Comments on: Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

standardasparagus — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 16:55:24 -0800

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on climate change have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, 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 has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming. 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.

By: Homeskillet Freshy Fresh

Homeskillet Freshy Fresh — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:15:17 -0800

$1.2 mil over a decade seems such a low amount to sell your integrity for. Especially to oil companies, who could afford to pay much more.

By: leotrotsky

leotrotsky — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:17:10 -0800

$1.2 mil over a decade seems such a low amount to sell your integrity for. Really? You can get a member of Congress for a fraction of that. Of course, they really don't have much integrity to begin with.

By: leslies

leslies — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:20:39 -0800

Lovely - corrupt pseudoscience by someone whose expertise is in a different area, funded by the Kochs and other right wingers. John Schwartz is an old friend and an excellent journalist so am delighted to see his work here as one of the main climate beat guys at the Times.

By: leotrotsky

leotrotsky — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:21:21 -0800

Oh, and as federal funding dries up, and more researchers are fighting for fewer dollars, this stuff is only going to increase. Which is probably part of the point.

By: dawg-proud

dawg-proud — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:33:23 -0800

So, in addition to being a climate-change denier, he is also a funding denier and an influence denier. Fabulous. On the other hand, even with funding from Koch, et al, he could be routinely ignored instead of highlighted in Congress and feted on Fox. There is a significant population that wants to ignore the changes that need to made. The actual person and research are totally beyond the point for those individuals. I still don't like Dr. Soon, but he isn't the real villain.

By: leslies

leslies — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:36:46 -0800

My hope here is that the attention will force both the institutions he's affiliated with and the journals that published his findings to look a lot harder at both him and everyone else. He's getting away with it on the strength of his association with Harvard and the Smithsonian and it sounds like they're paying attention at last.

By: Sys Rq

Sys Rq — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:48:51 -0800

I still don't like Dr. Soon, but he isn't the real villain. Henchmen are villains too.

By: CrowGoat

CrowGoat — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:50:22 -0800

My brother is a world-class researcher and biologist. He has 25 years experience all over the planet. He has always said it's tough to get research funds and grants to study the big issues and global problems... ..."Unless you are willing to rubber-stamp industrial nightmare outcomes for big industries." (sorry, can't cite him)

By: polymodus

polymodus — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 17:53:15 -0800

In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. "These are scientists that cannot be challenged," the senator said. This mentality explains/captures everything.

By: clavdivs

clavdivs — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:00:45 -0800

Pinbacker: I am Pinbacker, Commander of the Icarus One. We have abandoned our mission. Our star is dying. All our science. All our hopes, our... our dreams, are foolish! In the face of this, we are dust, nothing more. Unto this dust, we return. When he chooses for us to die, it is not our place to challenge God. Mace: Okay, that make sense to anyone?

By: neonrev

neonrev — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 18:58:13 -0800

I still don't like Dr. Soon, but he isn't the real villain. Henchmen are villains too. The henchmen in this case is more of a symptom than the cause though. It's just much easier to get angry at and want to see punished the lower level people who end up supporting evil rather than those who create it simply because they might actually get punished somewhat. They end up both functioning as shills while active and smokescreens once discovered. Focusing anger at whatever scientist an industry managed to pay off really just ignores the real issue, the companies and people willing and able to corrupt scientific research for their own political and financial benefit. Dr. Soon's unethical behavior, as bad as it is, pales in comparison to the people who sought out and paid him and (almost certainly) others to lie about their work for their own benefit at everyone else's detriment.

By: benito.strauss

benito.strauss — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:13:52 -0800

Both types wrong and can both be disapproved of to their own degree. Calling Dr. Soon a "symptom" denies him any responsibility for his actions. I can't imagine why someone would want to do that.

