Climate Denying Scientist Received Millions From Industry

[phaZed]

While everyone is loligagging around with Email scandals, one of the most prominent Climate Change Deniers who has published at least 11 papers, Wei-Hock Soon, received $1.2 million dollars from fossil fuel industry magnates such as Southern Company, Exxon, the American Petroleum Institute and Charles Koch Charitable Foundation. New evidence shows that the reports were "paid for" and the outcomes of Soon's research had already been determined by the industry. Very damning evidence.

This is the guy on which many of these talking heads base their arguments on including the Technibble favorite "Lord Monckton" who published a questionable paper with Soon. Heck, one of Senator James Inhofe's favorite guys to quote on the Senate floor is Dr. Soon.

This is Fox News' expert "Foxpert" that they have had on for years expelling his "new findings"... what does Fox News report about this now? Crickets. Not a word.

To put this in perspective, from 1991 to 2013 there have been 25 dissenting papers out of 16,208 papers. Dismissing Soons papers only leaves 14 dissenting papers.

NYTimes: Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
(Includes link to Documents included in the FOIA discovery)

TheGuardian: Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry
DemocracyNow: Top Scientist Got Funding from ExxonMobil, Koch Brothers, Big Coal
DailyKos: Super-Duper Big: Harvard-Smithsonian Harboring Koch-Funded Climate Denier Wei-Hock Soon

And this isn't his first time:
2003: Climate Research controversy

In 2003, Willie Soon was first author on a review paper in the journal Climate Research, with Sallie Baliunas as co-author. This paper concluded that "the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium."[23][24]

Shortly thereafter, 13 scientists published a rebuttal to the paper.[25][26] There were three main objections: (1) Soon and Baliunas used data reflective of changes in moisture, rather than temperature; (2) they failed to distinguish between regional and hemispheric mean temperature anomalies; and (3) they reconstructed past temperatures from proxy evidence not capable of resolving decadal trends.[25][26] Soon, Baliunas and David Legates published a response to these objections.[27].....
.....Soon and Baliunas have also been criticised because their research budget was funded in part by the American Petroleum Institute.[30][31][32]

2011: Funding controversy

In 2011, it was revealed that Soon received over $1,000,000 from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[33] Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon has stated unequivocally that he has "never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research" and "would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research."[34]

 

[Metanis]

But it's perfectly OK for "The Sky Is Falling" scientists to get their BILLIONS from Government and University (who also have a vested interest in their point of view)? I thought diversity was a good thing?

 

[mr m]

When 97% of the world climatologists agree that the warming trend over the last 100 years is probably a byproduct of mans presence on the planet I tend to agree. The dissenting opinions? All paid for by profit driven industry. My trust is with the educator over the opportunist.

Our planet is over 4.5 billion years old and has been morphing all on its own. No doubt man and his suitcase full of arrogance will eventually disappear from the face of the Earth but the planet should last in one form or another for 5 billion more years until our sun starts to expand into our tiny corner of the universe.

Speaking of red hot, let's go Rangers! Please win another Cup before it gets too warm around here to keep the water in the rink frozen!

 

[Metanis]

If you believe that 97% myth then you can believe the earth is flat.

 

[phaZed]

But it's perfectly OK for "The Sky Is Falling" scientists to get their BILLIONS from Government and University (who also have a vested interest in their point of view)? I thought diversity was a good thing?

If you read the included FOIA evidence, the "study results" are already predefined and are being paid for.. money in exchange for a report they want, not what is truthful.

 

[citizensmith]

Hey - I don't believe it either - can I have some of that free do$h too ?

 

[seedubya]

If you believe that 97% myth then you can believe the earth is flat.

Once upon a time I would have argued with you and tried to use reason to persuade you of the reasonable viewpoint. I've come to realise that it's pointless. Reason has no effect on the mentally ill. Anthropomorphic climate change denial is a religion whose congregation is made up of those whose paranoiac and delusionary tendencies are too weak to be a major hindrance to everyday life, but because of their low key, undiagnosed illness they are unable to think critically or rationally about anything in their sphere of deulsion. It's people like this who believe that the moon landings were faked, Elvis is still alive, UFOs are real etc.

