Thanks to a bombshell investigation reported over the weekend by The New York Times, The Guardian, Inside Climate News and more, we now know that the prominent climate denialist Willie Soon, oft-cited by climate denying politicians and industry figures, calls his publications “deliverables” to his fossil fuel funders.

Some of these “deliverables” have even found their way into the reports produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), generally regarded as the most comprehensive evaluation of the current state of climate science.

After years of research and information requests, The Climate Investigations Center and Greenpeace have unearthed incontrovertible proof that Soon, of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), has received more than $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, and referenced many of his papers as “deliverables” in emails to funders.

According to the Times, at least 11 of the papers Soon has published since 2008 fail to disclose the fossil fuel industry funding. [Read Inside Climate News' breakdown, "11 Times Willie Soon Failed to Disclose Fossil Funding."] 

Even more troubling, Soon’s industry-funded research has also turned up in the IPCC’s vital work. DeSmogBlog has searched all five of the IPCC’s major assessment reports for references to research and papers by Soon.

In all, seven papers that Soon co-authored have been referenced and/or cited in IPCC assessment reports. Two of the seven were papers referred to by Soon as "deliverables" in the correspondences just made public by Climate Investigations Center and Greenpeace. Some of the papers acknowledge research funding from various arms of the fossil fuel industry. But others do not. Some of the papers cited by the IPCC predate the Harvard Smithsonian Center involvement, but Soon's long history of taking fossil fuel industry money is well established. In fact, as far back as 2003, years before the release of the Fourth Assessment Report (AR4), documents revealed that Soon was actively working to "undermine" the report. 

For the historical and academic record, here are all of the papers co-authored by Willie Soon that have been referenced or cited by the IPCC in its periodic assessment reports. Soon's papers were cited in the third, fourth, and fifth installments. 

1) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group One (WGI) Chapter 5, page 462

In the text: “These simulations suggest that solar and volcanic forcing (Fan et al., 2009; Liu et al., 2009a; Man et al., 2012) may exert only weak regional influences on monsoon systems.”

Citation: Liu, J., B. Wang, Q. Ding, X. Kuang, W. Soon, and E. Zorita, 2009a: Centennial variations of the global monsoon precipitation in the last millennium: results from ECHO-G model. J. Clim., 22, 2356–2371. (PDF)

Comment: This is one of the papers that Soon referred to as a "deliverable" to Southern Company funders, though Soon himself does not disclose any funding in the paper. According to DeSmogBlog contributor Dr. John Mashey, this appears to be “one of those innocuous papers that Soon and Baliunas have done to generate publications and credibility.”  

Note: Three different papers co-authored by Soon, including one "reply to responses" to a 2007 paper, are all referenced in the same sentence in Working Group Two's portion of IPCC's Fifth Assessment Report. They are as follows. 

2) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group Two (WGII) Chapter 28, page 1576

In the text: “Use of terrestrial resources by polar bears was suggested as adaptive (Dyck et al., 2007, 2008; Dyck and Romberg, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2008; Dyck and Kebreab, 2009; Rockwell and Gormezano, 2009; Smith et al., 2010).”

Citation: Armstrong, J.S., K.C. Green, and W. Soon, 2008: Polar bear population forecasts: a public-policy forecasting audit. Interfaces, 38(5), 382-395. (PDF)

Comment: No funding acknowledgement or disclosure from Soon or co-authors, though this is another paper that Soon referrered to as a "deliverable" in a report to his funders at Southern Company. 

3) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group Two (WGII) Chapter 28, page 1576

In the text: “Use of terrestrial resources by polar bears was suggested as adaptive (Dyck et al., 2007, 2008; Dyck and Romberg, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2008; Dyck and Kebreab, 2009; Rockwell and Gormezano, 2009; Smith et al., 2010).”

Citation: Dyck, M.G., W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, and L.O. Hancock, 2007: Polar bears of western Hudson Bay and climate change: are warming spring air temperatures the “ultimate” survival control factor? Ecological Complexity, 4(3), 73-84. (PDF)

Comment: Fossil fuel industry funding of research is acknowledged: “M. Dyck and W. Soon initiated this scientific study around 2002–2003 without seeking research fundings and both have contributed equally. W. Soon’s effort for the completion of this paper was partially supported by grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation.”

4) Fifth Assessment Report (AR5) Working Group Two (WGII) Chapter 28, page 1576

In the text: “Use of terrestrial resources by polar bears was suggested as adaptive (Dyck et al., 2007, 2008; Dyck and Romberg, 2007; Armstrong et al., 2008; Dyck and Kebreab, 2009; Rockwell and Gormezano, 2009; Smith et al., 2010).”

