Not everyone here at ScienceBlogs is happy about a new project appearing here, under the auspices of SEED, and underwritten by none other than Shell. Yes, that's right, the big bad petro products transnational. "The Next Generation of Energy Ideas" is another blog collective, featuring some ScienceBloggers (including me) and a couple of others, most notably Joe Romm of Climate Progress. We'll be tackling a different question, put to us by a SEED editor, each week, and taking turns spewing forth. In return we will be paid for each post. My contributions appear Monday. How do I justify taking money from Shell?
Easy. I've been writing as a journalist for more than 20 years. Most of my work has appeared in publications supported by advertising. Inevitably, some of that advertising pushes products and corporations that rub me the wrong way. But I never pay much attention to the ads. On occasion, my work has drawn the ire of a managing editor and/or publisher who did pay attention, especially when the advertiser whose ads conflicted with my copy discovered the conflict first. But I've never lost a day's pay or a night's sleep over it.
In addition, SEED has guaranteed us the same degree of editorial freedom in this project as we enjoy with ScienceBlogs, that is, complete. That's good enough for me. If Royal Dutch/Shell is happy to give me a few bucks to hold forth on why pretty much everything it does is wrong, I'm happy to take them.
Greg Laden has already weighed in to warn us to be vigilant with ourselves and each other. Something about subconscious bias. Whatever. All I can say is, if I allow Shell to influence my work in any way, it will involve even more skepticism. If that's possible.
The first question has already been addressed by Sheril Kirshenbaum and Joe. Head over there to see what it's all about. I am optimistic this focused approach will produce some useful discussions.
- Log in to post comments
This phrase:
...it will involve in even more skepticism...
does not make any sense. It looks like they are already influencing you....
But whatever that means, my belief from the very beginning of my knowing about this project has been that there is not going to be a problem. I still believe that. But Sb has a history of getting ganged up on by our colleagues elsewhere (for better or worse) and it would be a shame to have this very important conversation derailed by that sort of thing. So I cringe a little when I hear fellow bloggers saying "Shell Oil? Influence? Bias? Whatever are you talking about???" like a major corporation has never bought itself some press before.
But speaking, as you are James, from the inside, there is no buying of opinions going on here. Or at least none that I've been let in on.
This post is amusing. I can't imagine it will do anything to allay the suspicions of the Shell sponsorship. More likely the opposite. But why should an 'Island of Doubt' blogger be troubled by a little extra skepticism from his readers? No wonder you're not worried. Joe Romm is also not worried; he has a long history of oil-company attacking articles to fall back on. (And see his off-shore drilling article.) However, I think Greg Laden's focus on subconscious bias is entirely appropriate. Moreover, I don't expect any bias to show up soon. A brief sponsorship represents relatively few resources, and the sponsored individuals are unlikely to feel accustomed to it, much less dependent on it. If bias does occur, it will take time to grow. And it will be limited by the resources the bloggers receive due to Shell sponsorship. (How many times a week can a blogger take someone special to a fancy restaurant due to Shell sponsorship? I suspect not a lot. ) In any case - it's interesting to me that this sponsorship seems to have raised relatively more excitement than the energy company ads Sb has had for quite some time.
It's interesting that you're saying there are fundamental differences about how that blogs works and the other science blogs. You are getting paid per post and all posts are guided by questions from the editors. This means the editors do have interest in choosing questions to consider future sponsorships. While your writing is independent, this can clearly be perceived as a conflict of interest.
Can a global economic depression save the world from Climate Change?
This is a debate that we should seriously consider. How bad has Climate Change gotshould we voluntarily shutdown our economies to fight Global Warming?
Are we at a point, given the outcome of the G8 meeting, that it would be more beneficial for mankind and nature if our economies where to collapse now, rather than march on causing climatic catastrophe.
I believe that this is a radical alternative measure which should not be ruled out in our efforts to tackle Global Warming. What do you think?
I know it sounds drastic, but there was a depression around the 30s and look were we are at now just 70yrs later. If Climate Change keeps escalating, wont that result in a worse, more permanent outcome? From the now desperate calls of our climate and economic experts it sounds like Hell & High water is just a round the bend.
I am calling for a debate on this to get some input from experts to see if it is a viable solution. Global warming will be catastrophic - a depression shouldn't. We need to look at all the paths forward to survival now!
Rouge share traders do a good one person job.... Bush is doing a darn good job so far! Probably not as difficult to archive as you may think!
Part II - How could this be achieved?
It is too bad that Gar Lipow was not invited to take part in this conversation. He has written that we can have our cake and eat it, too, with regard to global climate change.
http://www.nohairshirts.com/index.php
I believe that this is a radical alternative measure which should not be ruled out in our efforts to tackle Global Warming. What do you think?
Rouge share traders do a good one person job.... Bush is doing a darn good job so far! Probably not as difficult to archive as you may think!