Climate Skeptic Funded By Oil and Coal Companies

Honken writes with a report from The Guardian that "'One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.' This somewhat contradicts that [Harvard researcher Willie] Soon in a 2003 US senate hearing said that he had 'not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change.'"

Comments

Re:Not climate 'skeptics'

[BCGlorfindel]

So, because I don't reject the crushing scientific consensus because you have linked to one paper (that doesn't contradict the consensus that much if you read it), I'm some kind of zealot? Simply because I require a bit more evidence from you, you throw a strop?

Here is a more appropriate paper for someone like you to read: https://physics.le.ac.uk/journals/index.php/pst/article/view/363/204

Close, but you missed the point. Sadly, it doesn't appear that science is well understood on Slashdot anymore.

I provided direct scientific evidence that warming since 1850 is NOT anomalous within the last 2,000 years of history, and that similar warming to it has occurred multiple times previously. You dismissed the evidence by appealing to SCIENTIFIC CONSENSUS!

You see, the scientific method and process doesn't care if 99 people in 100 believe the earth is flat, what matters is the one person with a space shuttle that flies around the earth taking pictures of the fact it is a sphere.

I am NOT misquoting Mann's paper what so ever. He reanalyzed his data with a different and by his own words more accurate statistical method, and his graphs of the results clearly show that the warming since 1850 has been exceeded multiple times before. My CORRECT reading of this very simple graph is further, and irrefutably evidenced by the fact Mann's own conclusion at the end of this paper is to observe that only the last decade is an anomaly, a far step down from his conclusion in his prior paper observing that the last century was the anomaly.

Please, demonstrate that I am wrong in my interpretation or that my source is biased and wrong. Just don't pretend like declaring CONSENSUS in any way trumps hard scientific evidence to the contrary, that's the work of zealots and ludites.