Metanis, the bottom line is that your thinking is irrational and you should see a doctor. Believing things that aren't real is called "delusion" in mental health terms. Tell your doctor that you suffering from delusions and that you need some help. Many of the newer atypical ant-psychotic drugs are useful in this regard.

Don't bother replying, I won't answer. One of the first things you're taught when working in mental health is not to engage with the client's delusions, that doing so only strengthens them and precipitates or increases paranoia. I worked in mental health for many years.

To the rest of you - this is the only reasonable response to this kind of paranoid conspiracy delusion. Do not engage in arguments with deluded people, all you do is give them a platform and convince them that they are RIGHT. I mean, if someone's out to get you they're going to deny it, so anyone who denies they're out to get you MUST be out to get you. You will never convince them that they're wrong. That's a therapeutic process that they need to go through themselves

 

[oldtech]

<---- grabs some popcorn. This should be fun.

 

[Krynn72]

Wei-Hock Soon, received $1.2 dollars from fossil fuel industry magnates

Dang, he could buy like... 80% of a bottle of Coke with that kind of money!

Sorry, had to do it

Anyways, insults have already been thrown in this thread a mere six posts in, so yeah...
<----- grabs some of oldtech's popcorn.

 

[phaZed]

Dang, he could buy like... 80% of a bottle of Coke with that kind of money!

Sorry, had to do it

Lol, I corrected my mistake. High roller, he is!

 

[Metanis]

Sounds like I've been excommunicated from the Church of Algorian Climaticlique. /jumpforjoy

 

[Mick]

Five hundred years ago, I bet you could have found 97% of experts who'd tell you that the Sun went round the Earth. Not saying this Soon character is right, but you can't deny there's a huge industry sustained by fostering the belief that calamity is just around the corner. I guess those characters don't want to be out of a job, specially if the most recent entry on their CVs read: 'was wrong about climate change'. For me - the jury is still out.

 

[lcoughey]

No matter what your perspective is, scientists on both sides of the arguments are receiving funding...IMHO.

In order for the ice to have formed, it had to have been liquid at one point. Evolutionary scientists believe this to have accumulated over millions of years. If the last ice age cause the ice caps and the current environment, should we not expect it to eventually revert back to the original condition? Who are we to say we should not allow the planet to go back to the same environment in which the dinosaurs lived? At what point in history was the correct environment for the planet?

 

[alluseridsrejected]

The media and the left are not able to refute Soon's peer reviewed scientific papers so they need to find a way way to smear him. Much has been made of the fact that he has brought in some $1.2 million in grants over ten years. Close to half of that was taken right off the top by Harvard-Smithsonian. That means he received an average of less than $60,000 a year, out of which he had to pay his research costs, including travel, equipment, materials, publications and research assistance. On what little was left, he has managed to feed his young family. In some years, he’d have been better off flipping burgers or repairing computers.

This attack on him has every bit as much credibility as the hands-up-don't-shoot movement claiming Darren Wilson shot Michael Brown while he had his hands up attempting to surrender. The claims don't hold up to scrutiny. It is a modern day witch hunt!

It looks like it is ‘open season’ on anyone who deviates even slightly from the consensus. The political motivations of all this are apparent from barackobama.com: Call Out The Climate Deniers.

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/28/dr-willie-soon-a-scientist-in-the-humble-quest-for-truth/

 

[phaZed]

http://judithcurry.com/2015/02/25/conflicts-of-interest-in-climate-science/
http://www.breitbart.com/london/2015/02/28/dr-willie-soon-a-scientist-in-the-humble-quest-for-truth/

Unfortunately, Judith Curry misses the point, as I feel many of you do here. Climate Deniers are notorious for holding up funding and their sources as a reason for dismissal of the evidence or for use in creating scandal, as some in this thread have already accused. So why do you not apply that to the people on your side of the argument? It's plain hypocrisy. Also, Judith Curry takes a firm stance FOR Anthropomorphic Climate Change and simply wants others to treat everyone fair and have a more open scientific community.. you can read her papers from your linked story or on Wikipedia.

