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

[mbone]

'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.

Most of the scientists I know make a salary and that's it. A $ 100 honorarium (say for giving a talk to the public) is regarded as a big deal.

Re:disclosure

[Xylantiel]

Apparently you don't read many papers. It is very common, I daresay almost ubiquitous, for scientific papers to say "this work supported by X".

Re:disclosure

[wisnoskij]

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

Re:disclosure

[TapeCutter]

The thousands of scientists who help compile the IPCC reports do it for free, none of them get a dime from the IPCC, at best they get their regular salary from their university. The IPCC has a $5-6M annual budget, most of it is spent on conference rooms and transport, there are a handful of full time admin staff. The IPCC accounts are published on their website for all to see. The money comes from individual nation states, last time I look there were about 130 nations on the donor list representing every colour of the political rainbow.

Most people in the climate science community will not be surprised that Soon was on the FF payroll.

Re:disclosure

[fermion]

At the base it is disclosure. Papers should have a note of who is funding the research. Sometimes that funding is obfuscated because the money goes through shell non-profits. This is why government funding is so useful. But there is nothing wrong with independent funding, as long as it transparent. When Al Gore was big, he never hid his objective or funding. Likewise Green Peace and PETA are generally transparent. OTOH, when Philip Morris was trying to push cigarettes as healthy, most of their research was far from transparent.

This is interesting, because despite the diplomatic title of the post, many if not most researchers who are publishing against man made climate change are funded by people who are going to lose money, at least short term, if man made climate change becomes a political reality. To be sure the improvements to industrial processes are going to create a whole new class of very wealthy people, but those who will no innovate will be left behind.

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

[beelsebob]

Right, and then you're somewhat bound to give the "right" result, because otherwise they won't fund more research.

Hence the conflict of interest.

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

[Anonymous Coward]

On a polarized issue like climate change, there is money on either side of the table. Probably more for being pro-climate change.

Re:disclosure

[phantomfive]

Bullshit. Papers directly supported by funding/grants should, and usually do, thank/credit the sources. But just because someone funded you for one thing doesn't mean you have to disclose that in every paper you write that is remotely related.

Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).

Also, keep in mind that he got the $1.2M over the last decade

So.....$120k per year? That's not actually very much.

in 2004...that was back before "global warming" became "climate change".

'Climate change' and 'global warming' have been used interchangeably long before 2004.

Re:disclosure

[rs79]

"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."

He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014 The IPCC discredited him, but they have never predicted anything correctly. In fact their model flew off the rails with 75% error after 35 years of refinement.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.

http://rs79.vrx.net/opinions/i...
http://insights.rs79.vrx.net/s...

"Since 2000, temperatures have been warmer than average, but they did not increase significantly. Data courtesy of NOAA’s National Climatic Data Center." - climate.gov.

"Nearly every scientist that I know (IAAS) has a project on the side either studying the climate or cancer (preferably child cancer); this is what they must do in order to support their main research, since it probably has no funding."

Another Anonymous (why?) post on slashdot
http://news.slashdot.org/story...

'The problem is we don't know what the climate is doing. We thought we knew 20 years ago. That led to some alarmist books — mine included — because it looked clear-cut, but it hasn't happened," Lovelock said. "The climate is doing its usual tricks. There's nothing much really happening yet. We were supposed to be halfway toward a frying world now," he said. "The world has not warmed up very much since the millennium. Twelve years is a reasonable time it (the temperature) has stayed almost constant, whereas it should have been rising — carbon dioxide is rising, no question about that,"

"'I made a mistake'
As “an independent and a loner,” he said he did not mind saying “All right, I made a mistake.” He claimed a university or government scientist might fear an admission of a mistake would lead to the loss of funding.
Lovelock -- who has previously worked with NASA and discovered the presence of harmful chemicals (CFCs) in the atmosphere but not their effect on the ozone layer -- stressed that humanity should still “do our best to cut back on fossil fuel burning” and try to adapt to the coming changes.
Peter Stott, head of climate monitoring and attribution at the U.K.’s respected Met Office Hadley Centre, agreed Lovelock had been too alarmist with claims about people having to live in the Arctic by 2100.