By: clockzero

clockzero — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:38:15 -0800

The henchmen in this case is more of a symptom than the cause though. You're implying that there can only be one bad thing at a time, or that we should only be concerned with the most bad thing that we can identify. That's a fatuous, overly-simplistic, and counter-productive argument. Soon's actions are having a negative impact: he is a cause of further problems in the context of a situation that is already quite bad. It's just much easier to get angry at and want to see punished the lower level people who end up supporting evil rather than those who create it simply because they might actually get punished somewhat. These are uncharitable and arbitrary assumptions about the motivations of people who are correctly identifying someone who is behaving unethically and dishonestly in the service of a sociopathic, corrupt coalition of industry and government. What you've said is, ironically, itself a diversion from the issue at hand, which is what you're accusing other people of engaging in. Dr. Soon's unethical behavior, as bad as it is, pales in comparison to the people who sought out and paid him and (almost certainly) others to lie about their work for their own benefit at everyone else's detriment. It does not pale in comparison. Soon's behavior and that of his patrons are both terrible and deserving of critique. The spurious, continued implication that we're obliged to properly construct a moral hierarchy, and that only the things at the top of that hierarchy are legitimate objects of critique, is asinine.

By: wintermind

wintermind — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:48:55 -0800

Dr. Soon deserves censure for what are very serious lapses in professional ethics. The disclosure requirements exist as part of the evidence needed to evaluate a scientific study. A potential conflict of interest is not a sign that a study cannot be trusted, but it can be very important when evaluating contrarian results on controversial topics to be aware of those conflicts.

By: srboisvert

srboisvert — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 19:50:53 -0800

The henchmen in this case is more of a symptom than the cause though. Symptoms are also often deadly all on their own regardless of cause.

By: double block and bleed

double block and bleed — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:10:39 -0800

Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals. "I think that's inappropriate behavior," Dr. Alcock said. "This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally."

If he loses his job, will he become a martyr for daring to speak the "truth"? Will he make even more on the speaking circuit talking about how the "mainstream" scientific community silenced him?

By: clockzero

clockzero — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:22:31 -0800

If he loses his job, will he become a martyr for daring to speak the "truth"? Will he make even more on the speaking circuit talking about how the "mainstream" scientific community silenced him? Maybe, but what can you do, really? People who would believe that version of events are already pretty deep in the rabbit hole.

By: neonrev

neonrev — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:22:34 -0800

Dr. Soon will almost certainly be punished. I never said he wasn't a horrid human being, or that what he did was at all okay, or that he should be absolved of guilt. My problem is that absolutely nothing will happen to the people who actually PAID him to do these things, and they can pretty trivially find a new scientist of flexible morals to shill for them. It's not at all this particular man or his particular work (although they did serve to entrench the bad) that is the real core of the issue here, it's that there is a group of people who are extremely wealthy, extremely powerful and free of risk of punishment that is able to corrupt scientists for their own ends. That'd be why they do it, that's why this even happened in the first place. I can't possibly imagine this man went to college, went to grad school and achieved a fairly respectable position in academia with the goal of falsifying his findings for money. I can't imagine that he was shopping around for patrons to lie for. Someone or something did that to him, even if it was just offering the chance to be unethical. Every time a journalist or scientist is found to have lied in the service of a higher, more evil power, people group around to slam them while whoever paid them to do that laughs in their sleeve while some disposable shill loses their career (deservedly, oftentimes) and they continue to make billions ruining whole swaths of the earth. I find it personally pretty hard to hate the bribed more than the briber, especially when the bribed is some dude and the briber is literally the most negative force in modern economics and politics that has proven itself capable of corrupting pretty much anything it touches. Do you hate the tumor that hurts or the cancer that causes it? Which one is more damaging to the entire system? Does removing the tumor actually do anything to solve the problem, or do you just feel better not having to look at it after? Focusing on symptoms instead of causes is just bad medicine.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:25:34 -0800

Lets give it up (literally) for GREENPEACE.

By: mrgrimm

mrgrimm — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:26:54 -0800

Focusing on symptoms instead of causes is just bad medicine. Tell that to the common-cold sufferer. Alleviating the symptoms is better than nothing. /counterpoint

By: double block and bleed

double block and bleed — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 21:39:27 -0800

clockzero: "Maybe, but what can you do, really? People who would believe that version of events are already pretty deep in the rabbit hole." You call it "rabbit hole". I call it "Congress".

