Slashdot Mirror
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.
It sucks that we can't fund science through neutral sources more readily. It's one of the big problems with science and the scientific method. It simply cannot be trusted unless you get personal with it. Anything which reaches the newspapers is likely going to be spun somehow.
Dr. Soon may even truly believe his science is valid, but the funding he receives creates a lopsided megaphone which unfairly skews the perception of the debate.
By the same token, all scientists who receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry or groups they influence, should be barred from publishing papers on vaccine safety.
The problem is... That's everybody.
" Wei-Hock Soon"
hock (v) 1. To sell or pawn something
or hes investing in carbon credit offsets, a feel good plan for rich elite types to feel like they are doing something for the environment, while at the same time flying around on private yets living in huge mansions....
have you seen my sig? there are many others like it but none that are the same
And the first thing liberals say is that scientists don't fake global warming data, because they're scientists.
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Someone upthread posted a presentation of evidence contra speculations about the problems with climate models such as Dyson's.
The consensus models for AGW are accurate. You and Dyson need speculate no more.
blog
You deniers have got to stop using that one. By now, we've all figured out that any mention of 1998 is just cherry-picking at its worst. All you do is identify yourself as a zero-knowledge shill that should be ignored.
Amazing. You reply as Anonymous Coward, to someone who was making the case for repeatable peer-reviewed science, with an accusation that using 1998 is cherry picking, and cite Mother Jones??? Are you for real?
I've got news for you: your precious warmism sources consistently start THEIR charts in 1979, and if that isn't cherry-picking, nothing is.
The pot calling the kettle black. Actually, it doesn't even deserve that.