And he also agreed with Lovelock that the rate of warming in recent years had been less than expected by the climate models."

https://web.archive.org/web/20...

You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.

You do understand that that "97%" was 73 guys getting a climate grant each, right? Not that consens ever equalled truth:

"97%+ of geologists agreed the continents were stable. It was Settled Science. Hundreds of research papers supported it. Overwhelming consensus. And wrong. And, oddly (not really, if you think about it a moment), it was not a geologist but a meteorologist, Alfred Wegener, who ultimately showed all the mutually agreeing geologists they had it all wrong; the continents move." - Dr. Michael K. Oliver"

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

[Obfuscant]

Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).

Every paper I've ever seen in geosciences credits the public funding agency as part of the grant requirements. Not just "usually do", it's all do.

A paper funded by private sources will credit what is required by that source. Carnegie-Mellon, etc, usually do, but it isn't required. It's polite to do so as a way of saying "thanks". The fact that someone hasn't doesn't mean anything.

So.....$120k per year? That's not actually very much.

That's a pittance. It will cover salary and benefits for one researcher. It won't cover much in the way of travel.

Compare that to other grants that cover the salaries of five or six researchers and travel to conferences in Hawaii or Spain or other nice places...

This is another example of "if we can't discredit the science, discredit the scientist for being paid to do research." That ignores all the scientists who are part of the consensus who are also paid to do research. No, nobody is pocketing the loot, it just shows up as salary. Salary for research that means that the scientist doesn't have to be paid on state money so he doesn't have to teach or do other stuff that is attached to non-grant research salary. A stable source of funding means you can hire people and build a lab and build a reputation that helps get more money. The more people you pay, the higher your status. The more stuff you get from the University because your overhead fees benefit them, too.

Re:disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

> NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.

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.

Re:disclosure

[phantomfive]

In the funding environment of the last 5+ years $120k/year is a fucking mountain of money.

He wasn't putting it all in his pocket, man.

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]

He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014.

Did they predict it for the whole globe? If they did they were wrong. They were right if they only predicted it for Eastern North America.

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

[TheRaven64]

Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).

Maybe you don't read the Acknowledgements section? Most funding agencies have some boilerplate that goes in there. For industrial funding, there's usually no requirement, but we typically put something along the lines of 'We gratefully acknowledge Google, Inc. for its sponsorship.' This usually helps a bit the next time that you ask them for money, because you can say 'look at the cool stuff that you funded last time!' and easily point out the relevant papers. If a company wants to sponsor work but not take the credit for doing so then we'd be a bit concerned about why.

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

[itzly]

He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014

The winters of 2013 and 2014 were in the top-10 warmest. Not sure why you would refer to them as "awful and cold".

You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.

How about NASA's own data where they show it's warming ?

http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea...

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

[sumdumass]

Indeed it does. Just like the claims that nothing is peer reviewed in journals and whatever else you just rambled on about discredits the actual science without touching the science because you do not want to agree with the results has real world consequences.

The science will speak for itself. Character assasination to discredit science is not science at all. In fact, it makes it appear as if there is something to hide.

Re: disclosure

[bill.mcnew]

I'm getting rich investing in snow removal in Boston.

Re:disclosure

[Eunuchswear]

You've never heard of Willy Soon?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy

The "deal with science" bit is (among others) "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth", Eos, Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003.

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.

Re:disclosure

[Zero__Kelvin]

"This is another example of "if we can't discredit the science, discredit the scientist for being paid to do research."

It is exactly like that! ... with the sole exception that we don't have any difficulty discrediting the science, that is :-)

Re:disclosure

[Anonymous Coward]

your precious warmism sources consistently start THEIR charts in 1979, and if that isn't cherry-picking, nothing is.

That didn't seem right to me, so I did a google image search for "global temperature" and looked at the starting year of the graphs. They are (in the order returned by google): 1880, 1978, 1880, 1979, 1860, 1880, 1000, 1900, 1880, 1992, 1979, 1850, 2500BC, 0AD, 1880...