Citation: Dyck, M.G., W. Soon, R.K. Baydack, D.R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T.F. Ball, and L.O. Hancock, 2008: Reply to response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008). Ecological Complexity, 5(4), 289-302. (PDF)

Comment: This is a reply to responses to the paper cited above (Dyck, et al, 2007), published in the same journal. There is no funding acknowledgement or disclosure from Soon or co-authors.

5) Fourth Assessment Report (AR4) Working Group One (WGI) Chapter 6, page 466

In the text: “The ‘hockey stick’ reconstruction of Mann et al. (1999) has been the subject of several critical studies. Soon and Baliunas (2003) challenged the conclusion that the 20th century was the warmest at a hemispheric average scale. They surveyed regionally diverse proxy climate data, noting evidence for relatively warm (or cold), or alternatively dry (or wet) conditions occurring at any time within pre-defi  ned periods assumed to bracket the so-called ‘Medieval Warm Period’ (and ‘Little Ice Age’). Their qualitative approach precluded any quantitative summary of the evidence at precise times, limiting the value of their review as a basis for comparison of the relative magnitude of mean hemispheric 20th-century warmth (Mann and Jones, 2003; Osborn and Briffa, 2006). Box 6.4 provides more information on the ‘Medieval Warm Period’.”

Citation: Soon, W., and S. Baliunas, 2003: Proxy climatic and environmental changes of the past 1000 years. Clim. Res., 23(2), 89–110. (PDF)

Comment: This is the infamous case that lead to the resignation of multiple editors of the Climate Research journal in protest over a flawed peer review process that allowed publication of the paper. Funding from the American Petroleum Institute was acknowledged: “This work was supported by funds from the American Petroleum Institute (01-0000-4579), the Air Force Office of Scientific Research (Grant AF49620-02-1- 0194) and the National Aeronautics and Space Administration (Grant NAG5-7635)”

6) Third Assessment Report (TAR) Working Group One (WGI) Chapter 6, page 382

In the text: “An alternative approach which has been used to reconstruct TSI (Reid, 1997; Soon et al., 1996) is to assume that time variations in global surface temperature are due to a combination of the effects of solar variability and enhanced greenhouse gas concentrations and to find that combination of these two forcings which best combine to simulate surface temperature measurements. However, these authors did not take natural climatic variability into account and a TSI series derived by such methods could not be used as an independent measure of radiative forcing of climate.”

Citation:  Soon,W.H., E.S. Posmentier, and S.L. Baliunas, 1996: Inference of solar irradiance variability from terrestrial temperature changes, 1880-1993: An astrophysical application of the Sun-climate connection. Astrophys. J., 472, 891-982. (PDF)

Comments: Funding from fossil fuel industry is acknowledged: “This program was supported by the Electric Power Research Institute, Mobil Foundation, Inc., Texaco Foundation, Inc., Scholarly Studies Program, and Langley-Abbot Fund of the Smithsonian Institution, American Petroleum Institute, and Richard C. Lounsbery Foundation. This research was made possible by a collaborative agreement between the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the Mount Wilson Institute.

7) Second Assessment Report (SAR) Working Group One (WGI) Chapter TK, page 130

In the text: “A recent paper by Zhang et al (1994) helps to bracket the range of variability observed in sun-like stars and hence the likely past and future variability of our Sun. They noted that empirical models based upon sunspots and faculae do not account for all irradiance variations observed over an activity cycle (see also NRC (1994)) and base their con-elation on an observed relationship between brightness and excess chromospheric emission, using the Ca II H and …”

Citation: Zhang, Q., W.H. Soon, S.L. Baliunas, G.W. Lockwood, B.A. Skiff and R.R. Radick, 1994; A method of determining possible brightness variations of the Sun in past centuries from observations of solar-type stars. Astrophys. J., 427, L111-L114. (PDF)

Comments: The authors acknowledge funding from the fossil fuel industry: “The work at Mount Wilson Observatory was supported by the Mobil Foundation, Inc., Electric Power Research Institute, Scholarly Studies Program, and Langley-Abbot fund of the Smithsonian Institution, American Petroleum Institute and Richard C. Lounsbery Foundation. The work at Lowell Observatory was supported by the Lowell Research Fund and the Air Force Geophysics Laboratory. This research was made possible by a colloborative agreement between the Carnegie Institution of Washington and the Mount Wilson Institute."

Willie Soon's Failure to Disclose Conflicts of Interest Hoodwinks IPCC  

According to the IPCC (see Annex 2 of the IPCC principles document, page 17), the lead authorship team of any given assessment report section, "is required to critically assess information they would like to include from any source. Each chapter team should review the quality and validity of each source before incorporating information into an IPCC Report."

