaints.ย 

David Michaels in Triumph of Doubtย (2020) (review) devotes a whole chapter, p.117-140 to โ€œDeadly Dust (silica).โ€ย Hence, it is somewhat worrying to see this in Schactman’sย blog:

โ€œContesting An Erroneous Diagnosis of Silicosis,โ€ for Harris Martin Seminars, in New Orleans, Louisiana (March 26, 2004) โ€œShould an ILO 1/0 Be Compensated in Silica Litigation,โ€ for Harris Martin Seminars, in New York, New York (January 29, 2003)
โ€œState-of-the-Art Defense in Silica Litigation,โ€ Chair and presenter at Mealeyโ€™s Silica Litigation Conference, in Atlanta, Georgia (October 13 and 14, 2003)
โ€œSilicosis Litigation,โ€ to Merrill-Lynch Institutional Investors, in Philadelphia, PA (October 7, 2003)
โ€œStop Silicosis Litigation โ€“ Now,โ€ at Industrial Minerals Association โ€“ North Americaโ€™s Semiannual Meeting, in Washington, D.C. (September 25,ย 2003)โ€

Also concerning are articles likeย The Trials and Tribulations of Two Historians: Adjudicating Responsibility for Pollution and Personal Harmย (2009), by Columbia’s David Rosner and CUNY‘s Gerald Markowitz, who wrote Deadly Dustย (1991):

โ€œFor most of the 1990s the attempts to undermine our work were done in depositions, generally private meetings where we could defend our reputations by presenting the documents we had uncovered. While the depositions were trying, in fact we had the materials available and often provided thousands of pages to defence attorneys. But that began to change shortly after the turn of the new century. The first shot across the bow occurred at a meeting of lawyers sponsored by LexisNexis in Washington at which Nathan Schachtman, an attorney with McCarter & English in Philadelphia, gave a lengthy address attacking us and our book. Inย Mealey’s Litigation Report: Silica, published in 2003, he castigated us for writing a โ€œjeremiadโ€ that โ€œresonates to the passions and prejudices of the last centuryโ€. He took us to task for our โ€œprejudiceโ€ that โ€œsilicosis results from the valuation of profits over peopleย and for not pointing out that in Communist countries silicosis rates were much higher. โ€œThey fairly consistently excuse or justify the actions of labor โ€ฆ They excoriate the motives and actions of industry โ€ฆโ€. Later on the same page, Schachtman argued that our โ€œthesis ignores the practical โ€ฆ problem of motivating or mandating workers to take appropriate measures to protect themselvesโ€.17ย Schachtman saw no problem with accusing us of sloppy scholarship, arguing that we are little more than propagandists, all in the first page of his piece. โ€ฆ (much more).โ€ย [emphasisย added]

This seems akin to Wood‘s style ofย attack.

05. David Levy is a part of the GMU CSPC (his page).ย He coauthored a 1989 paper with Gary M. Anderson andย Robert Tollison, admidย their involvement with theย Cash for Comments Economists Networkย effort for Bigย Tobacco.

He was on the committee for this PhD defenseย led by Donald Boudreaux (DeSmog), a firm climate scienceย denier.

โ€œUncertainty and Bias in Global Warming Ronald J. Baty
Major Professor: Donald J Boudreaux, PhD, Department of Economics
Committee Members: David Levy, Lloyd Cohen November 28,ย 2012

โ€œWhy did the scientific debate about Anthropogenic Global Warming or Climate Change devolve into a political and quasi-religious issue over the past two decades?ย  The primary mechanism behind this process was the interplay of uncertainty and publication bias, and its effect on the governmentโ€™s and non-governmental organizationsโ€™ research funding practices.ย That is, it produced a misallocation of monies for research, in addition to, impeding the policy-making process.ย This study examines the Essential Science Indicatorโ€™s Top 10 most often cited journals and Library of Congress books on global warming.ย The study concludes that the insufficient number of articles raising questions about anthropogenic causes of climate change in science journals is evidence of bias.ย In addition, it finds that non-academic publishers predominately publish the books by academic skeptics.ย At the same time books by either academic or non-academics supporting climate change are more likely published by an academic publisher resulting in greater professional stature, which fuels the process over and over.ย The final sections of the study discuss the methods by which publication bias, uncertainty and research funding produced the current contentious level of debate about and current quasi-religious status of Anthropogenic Global Warming.ย The contentious debate and contested results from climate research allows for the misallocation of funding and hampers the policy making process.โ€ [emphasisย added]