My admittedly lazy way of researching this doesn't seem to lend any support for your claim. In fact 1880 or so is a far more popular starting year and more importantly, it doesn't seem to matter to the overall point if the graph starts in 1880 or 1980. Where's the cherry picking?

Ironically if I make the search "warmism global temperature" instead, the starting years are 1880, 1880, 1880, 1880, 1880, 1950, 1950, 1880, 1880, 1979 (finally!), 1881, 1880, 1880, 1978...

Looks to me like everyone consistently uses 1880 for whatever reason (perhaps that's when we started recording data?) Also note: in spite of the fact that 1880 is so overwhelmingly popular -- these are different graphs.

Re:disclosure

[friedmud]

You are obviously not a scientist.

If you have "blindly done research" and you're publishing in a reputable journal... then you'll get your ass handed to you if your science isn't correct (trust me: my ass still stings from some of the scathing reviews I've received on a few of my papers).

The funding agency DOES NOT MATTER... if proper peer review is undertaken. If the science is good... then the science is good... this isn't an opinion piece in the New York Times paid for by big oil...

Re:disclosure

[Coryoth]

I'm guessing the reason he doesn't take money from the fossil fuel industry is because he just can't be bothered with such trifling sums. The average salary in the US is more like $350k or $400k, IIRC. 120k is for total losers.

I can only presume your talking about research grants combined with salary, despite saying "The average salary" because otherwise you are simply flat wrong. The average salary for (full) professors in the US is $98,974.

Re:disclosure

[Jane Q. Public]

That your rebuttal is purely ad hominem in the truest sense of the word just shows how big of a useful idiot you are.

That you seem to think it's ad-hominem is telling.

Mother Jones is about as far from an unbiased source as you could have found anywhere. That's not ad-homimem; it bears directly on the quality of your argument.

That many official published charts of "warming" temperature started in 1979 is an objective fact.

The "official" argument was that 1979 was about when the satellite record started. But now they're largely just leaving the satellite data out, because it doesn't support their models... which means their excuse for starting in 1979 is also out the window.

None of that had ANYTHING to do with ad-hominem.

I repeat: the pot calling the kettle black.

Re:disclosure

[hey!]

You're raising a red herring issue. It's not that all papers have to disclose their funding: it's that he was required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, which in this case would have included his funding sources. In essense he committed a mild form of scientific fraud. That doesn't mean he was wrong, it does mean he was deceptive.

That's a pittance.

Which is pretty much what he's worth. He's not an astrophysicist. That doesn't mean he can't publish. Some scientists have illustrious careers without having a degree in their field. Hank Stommel comes to mind. But those guys publish important papers that draw funding from within the field. This guy's career is totally a product of having the "right" position.

That's not true of other climate change skeptical scientists, who manage to have a career without politically motivated patronage. But their work isn't so quotable, because they're tugging at the loose threads of the scientific consensus. Their research doesn't show that the scientific consensus is wrong, because they can't do that in scientific terms -- yet.

If you want to overthrow the scientific consensus it's an uphill battle. It's supposed to be. Otherwise you'd have to give advocates of perpetual motion and creationism equal status, which they haven't earned yet.

Re:disclosure

[Strangely Familiar]

Astrophysics is a specialty directly relevant to the radiative transfer of energy between the sun and the earth, and the behavior of the earth-sun system. Aerospace engineering is not as good a match for being an authority in that area. And maybe people might not know the difference without checking, but it is trivial to check. The bigger issue is the honesty of Dr. Soon. He never studied at Harvard or got a paycheck from Harvard. He did not study astrophysics. That he would allow Fox News to call him a "Harvard Astrophysicist" suggests he is dishonest. Failing to disclose his funding is another sign of dishonesty. This is dishonesty related to his authority and profession. It is small wonder he easily becomes hostile over these issues.