If authors of journal publication fail to acknowledge potential conflicts of interest, when the IPCC lead authors review the material, they lack a crucial piece of information that impacts the "quality and validity" of the source.

By hiding funding disclosures from the publications themselves, Soon effectively hoodwinks the IPCC. And so the world's most comprehensive assessment of climate science is forced to at least consider pseudo-science fully paid for by the fossil fuel industry. 

Additional research by John Mashey.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

Vivian Krause has spent years scrutinizing how Canadian environmental groups are funded, claiming she's just asking "fair questions."

But as the blogger-turned-newspaper-columnist has run rampant with her conspiracy theory that American charitable foundations' support of Canadian environmental groups is nefarious, she has continually avoided seeking a fair answer.

If Krause were seeking a fair answer, she'd quickly learn that both investment dollars and philanthropic dollars cross borders all the time. There isn’t anything special or surprising about environmental groups receiving funding from U.S. foundations that share their goals — especially when the increasingly global nature of environmental challenges, particularly climate change, is taken into consideration.

Despite this common-sense answer, Krause’s strategy has effectively diverted attention away from genuine debate of environmental issues, while simultaneously undermining the important role environmental groups play in Canadian society.

Creating Diversions a Trademark of Oil Industry Strategy

This diversion strategy is a well-known tactic of the oil industry. A strategy document leaked yesterday details how one of the world’s most powerful PR firms, Edelman, advised TransCanada to undermine opponents to the Energy East pipeline.

Edelman recommended TransCanada apply pressure to opponents by “distracting them from their mission and causing them to redirect their resources.” To achieve that, Edelman advises TransCanada to work with “supportive third parties who can in turn put the pressure on, particularly when TransCanada can’t.”

Sound familiar?

In Vivian Krause's resume, she proudly takes credit for spawning a Senate inquiry and Canada Revenue Agency audit — distractions that forced environmental groups to spend time defending themselves, rather than doing their important work as watchdogs and advocates for environmental protection.

While Krause has been busy maligning the funding of Canadian environmental groups, very little attention has been paid to where Krause gets her bread buttered.

Krause Receives 90% of Income From Resource Industries

Krause frequently claims her research is independent (PDF) and that her work is unaffiliated with any industry — yet she has admitted that since 2012, more than 90 per cent of her income has come from oil, gas and mining interests through honorariums and speaking fees.

Krause has been paid as much as $10,000 to speak to energy executives. While she may not be directly employed by the fossil fuel industry, her work certainly aligns with that industry’s interests.

Groups paying Krause speaker’s fees included the Canadian Association of Petroleum Producers, the Canadian Energy Pipeline Association, the Atlas Economic Research Foundation, the Association for Mineral Exploration and the Vancouver Board of Trade.

Large speaking fees are increasingly being used as a handy way to support the work of industry allies without directly employing them.

To see just how contentious speaking fees can be, take a gander at the recent Rex Murphy or Peter Mansbridge controversies. CBC ended up adjusting its policy, requiring hosts to disclose their speaking fees.

What Was Vivian Krause’s Argument Again?

So let’s get this straight: Krause, who has relied on speaking fees from the multinational resource sector for 90 per cent of her income for the past three years, argues that Canada’s environmental organizations are fronts for U.S. interests because they receive a portion of their funding from across the border?

Despite the spurious logic, Krause is still given a platform to spread her misleading information in the Postmedia chain of newspapers, including the Financial Post and The Province, as well as on Global News shows where she's a regular panelist on Unfiltered with Jill Krop.

While Krause may spin a mysterious tale, the answer is simple: philanthropic dollars crossing borders to support work on global issues is the norm. And Canadian charities are required to disclose all significant donations from foreign sources annually.

The Real Debate Canada Needs

The continued debate over the funding sources of the environmental community is simply a diversion tactic that favours the fossil fuel industry's desire to avoid having the real debate about Canada’s energy future.

The latest report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change urges nations to phase out fossil fuels immediately to avoid the worst impacts of global warming.

The report puts responsibility squarely on the shoulders of our elected leaders, saying they can “either put policies in place to achieve this essential shift, or they can spend the rest of their careers dealing with climate disaster after climate disaster.”

But Canada won’t meet its 2020 international climate target, according to Environment Commissioner Julie Gelfand.

“The federal government does not have an overall plan that maps out how Canada will achieve this target. Canadians have not been given the details about which regulations will be developed, when, nor what greenhouse gas reductions will be expected,” Gelfand wrote in a report last month.

Now that China and the U.S. have signed a deal agreeing to cut emissions, Canada is left with even fewer excuses not to act.