I’ve skimmed the accepted dissertation, whose sources are often as poor as those in the Wegman Report.ย Baty relies on George C. Marshall Institute, Ronald Bailey, CEI,ย Freeman Dyson, Chris Horner‘s โ€œRed Hot Lies,โ€ย Donna LaFramboise, Richard Lindzen, Bjorn Lomborg, Stephen McIntyreย &ย Ross McKitrickย (2003), four books by Patrick Michaels, Fred Singer (twice), Lawrence Solomon, andย Anthony Watts, for example, while denigrating many mainstreamย scientists.ย 

06. Richard K. Vedder is an emeritus economist, a Senior Fellow at TII, a Member of the Board of directors at NAS (2012-current, 2017 as example), a Policy Advisor at Heartland, and was an active member of Robert Tollision’s GMU CSPC-basedย Cash for Comments Economists Network.ย An Industry Documents Libraryย search gets 393 hits, too many to examine in detail here. He makes numerous complaints about universities, ignoring the fact he got paid to help Big Tobacco addict adolescents (done by keeping taxesย low).ย 

โ€œThe Politicization of Higher Education: College Presidents and Global Warmingโ€ย (2011)

07. Elliott Bloom was a researcher at SLAC, has a webpage at TII that promotes his videoย done with Willie Soon,ย Global Warming: Fact or Fiction?, which once again proclaims โ€œIt’s the Sunโ€ with a big eventย that promoted them as well as Fred Singer’s 20-year-old Hot Talk, Cold Science.

09. Anastasios Tsonis is an emeritus professor of atmospheric sciences, with many publications, but is a member of the academic advisory council for the UK‘s main climate denial group, the Global Warming Policy Foundation (DeSmog),ย  and writes articles or is quoted:
Ocean Cycles, Not Humans, May Be Behind Most Observed Climate Changeย (2017)
Anastasios Tsonis: The Overblown And Misleading Issue Of Global Warmingย (2019)
Business Insider (2013)
Global Temperature Standstill May Last 30 Years, Climate Scientist Predicts (2013)

โ€œOne problem with that conclusion, according to some climate scientists, is that the U.N.โ€™s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) has limited the hiatus to 10-15 years. Anastasios Tsonis, distinguished professor at the University of Wisconsin โ€“ Milwaukee, believes the pause will last much longer than that. He points to repeated periods of warming and cooling in the 20thย century.

โ€œEach one of those regimes lasts about 30 years โ€ฆ I would assume something like another 15 years of leveling off or cooling,โ€ he told Foxย News.โ€

Many climate scientists thought the โ€œhiatusโ€ was noise, 2014-2019 were the six hottest yearsย on record, and Tsonis was wrong, which can happen, but most scientists do not go to denialist groups to write forย them.

He has also written for Heartland Insitute,ย DO YOU BELIEVE IN GLOBAL WARMING?

10. Barry Smithย was a Member of the Board of Directors for NAS from at least 2011-2017, but not 2018. He is a Distinguished Professor of Philosophy, but perhaps was not really very involved with NAS, so is not shaded red.

13. Patrick Michaelsย started doing paid climate denial work for coal companies about 30 years ago (DeSmog) and is one of the most visible people, now at theย Competitive Enterprise Instituteย after years at the Cato Institute. He was involved with TASSC, which was originally funded by Philip Morris. He often complains about โ€œPal reviewโ€ of papers, but in fact โ€œSkeptics Prefer Pal Review Over Peer Review: Chris de Freitas, Pat Michaels And Their Pals, 1997-2003.โ€ He published the most papers via a complicitย editor.