Re:disclosure

[Strangely Familiar]

No, you are missing something vital here. The only way to really check whether a particular paper is valid is to a) be an expert in the field, and b) redo the research yourself. Otherwise, you are taking big shortcuts in your evaluation of a particular scientific paper. And these are big shortcuts you MUST take. There are thousands of scientific papers coming out every day, written by teams who have often collaborated for years. Most you can't read, because you can't read everything. Anything you do read, you are probably not going to redo the research yourself. That's kind of the point, isn't it? We all have specialties, and we do different things, so other people don't have to repeat what we have done? So how do you know whether a particular scientific paper is valid? Honestly, unless you can tell it isn't valid, you don't know whether it is valid science. You just have to guess. You guess based on the methods used, and whether the author seems to know his ass from a hole in the ground. And then you judge based on the credibility of the source. Is it from a Princeton professor? Someone from MIT? Or is it a quantum field theory paper written by a dentist? Is the author a whack job? Is the author a paid shill? Is the author a Stanford Astrophysics professor writing a paper about astrophysics, with no material conflicts of interest in the research, the research paper being published in a reputable peer-reviewed astrophysics journal? If you don't evalutate scientific papers this way, you don't properly evaluate scientific papers. Because realistically you can't evalutate them by duplicating the research yourself.

Re: disclosure

[tehcyder]

The point about invading Iraq because Saddam Hussein had chemical weapons capable of being used as weapons of mass destruction is that he would have to have had (a) the chemicals and (b) a delivery system capable of delivering them to the US/Western Europe.

A few barrels of mustard gas that you chuck out of a plane is not going to kill millions of people like a nuke.

Iraq was simply not a threat to the US/its allies.

Koch brothers?

[argee]

Their involvement says it all.

Re:Corporate interests

[BradMajors]

Gore has made close to one billion dollars.

No doubt

[mbone]

Anyone who is surprised by this has really not been paying attention (or has been paid not to pay attention).

Re: Corporate interests

[BradMajors]

Scientific research is not necessary since Al Gore has said the science is already settled.

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:And... the evidence?

[cbeaudry]

Like those pesky scientists who dared do research and publish on the fact that cholesterol is not the evil boogey man we have been looking for.
The science was settled, those idiots should have let it lie...

Re:And... the evidence?

[Dutchmaan]

If this was a scientist who was caught profiting from "the global warming" agenda, this would have been considered iron clad proof that ALL the science is false.

Re:And... the evidence?

[Anonymous Coward]

His evidence has been debunked. The scientists whose research he used have called him out for misrepresenting the results, i.e. he basically lied about them to con others in his papers. This was done years ago, the guy is basically a fraud.

Re:And... the evidence?

[Xyrus]

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.

His papers in regards to climate have been thoroughly destroyed. A quick Google search will yield plenty of information on the topic. Just avoid the science denial sites.

Could be true, that

[Press2ToContinue]

Though that estimate might be a little high...

"Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million."

But then again, it could be right on the money:

"Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in."

Warning about global warming is a good business to be in it seems...

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: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.

what conflict?

[superwiz]

Receiving money to conduct research is conflict of interest if the funds come from parties with vested interest in findings' results? 1.2 million over a decade is hardly a "fortune". It's on par with grants received by any small-size lab. In fact, probably much less. If he is quoted as often as the summary claims, he should be receiving at least 5 times as much in government funding.

Re:Corporate interests

[TapeCutter]

Zero. Gore put his money where his mouth was and made an educational movie, the profit went straight back into his educational foundation, not his pocket. Gore is worth ~$100m, none of it has come from his activism on AGW, that activity has COST him money.

"Profit"??

[l2718]

If you don't understand how university research is funded, please don't write article summaries for slashdot on that topic. This scientist is described as having "made a fortune" for receiving research funds – but this is research money, not personal money. In fact his institution was given the $1.2M, and he just got to direct how it the money was spent (hint: his mortgage in not an allowable expense). Possibly the grants were used to cover part of his salary (though TFA doesn't say so), but that is a normal use of research funds and there are limitations on that.

I agree that he should have declared this funding in the paper (because the journal asks that funding sources be disclosed), but this is not him getting rich. This is him getting his research funded. You have a missing link:

1. Get research funds
2. Spend them on research expenses
3. ???
4. Profit!

Re:Yes, it's a conflict of interest.

[penix1]

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.