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 23:00:19 -0800

Soon has made himself a key element in putting literally the entire world at risk, and for what? For the purpose of fattening his bank account. End of story. Glad this soulless corporate shill is being exposed for what he is: a contemptible, lying little lapdog doing his corporate masters bidding, at the expense of all of us. If there's any justice he will be stripped of any positions of respect or authority that he holds (take note, Smithsonian Institution), and will be swiftly relegated to the junk heap where he belongs.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sat, 21 Feb 2015 23:09:04 -0800

I'd like to point out that it was none other than Greenpeace who dug up this new information on Soon's corporate funding, especially in light of all the Greenpeace Haterade that was being guzzled here at MeFi a while back when that Peruvian desert story was raging. Big kudos to Greenpeace on this one, and on so much of what they do. Apart from the occasional transgression, they are a great organization that's got our backs, know what I'm saying?

By: klangklangston

klangklangston — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 01:58:18 -0800

"$1.2 mil over a decade seems such a low amount to sell your integrity for. Especially to oil companies, who could afford to pay much more." To be fair, all of Dr. Soon's most sophisticated models show no link between money and his opinions.

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 02:22:13 -0800

Interesting the article omits any link to the actual report by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center. Way to credit your sources NYT.

By: Stacey

Stacey — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 04:20:43 -0800

I have a talk to give next week about conflicts of interest in research. Will be adding a slide about this one in my "hiding your conflicts of interest is a million times worse than disclosing them truthfully" section.

By: indubitable

indubitable — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 06:46:40 -0800

Remember when we put Lynndie England on trial and thereby ended the US torture program forever?

By: clockzero

clockzero — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:00:38 -0800

Remember when we put Lynndie England on trial and thereby ended the US torture program forever? Oh yeah, that was right before someone pointed out an even bigger problem and thereby rendered the torture morally negligible

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:15:57 -0800

Remember when we put Lynndie England on trial and thereby ended the US torture program forever? I don't understand this comment, in relation to the subject under discussion here.

By: PixelPiper

PixelPiper — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:18:43 -0800

I wonder if Soon's science is good.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:27:32 -0800

I wonder if Soon's science is good. Well, this excerpt from the linked article wouldn't exactly inspire confidence: Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun's energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change. Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it. "The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless," Dr. Schmidt said.

By: sneebler

sneebler — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 07:40:27 -0800

Interesting the article omits any link to the actual report by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center. That was a wise strategy though, because unfortunately Greenpeace would provide a major red herring in a conversation about Dr. Soon and the funding of science denial.

By: sneebler

sneebler — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 08:09:33 -0800

Also, I like this summary of Soon's role in the Climate Flea Circus. Also, here's a supporting article that goes in to more detail about Soon's affiliations and his role within the science denial community.

By: feste

feste — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:30:47 -0800

Breitbart's headline is: "NYT smears scientist Willie Soon for telling the truth about 'Global Warming.'" It's really kind of perfect. The liberal rag is named, they don't report, they "smear," the man who tells the truth, and it's not called Climate Change, but the outdated and crazy sounding Global Warming. Take note, aspiring Onion writers!

By: 1970s Antihero

1970s Antihero — Sun, 22 Feb 2015 11:52:24 -0800

Take note, aspiring Onion writers! The problem is that this shit stopped being funny a long, long time ago.

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:42:47 -0800

Willie Soon: 'Too Much Ice Is Really Bad for Polar Bears' Right-Wing Media Rush To Defend Industry-Funded Climate Denier Willie Soon

By: flapjax at midnite

flapjax at midnite — Tue, 24 Feb 2015 19:43:40 -0800

No word from the Smithsonian Institution yet on whether theyre gonna dump Soon, or back him, or what...

By: Hairy Lobster

Hairy Lobster — Wed, 25 Feb 2015 14:11:58 -0800

One more thing for deniers to deny: First direct observation of carbon dioxide's increasing greenhouse effect at Earth's surface

By: jeffburdges

jeffburdges — Thu, 26 Feb 2015 06:10:38 -0800

NAS : Statistical Challenges in Assessing and Fostering the Reproducibility of Scientific Results