14. David Randall is a HI Policy Advisorย andย ย NAS Research Director, but seems to have little background inย science:

โ€œDavid earnedย a Ph.D. in history from Rutgers University, an M.F.A. in fiction writing from Columbia University,ย a masterโ€™s degree in library science from the Palmer School at Long Island University, and a B.A. from Swarthmore College. Prior to working at NAS he was the sole librarian at the John McEnroe Library at New York Studioย School.โ€

He wrote โ€œThe Irreproducibility Crisis of Modern Science,โ€ย launched with great fanfareย (and aย laudatory afterword by Will Happer), well-dissected by Michael Schulson in โ€œA Remedy for Broken Science, Or an Attempt to Undercut It?ย โ€

โ€œDAVID RANDALLย and Christopher Welser are unlikely authorities on the reproducibility crisis in science. Randall, a historian and librarian, is the director of research at the National Association of Scholars, a small higher education advocacy group. Welser teaches Latin at a Christian college in Minnesota. Neither has published anything on replication orย reproducibility.โ€

Schulson’s article isย well worth reading for more on NAS, including Kerry Emanuel’s comments after a run-in with Wood:

โ€œHe left the organization soon afterward.
โ€œIt sort of revealed them not to be what they claimed to be โ€” people who stood for scientific truth and scientific integrity. It was just another organization that used that as a front,โ€ Emanuel said. โ€œTheyโ€™re basically a political organization posing as an organization dedicated to free inquiry,โ€ heย added.โ€

15. S. Stanley Young is a statistician and CEO of his own consulting business CGState. He hasย a web pageย at Heartland, he where wrote an article with many people profiled at DeSmog:ย Tim Huelskamp,ย Joseph Bast,ย Jay Lehr,ย S. Stanley Young,ย H. Sterling Burnett,ย Frederick D. Palmer,ย Bette Grande,ย Steven Milloy, โ€œPRESS RELEASE: HEARTLAND INSTITUTE APPLAUDS END OF โ€˜SECRET SCIENCEโ€™ AT EPAโ€.

He is also โ€œDirector of the Shifting Sands Projectโ€ at NAS.

16. James Enstrom (Sourcewatch, Wikipedia)ย is now a retired professor of epidemiology, with a longย  history of downplaying secondhand smoke and damage from PM2.5 particulate matter, in addition to denying the science of climate change.ย He received funding from Philip Morris, has a webpage at Heartland, has spoken at several Heartlandย climate conferences (ICCC-10, 12), andย is a Trustee of ACSH.ย He signed theย APS2009 and HAPPER2016 letters.

17. Louis Anthony Cox is a well-publishedย statistician/risk expert, but with a long history of corporate โ€œproduct defense.โ€ย Unlike some of the others, he displays technical competence, but employed in the service ofย doubt.

David Michaels in Triumph of Doubtย (2020) (review) discusses Cox with whom he often had direct interactions, p.133-134 (silica), 224-225, and 270.ย For example, on p. 224-225 heย writes:

โ€œThe Trump Administration’s choice to chair the Clean air Scientific Advisory committee was Louis Anttony (Tony) Cox, a long-time industry consultant who clings to uncommon opinions, like lowering ozone and the belief that PM2.5 exposures would not improve public health. Cox was well-known at the Labor Department for his testiomony on behalf of the National Mining Association, predictablyย claimingย that the government’s risk assesment on respirable coal dust wasย flawed.โ€

Jie Jenny Zou andย Chris Young wrote, โ€œWave of climate lawsuits threatens the future of Big Oilโ€ inย 2017:

โ€œBut the all-expenses-paid event hosted byย George Mason Universityโ€™s Law & Economics Centerย in Arlington, Virginia, served another purpose: It was the first of several seminars designed to promote ‘skepticism’ย of scientific evidence among likely candidates for the 140-plus federal judgeships President Trump will fill over the next fourย years.

The lone science instructorย wasย Louis Anthony Cox Jr., a risk analystย with deep industry ties whoseย recent appointment as chairย of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agencyโ€™s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee drew condemnation in public-health circles.ย Since 1988,ย Cox has consulted for theย American Petroleum Institute, a lobby group thatย spent millions to disputeย the cancer-causing properties of benzene,ย an ingredient in gasoline, and is now working to discredit the science on smog-causing ozone.ย Heโ€™s also testified on behalf of the chemical industry and done research for tobacco giant Philipย Morris.

