A Systemic Blind Spot – Watts Up With That?

Introduction

The field of climate science has long been presented as an objective, data-driven discipline, immune to the biases and financial conflicts that plague other scientific domains. However, a recent preprint study by Jessica Weinkle et al, Conflicts of Interest, Funding Support, and Author Affiliation in Peer-Reviewed Research on the Relationship between Climate Change and Geophysical Characteristics of Hurricanes, challenges this assumption, shedding light on an alarming lack of conflict of interest (COI) disclosures in climate research, particularly in studies linking hurricanes to climate change​. She also has an excellent write up of the study on her Substack, Conflicted.

The study’s findings reveal a disturbing trend: not a single one of the 331 authors analyzed disclosed any financial or non-financial conflicts of interest​. Moreover, the research found that funding from non-governmental organizations (NGOs) was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricane behavior​.

This revelation should prompt serious scrutiny of the integrity of climate science, particularly in areas with high policy relevance. Given the influence of climate research on regulatory frameworks, financial markets, insurance policies, and public perception, it is imperative that the same rigorous COI disclosure standards applied in other scientific fields be enforced here.

The Study: A Long-Overdue Investigation

Weinkle and colleagues analyzed 82 peer-reviewed studies on the relationship between climate change and hurricanes published between 1994 and 2023. Their objective was to determine whether author affiliations, research funding, and COI disclosures were associated with study outcomes or policy recommendations​.

Their key findings include:

• NGO funding was a significant predictor of studies reporting a positive association between climate change and hurricanes (odds ratio = 8.72, p-value = 0.03).
• Studies published in 2016 or later were more likely to report a climate change-hurricane link (odds ratio = 9.19, p-value = 0.002).
• Not a single author out of 331 disclosed a COI, a stark contrast to biomedical research, where COI disclosure rates range from 17% to 33%​.
• First authors with government affiliations were more likely to make policy recommendations (odds ratio = 9.6, p-value = 0.01).

These findings suggest a profound bias in climate change research, one that aligns suspiciously well with the interests of NGOs and policymakers rather than an objective pursuit of scientific truth.

The Role of NGO Funding: A Clear Bias

One of the study’s most critical findings is that NGO funding was a strong predictor of studies concluding that climate change influences hurricanes​. This should raise immediate red flags, considering that NGOs often have clear political and financial incentives to promote catastrophic climate narratives.

Environmental NGOs and progressive philanthropic organizations have become major players in climate policy and research funding. Unlike industry funding, which is typically scrutinized for bias, NGO funding operates under an assumption of moral superiority. Yet, as Weinkle et al. demonstrate, this funding significantly correlates with specific research outcomes—suggesting a funding effect similar to the well-documented bias introduced by pharmaceutical industry sponsorship in biomedical research​.

In other words, just as pharmaceutical companies fund studies likely to support their drugs, climate-focused NGOs appear to fund research that supports their policy agendas. The absence of scrutiny here is a glaring double standard.

The Stunning Absence of COI Disclosures

Perhaps the most shocking finding of the study is that none of the 331 authors disclosed any conflicts of interest​. This is practically unheard of in other fields where COI disclosures are mandatory. For comparison:

• In biomedical research, approximately 22.9% of articles disclose COIs​.
• In public health, COI disclosure rates range from 17% to 33%​.
• In contrast, climate science appears to exist in a COI-free utopia, despite clear financial and political entanglements.

Weinkle et al. found multiple instances of undeclared COIs, including:

• Authors holding relevant patents and advising climate risk analytics and financial firms.
• Authors serving as advisors for climate litigation.
• Authors affiliated with insurance industry associations.
• Authors collaborating with advocacy organizations to develop research for climate litigation​.

These are classic COIs that should have been disclosed under any reasonable scientific ethics standard.

Policy Implications: Manipulating the Narrative

Beyond individual researcher biases, the study highlights a broader institutional issue: government-affiliated authors were far more likely to make policy recommendations​. This finding challenges the perception that government-funded science is inherently neutral.

Climate research heavily influences public policy, and recommendations based on biased or financially motivated research can have immense societal costs. Policies driven by flawed or selective research include:

• Carbon taxes and energy restrictions based on exaggerated climate risk projections.
• Legal frameworks that enable lawsuits against energy companies.
• Increased insurance premiums based on inflated hurricane risk models.

If climate research is influenced by undisclosed COIs, as this study suggests, then many of these policies are based on potentially compromised data.

The Urgent Need for Reform

The Weinkle study highlights an urgent need for climate science to adopt rigorous COI disclosure policies comparable to those in biomedical research. The International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) provides a solid template for financial and non-financial COI disclosures, which climate journals should implement immediately​.

Further recommendations include:

1. Mandatory COI disclosures: Climate science journals must require authors to disclose all financial and non-financial COIs, with clear definitions of what constitutes a conflict.
2. Independent COI audits: An independent entity should oversee COI compliance in climate research to ensure transparency.
3. Centralized COI database: Similar to the U.S. government’s Open Payments database for physicians, a centralized system should track COIs in climate science.
4. Balanced funding sources: Governments and private entities should ensure diverse funding sources to prevent any single ideological influence.

If climate scientists genuinely care about maintaining public trust, they should welcome these changes.

Time to Clean House

The Weinkle et al. study is a wake-up call for anyone who still believes climate science is an objective, bias-free discipline. The overwhelming correlation between NGO funding and climate change-hurricane research outcomes, coupled with the complete absence of COI disclosures, exposes a deeply entrenched problem​.

The fact that not a single author among 331 disclosed a conflict of interest should be viewed as a scientific scandal. If such a pattern were observed in pharmaceutical or medical research, there would be widespread public outcry and immediate reforms. Yet, in climate science, this level of opacity is tolerated—perhaps because it serves the interests of powerful political and financial actors.

At the very least, this study proves that climate science is not above bias. The question is: Will the scientific community acknowledge and correct these issues, or will it continue to operate under a veil of selective transparency?

Related