That's why there is a little thing called "peer review". If his observations are incorrect then a peer review will discover it. If his experiments can't be reproduced then the paper will be discredited (along with his career). And don't think they aren't being scrutinized given his unpopular stance. So although people tend to not bite the hand that feeds them, they also are careful of things that could ruin their career.

That being said, he should have disclosed the tie to the industry as the journal's ethics policy demands. It is up to the journal to decide if they will pull the papers. But that should in no way invalidate the science IF IT WAS PEER REVIEWED as valid.

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

[Required Snark]

Gore is right: the science is settled. In fact, it's been understood for nearly 200 years.

The existence of the greenhouse effect was argued for by Joseph Fourier in 1824. The argument and the evidence was further strengthened by Claude Pouillet in 1827 and 1838, and reasoned from experimental observations by John Tyndall in 1859, and more fully quantified by Svante Arrhenius in 1896.

In 1917 Alexander Graham Bell wrote “[The unchecked burning of fossil fuels] would have a sort of greenhouse effect”, and “The net result is the greenhouse becomes a sort of hot-house.” Bell went on to also advocate for the use of alternate energy sources, such as solar energy.

The basic mechanism is straightforward, even thought the physical system has many interacting processes.

The Earth receives energy from the Sun in the form UV, visible, and near IR radiation, most of which passes through the atmosphere without being absorbed. Of the total amount of energy available at the top of the atmosphere (TOA), about 50% is absorbed at the Earth's surface. Because it is warm, the surface radiates far IR thermal radiation that consists of wavelengths that are predominantly much longer than the wavelengths that were absorbed (the overlap between the incident solar spectrum and the terrestrial thermal spectrum is small enough to be neglected for most purposes). Most of this thermal radiation is absorbed by the atmosphere and re-radiated both upwards and downwards; that radiated downwards is absorbed by the Earth's surface. This trapping of long-wavelength thermal radiation leads to a higher equilibrium temperature than if the atmosphere were absent.

The key observation is that human activity has changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere, and this has changed the equilibrium temperature of the system.

Strengthening of the greenhouse effect through human activities is known as the enhanced (or anthropogenic) greenhouse effect. This increase in radiative forcing from human activity is attributable mainly to increased atmospheric carbon dioxide levels. According to the latest Assessment Report from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, "most of the observed increase in globally averaged temperatures since the mid-20th century is very likely due to the observed increase in anthropogenic greenhouse gas concentrations".

CO2 is produced by fossil fuel burning and other activities such as cement production and tropical deforestation. Measurements of CO2 from the Mauna Loa observatory show that concentrations have increased from about 313 ppm in 1960 to about 389 ppm in 2010. It reached the 400ppm milestone on May 9, 2013. The current observed amount of CO2 exceeds the geological record maxima (~300 ppm) from ice core data. The effect of combustion-produced carbon dioxide on the global climate, a special case of the greenhouse effect first described in 1896 by Svante Arrhenius, has also been called the Callendar effect.

Al Gore, although not a scientist by training, is smart enough to understand this. You, on the other hand, are too biased and stupid to accept facts that have been well known for a long time.

Just to make sure that your are up to speed on basic facts, the world is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun, and the universe is more then 5000 years old. Glad that I could clear these things up for you.

Re:Corporate interests

[gijoel]

Tu quoque is not a valid argument.

Show me where Al Gore fudged his results, and then failed to disclose his financial dealings.

Re:Yes, it's a conflict of interest.

[Idarubicin]

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.

Having a conflict of interest is understandable; hiding a conflict of interest is problematic.

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.

Scientists who receive funding from, for example, the pharmaceutical industry are expected to fully and explicitly disclose potentially conflicting interests--and by golly, they do. It's taken quite seriously, actually. If you look at any article in a respectable medical journal today, you'll find a section of the manuscript that's explicitly headed with Conflicting interests: or something synonymous. It will appear on every article, even on the ones where it's followed by "None declared" or the like, just so that it's clear that the journal asked for and got an on-the-record response from the article's authors. It doesn't remove the potential bias associated with outside funding, but it at least makes the potential for bias transparent.