For a $4,000 honorarium,ย Coxย delivered two closed-door lectures at George Mason: โ€œa primer on the scientific method,โ€ followed by a session aimed at โ€œunderstanding what science can and cannot do.โ€ย Included in his presentationย were slides urging judges to be wary of EPA science on fine particles โ€” a pollutant he has been researching for API.ย โ€œ

See also โ€œEPA swaps top science advisers with industry alliesโ€ (2017), for more information on Cox.

Harvard School of Public Health published: โ€œEPA may limit review of evidence on air pollution and health risksโ€:

โ€œThe paper, published on March 21, 2019, noted that the EPAโ€™s Clean Air Scientific Advisory Committee (CASAC) has recently recommended that the EPA limit the types of epidemiological studies used to assess the health risks of air pollution โ€ฆย CASAC is currently headed by Louis Anthony Cox Jr., a Denver-based risk assessment consultant who has worked for the oil, chemical, and healthcare industries. Cox said in December that his panel wasnโ€™t convinced by the EPAโ€™s 1,800-page assessment of small particle air pollution, which cited more than 2,800 research papers on the subject and was authored by more than 50 of the worldโ€™s leading experts on air pollution โ€” and reviewed by dozens more, according to a March 21, 2019ย Los Angeles Timesย article. That assessment concluded that even low levels of exposure to particulate matter can lead to illness and death. Cox accused the authors of that assessment of being subjective in their conclusions and using bad science, according to theย Times.โ€ [emphasisย added]

Anย Industry Documents Libraryย search finds 57 documents, including interactions with Shell Oil and expert-witnessing for Philip Morris.

18. Mark Regnerus’s work and criticisms of his methods are not ones I’ve studied,ย although it is not clear what expertise he really brings to improving science.ย Dorothy Bishopย wrote:

โ€œMark Regnerus, Professor, Sociology Department, University of Texas at Austin has aย Wikipedia pageย which notes the controversy around his research on the adverse impact of a child having a parent who has been involved in a same-sex relationship. The research is funded by the Witherspoon Institute, a conservative think tank. Regnerus also contributed to an amicus brief in opposition to same-sex marriage. Aย sympathetic account of the controversyย was published by the NatAsScholsย .โ€

Update 02/08/20: HI attendee count 7 typo, fixed to 6 and missing link to David Randall asย HI Policy Advisorย added.

* People were unfamiliar withย The King’s College and asked for more. I looked for its Form 990s at candid.org and citizenaudit.org,ย found 2016 the latest available. ย Most 501(c)(3) nonprofits filedย ย 2017 reports by late 2018 as required. Perhaps this has been filed, but not yet processed at those websites.ย Warning: in various reports, it is sometimes โ€œKIngsโ€ and sometimes โ€œKIng’sโ€ so care needed with searches. However I did find, among many otherย grants:

Table D A few selected Grants to The KIng’s College
All grants in $1,000s 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017
King’s Total Grants from Form 990s, EIN 131810448 $11,079 $9,194 $8,898 $13,131 $10,646 $11,349 N/A
A few incoming grants via candid.org, $1,000s ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 
Richard and Helen DeVos Foundation
(i.,e., Betsy DeVos‘ father & mother-in-law
ย  $4,000 ย  ย  $5,014 $5,760 $8,400
Mercer Family Foundation ย  ย  ย  $300 $300 $300 ย 
Charles Koch Foundation ย  ย  ย  ย  $19 $32 $370
Fideltiy Charitable (huge DAF) ย  ย  ย  ย  $504 $101 $217
Donors Capital Fund (DAF) $30 ย  ย  ย  ย  ย  ย 

UPDATE 02/09/20: Add link to Desmog profile for Rachelle Peterson, link to Noah Huber’s commentary, and to annotated copy of NAS brochure provided at Fixing Science Symposium.

