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
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