Notorious Global Warming Denier Took $1.2 Million From Corporations

This was originally published in the New York Times, but since they require a subscription, I found this article:

http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/imageo/2015/02/21/willie-soon-takes-corporate-cash-for-science/#.VOohSZTILB4


After reviewing the documents, here’s what the Guardian is reporting today:


A prominent academic and climate change denier’s work was funded almost entirely by the energy industry, receiving more than $1.2m from companies, lobby groups and oil billionaires over more than a decade, newly released documents show.


The New York Times notes that Soon accepted this money:


. . . while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.


And then there is this from the Times:


The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.


Soon's corruption has been known for quite some time, but I'm glad to see it's getting the attention it deserves.

Hopefully more of these very dangerous and corrupt liars are exposed in the future so that people can finally stop pretending that AGW isn't happening.

Hey... what's up with the formatting on this site??

 

Here's a link to the NY Times article http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

 

The New York Times notes that Soon accepted this money:


. . . while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.


And then there is this from the Times:


The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.
Though Dr. Soon did not respond to questions about the documents, he has long stated that his corporate funding has not influenced his scientific findings.


Soon's corruption has been known for quite some time, but I'm glad to see it's getting the attention it deserves.

Hopefully more of these very dangerous and corrupt liars are exposed in the future so that people can finally stop pretending that AGW isn't happening.

Hey... what's up with the formatting on this site??


It stands very likely there is corruption on both sides of the argument.

 

It is not an argument...it is fact the polar caps are melting.
Greed is killing the planet.

 

Well, not killing the planet. It will bounce back without us and most of life as we know it..

 

Publicly funded science provides literally zero incentive to lie. The scientists are paid and recognized no matter what they uncover. Funding for climatology has been flat since the 1950s. If some group of researchers found some other cause of global warming, the paper would send shockwaves through the science world, bring them instantaneous success and probably a nobel prize. The problem is that such discoveries are unlikely because everything points to human activity as causing this.

Privately funded science is a completely different thing. The oil companies only fund studies that promise certain outcomes and they essentially own any information they discover. This is how the tobacco industry was able to suppress the effects of smoking for so long. But of course with climate change they can't simply push NASA out of the way, so instead they focus on outsiders like Roy Spencer, John Christy, Judith Curry, give them the press and the money that successful scientists receive, and suddenly they're rock stars with their own blogs and their own political support. They're betraying their own profession in the largest possible way, but they FEEL like rock stars.

The same organizations who were working to deny the health risks of smoking are now working to deny climate change, they're using almost exactly the same strategy, and people are still falling for it.

 

http://www.ourcivilisation.com/aginatur/cycles/chap1.htm as opposed to to the influence of what goes on in space, which none of you alarmist are even considering?

 

there's atually recently been shown to be an increase of ice in the oceans.

 

Jaworowski's nonsense has been roundly rejected by the scientific community as not physically sound. try again denier

 

Got a link to some scientific evidence? Statements with no facts to back it up carry no weight around here. GTFO

 

Is that because big parts of the glaciers are breaking off?

 

if they gave him less then two million (for trying to deny to the public what is becoming increasingly obvious science) he got cheated.
he should go back and demand two or three million more. that's cheapskate corporations for you.

 

Look it up yourself if you buy the bullshit fed to you. Got any valid links to prove different? Not the same regurgitated BS! If not, why not you take a flying fuck?!!

 

's what I figured...you've got nothing.

 

It's obvious all you have is the bullshit lies fed to you. You have nothing! If you did well, many posts ago facts would have been posted, not one side biased BS. Then again, I don't give a funk anyway!

 

so why did you even bother?

 

You're talking about seasonal sea ice in Antarctica.
Both sea ice AND land ice in the Arctic are disappearing, and land ice in Antarctica is doing the same.

Sea ice isn't relevant in terms of the global climate because it only appears in the winter and reflects heat back into space during the coldest time of year, and only in the Southern Hemisphere.

Here's an article that explains why Antarctic sea ice doesn't cancel the effects of climate change:

http://uk.businessinsider.com/antarctic-sea-ice-climate-change-2014-12?r=US

"Meier believes all this melting land ice might actually be causing the increase in sea ice. As glaciers melt, they pour cold freshwater into the ocean. Freshwater is easier to freeze than salty seawater, so the influx from the melting glaciers could be adding to Antarctica's sea ice."

And a blog post explaining why deniers focus on Antarctic sea ice while completely ignoring the bigger picture:

https://tamino.wordpress.com/2012/09/20/poles-apart/

 

Not really.

But it is part of Heartland's strategy to accuse actual scientists of being corrupt.
They also make fun of them, rolling their eyes and writing absolutely retarded articles like this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/earth/environment/globalwarming/11395516/The-fiddling-with-temperature-data-is-the-biggest-science-scandal-ever.html

Which is not much more than people preying on the ignorance of people who don't know how data processing works, as is explained here:

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/noise-on-the-telegraph/

Real Climate is NASA's climate change blog.

 

So Maurice Strong and Shell and BP suddenly getting in on the whole greeen idealogy thing doesn't make you suspicious? Nor does the fact many others stand to gain billions and lots of political power from all this? None of that reeks of conflict of interest? Fact is none of the previously proposed models of prediction have panned out, so they went from calling it global warming to claling it climate change. The wording has changed, but the drive to put certain industries out of buisness while using government as a means of monopolising other industries has not. Follow the money trail, not just the money trail that goes along with your personal beliefs.