UPDATE 02/24/20: Fix missing underscores. Also, I hear Peter Wood mentioned this blog post at the end of the symposium and suggested people come and comment, which I wouldย welcome!

UPDATE 02/29/20: Bottling Nonsense, 08/20/11, pp.23-34 covered the odd involvment in a Bush program-Teaching Americian History (to high school teachers), which for years provided most of NAS revenue, about $11M in total.ย  I did not then know much about this program, but luckily NJ high shcool teacher Bob Fenster recently blogged about it, inย Paid to Sit Through 30 Days of Right-Wingย Dogma.:

โ€œI guess I should start with the opening night reception in some well appointed lounge on the Princeton Campus. The catered food was exquisite and wine flowed plentifully. There even was a harp player, who as it turned out, was the program directorโ€™s daughterโ€ฆย โ€ฆ

As for the staff, the director ย managed to employ his wife, his other daughter, and his daughterโ€™s friend. The family that earns together staysย together!

ย It wasnโ€™t long into the first session that we started doing the math. We each got $2K, plus the card. They were paying all of these speakers to come from out of state (travel, hotel, stipends). Many of us were getting housed on campus with meal plans. They were paying for charter buses to take us various places, museum entrance fees, and soย forth.ย 

** UPDATE 03/04/20:ย  About 70-80 people (10-15 women)ย  attended โ€œFixing Scienceโ€, including speakers and NAS/TII staff. Lacking a list, I cannot know most attendees’ academic backgrounds, but one may calibrate NAS membership by examining the NAS State Affiliates list of officers. Most states show NAS HQ‘s Glenn Ricketts (Interim), but 21 states list 22 officers, 20 Male (3 Emeritus) and 2 Female, whose disciplines are shown below. Although the attendees may differ, NAS generally does not seem a science-oriented organization. Some Political Scientists use statistics heavily, others doย not.

UPDATE 10/28/20***: Added Peter Wood’s connection to Heartland Institute, upped count toย 7.

Table E – Officers of NAS State Affiliates (~think tanks in Italics)
State M/F EM Disicipline Organization Notes
AL M ย  Law Faulkner U Heartland Institute Policy Advisor
AK M ย  Political Science U of Alaska – Anchorage ย 
AZ M ย  School of information;
doing PhDย  philosophy
U of Arizona ย 
CA M ย  Astronomy&Physics dept UCLA ย 
CA M E History Cal State U Chico ย 
CT M ย  History Central CT State U ย 
DE M E Education U of Delaware ย 
DC M ย  Law & Human Rights Institute of World Politics ย 
FL M ย  Political Science Florida Atlantic U Heritage Foundation Fellow
ID M ย  History College of Western Idaho ย 
IL M ย  Education North Park U ย 
IN M ย  Business – Mgmt & information Sci U of Southern Indiana ย 
KS F ย  History Kansas State U ย 
KY M ย  Business U of Louisville ย 
MN M ย  History, Political Science BA Intellectual Takeout Affiliated with State Policy Network
NY M ย  History Bronx Community College-CUNY ย 
OH M E Law Case Western Reserve U ย 
OK M ย  Law Oklahoma City U Heritage Foundation Fellow
OR M ย  Political Science Portland State U ย 
SC F ย  Political Science Independent Scholar(?) Adjunct professor at various schools
TX M ย  Philosophy U of Texas – Austin ย 
UT M ย  Linguistics & English language Brigham Young U ย 

Related Posts

on

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.

The Tory candidate is running her campaign from the home of a prominent anti-green activist.
on

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.

Peter Thiel, JD Vanceโ€™s former boss, also expresses confusion on climate, supporting expanded fossil fuel use while appearing unclear on the consequences.
on

Figures linked to the Global Warming Policy Foundation have handed huge sums to the Tories.

Figures linked to the Global Warming Policy Foundation have handed huge sums to the Tories.
on

The Canada Strong and Free Network conference in Red Deer featured climate change denier Barry Cooper alongside other conservative influencers.

The Canada Strong and Free Network conference in Red Deer featured climate change denier Barry Cooper alongside other conservative influencers.