Leading scientist / climate change denier was paid by energy companies

[Thebobo]

Of course its not like this is a first just or the first time but this guy Soon was the high priest of deniability. Wonder if harvard keeps him after this.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/...e-deniers-is-under-fire-for-taking-oil-money/

Wei-Hock Soon is always in hot demand. Among climate change skeptics, few commodities are rarer. Soon isn’t just a scientist. He’s a scientist who doubts climate change is man-made. Soon doesn’t work for just any university — he works for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. If you doubt man-made climate change, Soon isn’t just your man. He’s your high priest.

The Heartland Institute, a bastion of climate-change suspicion, has given him the “Courage in Defense of Science Award.” He has addressed the Kansas state legislature to rebut the overwhelming scientific consensus about man-made climate change. And he’s become something of a personal hero to conservative Oklahoma Sen. James Inhofe (R), who maintains that climate change is a hoax. Soon is his evidence. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” Inhofe intoned last month.

But Soon is not without controversy. Over the weekend, Greenpeace released a batch of documents obtained through the Freedom of Information Act that showed Soon received more than $1.2 million from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. Soon didn’t disclose the money on at least 11 papers since 2008, reported the New York Times. The paper and other news organizations reported this appeared to be a violation of the journals’ ethical guidelines.

:awe:

 

[Jaskalas]

Wei-Hock Soon is always in hot demand.

Who?

I first heard of him... here and now, because of you.

 

[Greenman]

Are you surprised he was getting paid? Climate change is all about money, from the top down.
Instead of arguing with "deniers", just solve the problem. No one needs to be convinced, no minds need to be changed, just fix it.

 

[michal1980]

All this mud throwing at people that dont support the current group think makes me wonder what the mob is actually hiding?

 

[Genx87]

Im sure if you look at the high priests in the man made global warming crowd. They are overwhelmingly paid for by govt grants and research money. Should we automatically throw away their opinion because they push an agenda that is favorable to big govt(the ones paying their salary)?

That said, never heard of this guy. I'm sure the faithful haven't neither. But they will now go into attack mode against their new #1 threat of the day.

 

[dank69]

Im sure if you look at the high priests in the man made global warming crowd. They are overwhelmingly paid for by govt grants and research money. Should we automatically throw away their opinion because they push an agenda that is favorable to big govt(the ones paying their salary)?

That said, never heard of this guy. I'm sure the faithful haven't neither. But they will now go into attack mode against their new #1 threat of the day.

Do you have evidence showing that the government pulled funding for research that didn't tell "them" what they wanted to hear?

 

[Jaskalas]

NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’

You might be wondering what Soon and Baliunas had done to incur the wrath of the climate alarmist establishment. Well, they’d just published a meta-analysis of all the papers which had been written on the Medieval Warm Period (MWP). What their paper showed is that contrary to claims by one Michael Mann (the name may be familiar), the MWP was not a small, localised event but global, big and widespread.

So this is a fight over a guy who looked at other people's papers on the MWP?

 

[Genx87]

Do you have evidence showing that the government pulled funding for research that didn't tell "them" what they wanted to hear?

The argument is if funding comes from where we don't like they are discredited. Everybody doing research is getting paid by somebody.

 

[KMFJD]

 

[Thebobo]

Timely

 

[dank69]

The argument is if funding comes from where we don't like they are discredited. Everybody doing research is getting paid by somebody.

Okay but since when do we "not like" government funded research?

 

[Newell Steamer]

I am not surprised.

I won't even be surprised when this is downplayed by the usual ilk: wha, wha he do?

It is just interesting how integrity and honesty is constantly picked on by climate deniers and here they are compromising their own integrity and honesty.

 

[Newell Steamer]

Okay but since when do we "not like" government funded research?

Because the Right views the government as an easy way for 'undesirables' to get into said government and possibly do something that is detrimental to their agenda and MO.

 

[fskimospy]

I am not surprised.

I won't even be surprised when this is downplayed by the usual ilk: wha, wha he do?

It is just interesting how integrity and honesty is constantly picked on by climate deniers and here they are compromising their own integrity and honesty.

What I find interesting is the attempt to equate it to scientists doing research on government grants.

 

[fskimospy]

NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’


So this is a fight over a guy who looked at other people's papers on the MWP?

No, not at all. Remember, you're reading Breitbart so there's no chance of them actually describing the situation honestly. It's an ultra right tabloid, their goal is advocacy, not news.

 

[Jaskalas]

No, not at all. Remember, you're reading Breitbart so there's no chance of them actually describing the situation honestly. It's an ultra right tabloid, their goal is advocacy, not news.

Right... it's all lies, eh?
Or...maybe the climategate emails did show them targeting Dr. Soon shortly after he published in favor of a strong, global, Medieval Warm Period. You once again find yourself slandering the media without disputing the facts. Perhaps because you know it's true, and your advocacy has no other course.

All this is beside the point isn't it? I don't know Dr. Soon, and did not remember anything of him before today. I've no axe to grind for or against the million+ they say he received from energy companies. Some folks suggest it's equivalent to government employees paid to find a certain result.

