How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests

Lasrick writes Elected officials who want to block the EPA and legislation on climate change frequently refer to a handful of scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. One of scientists they quote most often is Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming. Newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon has made a fortune from corporate interests. 'He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade 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.' The Koch Brothers are cited as a source of Dr. Soon's funding.

Comments

disclosure

[ganjadude]

'He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. Im a little curious if it is standard practice to not disclose this type of relationship. If it is, it is wrong. I see an ethics issue at hand

Id like to see a breakdown on which scientists are getting paid and by whom in all their works.

Re:disclosure

[Geoffrey.landis]

The ethics violation isn't that he was paid by a corporation.
The ethics violation is in not disclosing it.

Re:disclosure

[ShanghaiBill]

Yes, but they get millions to conduct research. I doubt he took that $1.2 million home.

It still should have been disclosed, it was unethical for him fail to disclose it, and he certainly knew that. Science doesn't work without integrity.

Re:disclosure

[wisnoskij]

I don't know about that. If you base your belief in the integrity of the scientist conducting the research instead of repeat-ability and peer review process, I think that is a little misguided. If you are saying that to trust hat a plane I am getting on will on not crash, I have to trust a series of hundreds of scientist's integrity, than I disagree. It does not matter what whit if one of them was an adulterer, a liar, or a thief, only if their processes were solid (as verified by peer review), and there experiments could suffer repetition by interested third parties.

Re:disclosure

[blue trane]

The first thing conservatives usually say to discredit climate scientists is, they are in thrall to their funders. Now we know why; they're projecting.

Re:disclosure

[i.r.id10t]

"Here's 1.2 mil. We want you to tell us that it is possible that global warming is being caused by the sun"

A few months of well funded but blindly done research - ie, you know the answer to the question, what can we do to prove it? - and wallah! A paper. That is then submitted to a supposedly peer-reviewed journal, where of course no such review takes place (there have been several stories about that on /.).

So... are we shocked that the NRG Industry went shopping for the answer they wanted to hear? Are we shocked that a person who either needs to be top in their field or at least bringing in grants accepted a grant to do research? Are we shocked that a peer-reviewed journal is in fact not very often reviewd by the peers?

Re:disclosure

[Strangely Familiar]

There are a bunch of people hearing about Dr. Soon's research on Fox News who have not been told the facts, and probably think he is a straight up scientist. They probably don't know the man Fox News calls a "Harvard Astrophysicist" (yes, I actually RTFA, and this is something in TFA) actually has a doctorate in aerospace engineering, not astrophysics. They probably don't know he gets no money from Harvard, a part time salary from the Smithsonian, and that most of his money comes from the fossil fuel industry. So, "Are we shocked" is not the right question at all. This kind of crap is like that junk science about autism and vaccines. Once that stuff gets out there, it is very difficult to get people to stop repeating it, even after it gets discredited. And this kind of disinformation has real-world consequences when people rely on it, including U.S. Senators making speeches on the floor of the U.S. Senate.

Re:disclosure

[ClickOnThis]

Most of those who work on the IPCC reports are also paid by their universities, their respective governments or from grants to do their individual research when they are not working on an assessment report.

TapeCutter already said that they get their salary from the university, and thus indirectly from governments and/or grants.

I hope you are not trying to make us believe that only 5-6 million dollars a year is spent on climate research.

TapeCutter did not say that. S/he didn't even imply it. You made a straw man, and a pretty sloppy one at that.

Re:disclosure

[riverat1]

And the first thing liberals say is that scientists don't fake global warming data, because they're scientists.

And they're right. Scientists are smart enough to know that if they fake the data sooner or later someone will out them because there's an objective reality to what they're studying.

Re:disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

The problem is that we can't just leave it up to the science in the public sphere. This guy's "science" has already been widely discredited and debunked through the scientific method, and yet it's still held up as evidence. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that people getting fed up of that then start attacking the scientist himself.

I'm also not sure why you're trying to equate typical funding from a public sector source with typical funding from a private sector source. They're not in any way equivalent.

For example, in the UK, Met Office climatologists have their job guaranteed no matter what the outcome of their research, they're paid by the public sector to give public sector entities a realistic view of what we might expect and want to plan for - there is no partisanship there, their jobs are guaranteed and they just need to be as accurate as possible regardless of what the actual outcome is.

Compare and contrast to an energy sector company, whether fossil fuel or green energy and if they fund research they do so because they want papers to hold up their viewpoint to protect their profits.

The Met Office worker can go to work and think "Great, I can just focus on the science, my job is secure regardless of what I find.". The energy sector worker goes to work and has to think "I better do all I can to give them the results I want, or else I might lose my funding".

