In a desperate attempt to discredit the new study that finds Obama's EPA regulations will save 3,500 lives, JunkScience has a post (parroted by JoNova) and Monckton a letter to Harvard attempting to equate the researchers' previous research grants with Willie Soon's hidden fossil-fuel-funding.
Soon—who was exposed in February for accepting significant fossil-fuel-funding in exchange for producing denier studies and testimony without acknowledging his corporate funding source—has since come under investigation. Adding injury to insult, Soon has also lost his funding from Southern Company.
Now, for which 'corporation' are the researchers of this new study on the health impacts of an environmental policy charged with being shills? The EPA.
At first glance, the deniers seem to have a point, because here are EPA-funded scientists doing research that resulted in findings that say the EPA's policies are good.
The difference, however, is that the past EPA grants were for past studies. They didn't just cut the researchers a check in return for a particular result (as is the case with Soon). Yet, according to the JunkScience crowd, having done research funded by the EPA before doing a study on EPA policies is the same as taking money from an industry to produce studies and testimony that directly benefit the profits of that industry.
In a way though, this exists as a subtle acknowledgement that Soon's behavior was wrong. If not, why would they try and paint these researchers with Soon's now-tainted brush?
-----
Top Climate and Clean Energy Stories:
How Canada made the Koch brothers rich. In short, Koch will be hampered in exploiting their oil sands holdings if Keystone and other pipelines are not approved. As Casey says: “They're not holding 1.1 million acres of tar sands for conservation purposes.”
Stanford's Jon Krosnick: On climate change, most Americans want action. 80% of Americans believe the federal government should limit greenhouse gas emissions by businesses and in particular by public utilities.
Hawaii Legislature sets goal of 100% renewables by 2045. The bill sets an interim goal of 30 percent renewable energy dependence by 2020. In line with the state's current renewable-energy plan, the next benchmark calls for 40 percent renewables by 2030 and 70 percent by 2040.
Most of N.J.'s energy would have to come from renewable sources under bill. The state Senate Environment and Energy Committee on Monday voted 4-1 to approve a bill (S2444) that would require New Jersey gets at least 80 percent of its energy from renewable sources like solar and wind by 2050
Is drought behind uptick in abandoned kittens? The agency estimates that 30 percent more newborns than usual have been dropped off at its Fruitvale shelter