Christopher Monckton authored that Breitbart piece, lol. He might as well be Soon's partner in crime as close as they are professionally and implicated, both, in this very story. He writes an opinion piece that lays out a response from the Smithsonian to Dr. Soon about his work not being satisfactory over a period of time. Well, that sounds like what the Smithsonian should be doing based on the releases and failure to disclose his sources! Right in Monckton's article he references the times the Smithsonian remarked on Soon.. he just puts his .02 cents in there and makes empty claims. AS to be expected from a person that has been implicated.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

Climate Deniers are notorious for holding up funding and their sources as a reason for dismissal of the evidence or for use in creating scandal, as some in this thread have already accused. So why do you not apply that to the people on your side of the argument? It's plain hypocrisy.

Like Judith Curry said:

"The reality is that fossil fuel money is all over climate research, whether pro or con AGW. Gifts of $100M+ have been made by oil companies..."

And Dana Nuccitelli that you like to quote here with links to skepticalscience.com works full time for an oil & gas company http://www.tetratech.com/en/oil-and-gas. Why do you support someone working in big oil having no PhD that likes to smear reputable climate scientists holding many a PhD? Why would Climate Alarmists not consider Dana to be discredited? It's plain hypocrisy.

 

[phaZed]

Have it your way, not interested in a debate any longer. You may respond to the other Global Warming Threads in which have largely gone unanswered or uncontested to any reasonable degree. Also, please point out where I quoted Dana Nuccitelli... I believe that is more your imagination at work, rather than fact, but I could be wrong.

 

[alluseridsrejected]

You may not have quoted Dana Nuccitelli by name, but if you frequently quote skepticalscience.com as a source then seeing how Dana is John Cook's main sidekick there and his hands are all over that blog site, then you are quoting some of his work by quoting SS. He posts under dana1981. I am sure you have seen his ID. Here is his post on the subject we are no longer discussing now:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fossil-fuel-industry-caught-tobacco-playbook-willie-soon.html

 

[phaZed]

You may not have quoted Dana Nuccitelli by name, but if you frequently quote skepticalscience.com as a source then seeing how Dana is John Cook's main sidekick there and his hands are all over that blog site, then you are quoting some of his work by quoting SS. He posts under dana1981. I am sure you have seen his ID.

Oh, C'mon. That's like saying if I quote a post on Technibble then I'm quoting Bryce. Look, I understand that everyone has their agendas... but an agenda is a far cry from a grand conspiracy. You act as though agenda's are only one-sided. Am I correct in saying that you are excusing Willie Soon and Monckton for accepting money to produce a report in which the "results" were already decided? If so, I suppose by your standards we should be allowed to excuse ALL of the "shoddy science" on the other side as well which may have been tainted with questionable donations, ya?

Me, I would rather get all of the bad apples out of science, right, left and center... non-partisan, like real science.

Here is his post on the subject we are no longer discussing now:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/fossil-fuel-industry-caught-tobacco-playbook-willie-soon.html

Yeah, so?

 

[seedubya]

@phaZed You're making that mistake I was talking about - engaging with these people. Don't do it. Every time you do they get to re-publish their delusions for other deluded fools to see. A bit like Bill Nye debating Ken Ham i.e. a complete waste of time and just gives the guy airtime.

alluseridsrejected is a different kind of commenter - he addresses this from a political perspective, referring to the scientific community as the left. Ipso facto he's right and the political divide in the States does not appear to allow outside of the [polictical] box thinking i.e. if you're "left" and you say something then it must be wrong, not because of the content but because you're "left". You also forget that, from a previous thread, he has a BIG SECRET that explains all of this.... but we're not allowed to know. That certainly gives the appearance of delusion.