Quite how you can place these two scenarios as equivalent I've no idea. They're very clearly not - funding source is an inherent indicator of whether there is any partisanship in a study. If the money has come from a source that just needs to know the facts without seeing any benefit from an outcome one way or the other then that research is far less tainted than if it's come from a source that has a vested profit interest in one outcome over the other.

This is basic stuff, I'm amazed on Slashdot anyone is even trying to argue it, much less mod such drivel up.

Re:disclosure

[abies]

Sometimes it is 'later' enough to influence entire generation of people in doing wrong or useless things. For example salt in food
http://www.scientificamerican....
One wrong study done in 70ties and entire generation of people were scared from using salt. Bluff was called 20 years later but it took _another_ 20 years to officially admit 70ties findings were completely wrong - and I suppose another 20 years are needed before 'salt if white death' people will finally die out.
I think similar thing (other direction) happened with tabacco.

Climate is complicated enough that it is not really an 'objective reality'. Given all the possibilities of handpicking data points and applying arbitrary correction factors, you can manipulate data in subtle ways, rather than blatantly fake it. And as it is complicated enough that normal people cannot really doublecheck data, we are left to believe the 'consensus'.

Re:disclosure

[Mr D from 63]

No, he wasn't taking home all that money. That is why the author used the word "accepted" because he knew it could be misconstrued as take home pay. A lot of folks here seem to jump to the conclusion that the author intended.

Koch brothers?

[argee]

Their involvement says it all.

And... the evidence?

[Okian Warrior]

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 his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?

Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?

Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.

Let's focus on what's important, and leave the person out of the equation.

(Lots of doctors take money from drug companies - so much so that there's a government database that allows you to look up your doctor online.)

(And for the record, I'm not for or against the "school of thought" that is climate change. It's simply something I haven't looked into. I have seen some seemingly credible arguments against (due to selection bias in the news), but I leave it to the experts to decide.)

Re:And... the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

Would anyone say the same about the handful of "scientists" who were funded by the lead industry starting in the 1950s, and spent twenty years casting doubt on the fact that lead exposure is bad (and therefore tetraethyl lead in gasoline is really bad)?

Or how about the handful of "doctors" who the tobbaco companies paid millions to spread lies and doubt about the connection between smoking and cancer for decades?

When the truth is bad for corporate interests, expect a campaign against the truth that is as determined and well funded as it is slanderous.

Re:Bullshit.

[thephydes]

sorry wrong link, and you still are a fuckwit - I'm just careless https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Is scientific research free?

[Socguy]

Funding grants are given irrespective of the findings. ...unless you're referring to the funding which comes from the fossil fuel industry.

Re: Could be true, that

[Anonymous Coward]

Or he's investing in technologies and developments that he has openly and expressly said he believes offers the best economic potential due to what he has learned from those studies.

All Gore isn't one to declare profit is wrong, or attack capitalism on an existential basis. He's put his money where his mouth is, and thinks you should too.

Re:Soros?

[Dutch Gun]

Koch brothers vs George Soros
Rush Limbaugh vs Jon Steward
Ronald Reagan vs Bill Clinton
Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street
Fox News vs Mainstream Media

Each team has their heroes and villains.

Re:Corporate interests

[circletimessquare]

climate change is not some scheme al gore cooked up for political purposes

but... for the sake of argument, let's make believe you are right for a moment

let's ignore the research of thousands of scientists, decades of observations, and go with the low iq fantasy that al gore, sitting on his gold toilet, made climate change up, just to hurt big energy donors to republicans

ok. and?

this is your argument?

"i know a guy once who committed murder and got away with it... so this guy here should get away with murder"

that's how you think right and wrong works?

it's like those moronic headlines about how many jets al gore flies in, or how much fossil fuel was burned to fly big wigs to a climate change conference. so what!

if someone does something wrong, *that hardly makes another wrong ok*

point out the grossest, most hypocritical, limousine liberal shallowness on the topic, and guess what einstein: climate change suddenly doesn't go away as a problem. the damage to our atmosphere from fossil fuels doesn't magically disappear and become a nontopic, just because you found a liberal somewhere who drives a gas guzzling 4x4. do you understand?

to not understand this very simple moral concept: that two wrongs don't make a right, simply makes you, and all of the ignorant propaganda that depends on that foundation, look fucking stupid and morally immature

Re: Corporate interests

[Required Snark]

I quoted Wikipedia. You referred to no source at all. Put up or shut up. Show some sources for your position. If you are right, then edit the Wikipedia page.

By the way, even if your are right, this is nit picking. It has no significant baring on when the phenomenon was proposed. Bell is just a well known figure, and he was not the first or last to bring up this possibility.