Meantime, the federal government’s mandate to advance an energy superpower agenda marches forth, resulting in controversy across the country — from the Kinder Morgan fiasco on Burnaby Mountain, to the First Nations legal battle against Enbridge Northern Gateway, to the Athabasca Chipewyan and Beaver Lake Cree First Nations’ fight to prevent oilsands expansion on their territory, to efforts to ban fracking in Nova Scotia.

These efforts are not the outcome of foreign conspiracy — they’re the outcome of a lack of any sensible national conversation about how to develop our natural resources while meeting our international climate change commitments.

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.

In a CTV interview, Prime Minister Stephen Harper's environment minister Leona Aglukkaq seemed reluctant to admit that climate change was a scientifically proven reality.

Mike De Souza writes for Postmedia News, that "when asked whether the ice was melting in the Arctic, considered by climate scientists to be part of the evidence of global warming, Aglukkaq said there may or may not be changes underway."

During the interview, which was aired during CTV's daily political program Power Play, host Don Martin brought up the issue of disappearing arctic sea ice. Aglukkaq, who represents the riding of Nunavut in Parliament, responded that people like her in the north were "seeing those changes every day, or no changes, what have you."

She also said that "there was a report that came out yesterday, I have not received a copy of that but there's always a debate around science and what's changing."

When Martin asked her directly whether she was personally seeing evidence of climate change in the north, Aglukkaq once again refused to give an unambiguous answer, mentioning that the north had "had a particularly bad summer" with snow, and saying that it was "debatable."

Martin observed that what Aglukkaq was describing meant "changing climate, if not climate change," to which she laughed and said: "But it's also important to look at science and use science to make our decisions as best as we can and but to also continue to work with people in the north."

Minister Aglukkaq seemed reluctant to even say the words "climate change," stopping short of using the term when talking about a conference in Norway of the Climate and Clean Air Coalition to Reduce Short-lived Climate Pollutants.

"I was in Oslo, just recently at the climate ch- ah climate conference, ah environment ministers conference, sorry," she said.

De Souza notes that other members of Harper's cabinet have "openly questioned scientific evidence about climate change," including Natural Resources Minister Joe Oliver. In an April interview, Oliver suggested that that scientists had "recently told us that our fears (about climate change) were exaggerated." He was unable to name said scientists or cite any of their research at the time.

Minister Aglukkaq's office did not initially provide comment on her interview. But following the Postmedia News story on Aglukkaq's comments, spokeswoman Amanda Gordon emailed saying that "Minister Aglukkaq was not casting doubt on climate change."

"Is it possible to correct the story?" Gordon asked Postmedia News.

Gordon also said that the CTV interview was conducted last month, and that Aglukkaq's comments were related to research published by the National Snow and Ice Data Centre. As De Souza writes, "this research confirmed the downward trend in summer Arctic sea ice but did not suggest there was any debate about what was happening."

Figure 1. Arctic sea ice extent for September 13, 2013 was 5.10 million square kilometers (1.97 million square miles). The orange line shows the 1981 to 2010 median extent for that day. The black cross indicates the geographic North Pole. Sea Ice Index data. About the data

Credit: National Snow and Ice Data Center

Like Aglukkaq's own comments, her office's response did not provide any specific views on climate change. "Scientific debate regarding our understanding of climate change and its effects on Canada, particularly the North, is what Minister Aglukkaq was referencing," Gordon wrote.

De Souza writes that "Aglukkaq's office has failed to respond directly to questions from Postmedia News asking whether she believes scientific evidence justifies further action to stop the causes of climate change and adapt to its impacts" since her appointment in June.

De Souza notes that the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, a coalition of governments and scientists approved by Harper, has said in its first published report that "human influence has been detected in the warming of the atmosphere and the ocean, in changes in the global water cycle, in reductions in snow and ice, in global mean sea level rise, and in changes in some climate extremes."

The report said that human activity, including deforestation and GHG emissions released by fossil fuels, have "very likely contributed to Arctic sea ice loss since 1979."

Aglukkaq's own department, Environment Canada, has predicted average global increases in temperature of at least two degrees Celsius above pre-industrial levels by 2050.

De Souza draws attention to internal briefing notes from 2012 in which Environment Canada calls climate change "the most serious environmental issue facing the world today and carries with it significant impacts on human health and safety, the economy, natural resources, and ecosystems in Canada and throughout the world."

Some months ago, Aglukkaq, then health minister, took over as chairman of the eight-nation Arctic Council and signed a statement expressing an "urgent need" to reach a legally-binding deal to prevent human activity from further exacerbating global warming.

Image Credit: MaRS Discovery District / Flickr

The Narwhal’s reporters are telling environment stories you won’t read about anywhere else. Stay in the loop by signing up for our free weekly dose of independent journalism.