Lying about competing interests - even through omission - is looked on very poorly by serious, credible medical researchers. Interestingly, one of the many, many types of misconduct engaged in by Andrew Wakefield was his failure to disclose significant financial interests when he published his (now-retracted and thoroughly discredited) Lancet paper suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. (Wakefield wasn't receiving pharmaceutical money, of course; he collected almost half a million pounds from lawyers involved in an anti-MMR lawsuit.)

And while the practice of mandatory disclosure started with the medical journals, the expectation has gradually bled across into other fields as well, particularly among top-tier journals.

Re:bad summary.

[dcollins]

Cited in the NY Times article; not in the papers published by Dr. Soon.

Re:Yes, it's a conflict of interest.

[Baloroth]

That's why there is a little thing called "peer review". If his observations are incorrect then a peer review will discover it.

A common misconception. Peer review does not verify that the data is correct, that the methodology in the paper is followed, or in general that the results are reliable. It looks at the methods outlined in the paper and tries to spot obvious flaws or oversights, as well as any major problems with the structure of the paper. It can't detect fraud, cherry-picking data, or a host of other problems. Some "scientists" have gotten away for years with made up data or other fraud. And of course the quality of the peer review (or even if it is peer reviewed, in some cases) depends heavily on the journal that publishes it. Anyone can make the "Journal of American Climate Study" or some other professional sounding name and publish total garbage.

If his experiments can't be reproduced then the paper will be discredited (along with his career)

This has pretty much already happened. He's published papers with deeply flawed methodology that has misrepresented the work of other scientists, espouses a scientific viewpoint (that solar variation causes most observed climate changes) that has been shown wrong years ago, and has failed to disclose the source of his funding, a fairly major ethical violation.

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:Soros?

[phantomfive]

You can tell someone is a blind Democrat if the only rich people they can name are the Kochs.

What research

[publiclurker]

all he has to do is regurgitate whatever his owners tell him to say. It's not like he is doing anything remotely resembling real science.

Re:Soros?

[shutdown -p now]

Fox News isn't mainstream media?

Re: Corporate interests

[phantomfive]

Gore is right: the science is settled. In fact, it's been understood for nearly 200 years [wikipedia.org].

That's kind of ignorant.....if we only were going to get warming from the CO2, then there would be little to worry about. It's the extra warming that we get from hypothesized feedbacks that really would destroy the world. Furthermore, even understanding the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference. There was a study in 2006 that further refined the effect that CO2 had on the atmosphere (narrowed the error bars).

We are still improving the computer models. If the science were settled, they would be much, much better at predicting.

Re: Corporate interests

[Livius]

If Al Gore is your idea of a scientist, then you don't get an opinion on what is or isn't settled.

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.

Re:Arguments against

[itzly]

That doesn't make Dyson an expert on climate.

No reference to him in the Congressional Record

[Derling Whirvish]

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.

I can find no reference to him in the recent Congressional Records. I am a skeptic of the phrase "One of scientists they quote most often is Wei-Hock Soon" as this is the first I've ever heard of him. And you would think the Congressional Record of floor debates and speeches would be the place to find a mention of him if "elected officials who want to block the EPA and legislation on climate change frequently refer to [him]." Does anyone have a reference to back this statement up?

Re: Corporate interests

[itzly]

"the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference". Mixing how? Chemically? Via radiation? Interacting with clouds?

The different gases overlap in their absorption bands, so that makes it hard to say what the individual contribution is. Also, while CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, water vapour is not. For instance, most of the water vapour is in the lower layers of the atmosphere, and in the arctic areas there's very little water vapour at all, so in higher layers and in the arctic, greenhouse effect is mostly determined by CO2. In humid layers, water vapor is the main contributor.

Re:Simple Economics

[Opportunist]

Then why do we let the geriatrics who don't give a shit about this planet's shape in a decade run the show?

I'm shocked!

[rochrist]

Shocked I tell you! Who would have expected this??

Re:funding of science

[dave420]

They have attacked his science - it's been thoroughly debunked time and time again. This time, however, it is shown that the scientist in question didn't disclose his funding, which is an ethics problem regardless of the quality of your science.