I don't particularly care as mud slinging and attacking people is not a scientific argument and thus, is not very interesting. I'd rather we stick to the science, on verifying our instrument record, and of determining Climate Sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Or rather... what we can do... or are willing to do for Climate Change, if anything.

 

[PokerGuy]

Boogaboogabooga, it's the new evil boogeyman, the climate change denier! (as if there's anyone out there who thinks the climate doesn't change).

So he's getting paid, does that make his claims incorrect? If he's wrong, prove it. No amount of mudslinging will accomplish anything, other than call into question the groupthink mob that tries to cast out anyone who dares have a different conclusion than theirs.

 

[fskimospy]

Right... it's all lies, eh?
Or...maybe the climategate emails did show them targeting Dr. Soon shortly after he published in favor of a strong, global, Medieval Warm Period. You once again find yourself slandering the media without disputing the facts. Perhaps because you know it's true, and your advocacy has no other course.

All this is beside the point isn't it? I don't know Dr. Soon, and did not remember anything of him before today. I've no axe to grind for or against the million+ they say he received from energy companies. Some folks suggest it's equivalent to government employees paid to find a certain result.

I don't particularly care as mud slinging and attacking people is not a scientific argument and thus, is not very interesting. I'd rather we stick to the science, on verifying our instrument record, and of determining Climate Sensitivity per doubling of CO2. Or rather... what we can do... or are willing to do for Climate Change, if anything.

You realize that climate gate was all bullshit too, right?

I'm simply telling you that you're getting your information from sources that have been repeatedly shown to be dishonest. They are pushing ideology, not news. You'll note that by their use of terms like "slander" for "telling the truth", when none of that is an accurate description.

Breitbart is red meat for the crazies. If that works for you well ok.

 

[Genx87]

Okay but since when do we "not like" government funded research?

Who is we and what are you even trying to argue at this point?

 

[dank69]

Who is we and what are you even trying to argue at this point?

The argument is if funding comes from where we don't like they are discredited. Everybody doing research is getting paid by somebody.

You are saying that this guy being paid by Exxon is the same as people that do research funded by the government. "We" was your word.

 

[shira]

Im sure if you look at the high priests in the man made global warming crowd. They are overwhelmingly paid for by govt grants and research money. Should we automatically throw away their opinion because they push an agenda that is favorable to big govt(the ones paying their salary)?

That said, never heard of this guy. I'm sure the faithful haven't neither. But they will now go into attack mode against their new #1 threat of the day.

This is an absurd argument. It's clear what the agenda is of the fossil fuel industry; they stand to suffer huge losses if strict CO2 regulations are put in place. But why would climate change be "favorable" to the National Science Foundation, which provides research grants? Or are you claiming that - for example - the EPA is secretly influencing the NSF to award grants only to those scientists who produce pro-climate-change results, so that the EPA's regulatory budget can grow if cap and trade laws are passed? Please provide us with evidence that the EPA and NSF are colluding to produce fake science.

 

[Genx87]

You are saying that this guy being paid by Exxon is the same as people that do research funded by the government. "We" was your word.

"We" is anybody who doesn't like the findings and uses the funding to discredit their research.

 

[shira]

The argument is if funding comes from where we don't like they are discredited. Everybody doing research is getting paid by somebody.

So your position is that - for example - studies funded by the tobacco industry on the effects of smoking on health are just a reliable similar studies funded by the National Science Foundation?

 

[Genx87]

So your position is that - for example - studies funded by the tobacco industry on the effects of smoking on health are just a reliable similar studies funded by the National Science Foundation?

I have no idea whether those are as reliable. What does their research show, is it reliable? That isn't my argument. My argument is attack the research based on the research. Does this high priest's research produce anything worth discussing? Or is it crap? If it is crap then attack it based on it being crap.

 

[Doc Savage Fan]

Do you have evidence showing that the government pulled funding for research that didn't tell "them" what they wanted to hear?

Jasper Kirkby said something no one wanted to hear.

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=975f250d-ca5d-4f40-b687-a1672ed1f684

Jasper Kirkby is a superb scientist, but he has been a lousy politician. In 1998, anticipating he'd be leading a path-breaking experiment into the sun's role in global warming, he made the mistake of stating that the sun and cosmic rays "will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth's temperature that we have seen in the last century." Global warming, he theorized, may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth's temperature.

Dr. Kirkby was immediately condemned by climate scientists for minimizing the role of human beings in global warming. Stories in the media disparaged Dr. Kirkby by citing scientists who feared oil-industry lobbyists would use his statements to discredit the greenhouse effect. And the funding approval for Dr. Kirkby's path-breaking experiment -- seemingly a sure thing when he first announced his proposal-- was put on ice.

Dr. Kirkby was stunned, and not just because the experiment he was about to run had support within his scientific institute, and was widely expected to have profound significance. Dr. Kirkby was also stunned because his institute is CERN, and science performed at CERN had never before seemed so vulnerable to whims of government funders.

<snip>

Thankfully he received funding for CLOUD over a decade later and his pioneering work has opened up new levels of understanding as to how GCRs affect cloud formation.