The New York Times offers a story on Wei-Hock ("Willie") Soon, a scientist often cited by climate change skeptics. Greenpeace, through a Freedom of Information Act request, turned up evidence that Soon has been paid more than $1.2 million by energy companies in the past decade. He refers to specific reports as "deliverables," but has not disclosed potential conflicts of interest to some journals. Soon, whose degree is in aerospace engineering, is known for his claims that solar activity can account for any shift in climate.
Mother Jones and Daily Kos also have articles based on the NYT report.
Related Stories
John Schwartz reports at The New York Times that prominent members of the United States House of Representatives and the Senate are demanding information from universities, companies and trade groups about funding for scientists who publicly dispute widely held views on the causes and risks of climate change. In letters sent to seven universities, Representative Raúl M. Grijalva, an Arizona Democrat who is the ranking member of the House committee on natural resources, sent detailed requests to the academic employers of scientists who had testified before Congress about climate change. "My colleagues and I cannot perform our duties if research or testimony provided to us is influenced by undisclosed financial relationships.” Grijalva asked for each university’s policies on financial disclosure and the amount and sources of outside funding for each scholar, “communications regarding the funding” and “all drafts” of testimony. Meanwhile Edward J. Markey of Massachusetts, Barbara Boxer of California and Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island sent 100 letters to fossil fuel companies, trade groups and other organizations asking about their funding of climate research and advocacy asking for responses by April 3. “Corporate special interests shouldn’t be able to secretly peddle the best junk science money can buy,” said Senator Markey, denouncing what he called “denial-for-hire operations.”
The letters come after evidence emerged over the weekend that Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, had failed to disclose the industry funding for his academic work. The documents also included correspondence between Dr. Soon and the companies who funded his work in which he referred to his papers and testimony as “deliverables.” Soon 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. “What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” says Kert Davies.
See our earlier story: Climate Change Denying Scientist Paid Millions by Energy Companies.
(Score: 4, Funny) by c0lo on Monday February 23 2015, @12:49PM
Oh, come on, guys. I thought last time [soylentnews.org] we agreed to call them skenialists (skeptic denying scientist), no?
(ok, ok... don't shoot... I'll go to sleep and spare you of my black pretence of humor for the rest of the day)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford
(Score: 3, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Monday February 23 2015, @07:20PM
They are neither skeptics nor scientists.
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 1) by BK on Monday February 23 2015, @12:55PM
No, I haven't read the story yet. I will later and I promise to get all outraged at the quid pro quo. But based on just the title above, I just thought I'd point out:
NASA pays scientists who keep coming up with reasons to strap rockets on things and shoot them into space. Hell, it even keeps some on staff. I hear that the ESA does this too.
Scandal!
...but you HAVE heard of me.
(Score: 5, Informative) by Thexalon on Monday February 23 2015, @01:00PM
There are 2 differences:
1. The NASA scientists come up with what they want to study, and then say "This is the experiment we'd need to launch into space to find out about X". That's different from saying "Here's the result of my study, and the result is that we need to give NASA eleventy-gajillion dollars."
2. The NASA scientists will say something along the lines of "Hi, I work for NASA". This guy said he worked for Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, even though his real employer was someone else.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by ikanreed on Monday February 23 2015, @02:29PM
(operating on year+ old memories here, so please forgive minor factual errors)
And keep in mind, no serious scientists actually liked Soon's work because he refused to discuss the details of his methodology for "historical data cyclical alignment" that he'd submit to virtually any journal except those that actually address climate related measurements.
Neither of those alone is enough to reject the validity of a paper. Both together is suspicious, but still in the bounds of "it happens." Throw in an undisclosed conflict of interest, and "shill" becomes a very appropriate word.
(Score: 5, Informative) by khallow on Monday February 23 2015, @06:39PM
The NASA scientists come up with what they want to study, and then say "This is the experiment we'd need to launch into space to find out about X". That's different from saying "Here's the result of my study, and the result is that we need to give NASA eleventy-gajillion dollars."
No, they don't. And they routinely do the latter. For example, the Bush-era selection process for Constellation magically found that solid rockets, made by major, non partisan, campaign contributor Alliant Techsystems, were less risky than liquid fuel rockets - even though that just wasn't true. After an FOIA lawsuit, it turned out that there was an appendix to the report (which hadn't been published on the grounds that it contained trade secrets), which described both a completely unjustified and very selective [selenianboondocks.com] safety compromise, which was admitted in the appendix as being necessary in order to allow consideration of solid rocket motors in the first place, and ignoring a variety of risks associated with solid fuel rockets (such as thrust oscillation and destroying your launch integration facilities with an accidental ignition of the solid rocket motor).
And of course, James Hansen, the former head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies, has long made a habit of telling his political backers what they want him to say for a couple of decades. Take a look at this $1.2 million in outside income [wattsupwiththat.com] (including other sources not included in this list, this apparently goes up to $1.6 million over five years) from someone on the other side who neglected to report it as income to NASA:
Blue Planet Prize ($500,000), travel for Hansen and his wife to Tokyo, Japan, 2010
Dan David Prize ($500,000), travel to Paris, 2007
Sophie Prize ($100,000), Oslo Norway, travel for Hansen and his wife, 2010
WWF Duke of Edinburgh Award, Travel for Hansen and his wife, London, 2006
Alpbach, Austria (alpine resort)(“business class”, with wife), 2007
Shell Oil UK ($10,000), London, 2009
FORO Cluster de Energia, travel for Hansen and wife (“business class”), Bilbao, Spain, 2008
ACT Coalition, travel for Hansen and wife to London, 2007
Progressive Forum ($10,000)(“first class”), to Houston, 2006
Progressive Forum ($10,000), to Houston, 2009
UCSB ($10,000), to Santa Barbara, CA
Nierenberg Prize ($25,000), to San Diego, 2008
Nevada Medal ($20,000), to Las Vegas, Reno, 2008
EarthWorks Expos, to Denver, 2006
California Academy of Science ($1,500), to San Francisco, 2009
CalTech ($2,000), travel to Pasadena, CA for Hansen and his wife, 2007
This isn't money given for Hansen's research, it's money given directly to Hansen.
(Score: 1, Troll) by BasilBrush on Monday February 23 2015, @09:07PM
You have no integrity whatsoever.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday February 23 2015, @10:33PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @04:14AM
So if somebody wins the Nobel prize, s/he's a parrot of the Nobel committee?
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday February 25 2015, @07:12AM
(Score: 3, Funny) by JNCF on Monday February 23 2015, @01:51PM
No, I haven't read the story yet. I will later and I promise to get all outraged at the quid pro quo.
He'll get outraged, Soon.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by NickFortune on Monday February 23 2015, @02:00PM
When someone gets paid to suggest ways we might find out new things, that's science.
When someone gets paid to produce reports in support of a predetermined position, that's politics.
This guy says he's doing science, but he isn't.
(Score: 1) by anfieldsierra on Monday February 23 2015, @09:37PM
My irony detector is going off so loudly here, it's almost deafening.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nobuddy on Monday February 23 2015, @10:25PM
yes, Scientists paid to support a predefined conclusion are never wrong. Lead is perfectly safe for use in gasoline, Tobacco is harmless, and coal plants do not cause acid rain.
This ain't our first rodeo. Any industry threatened by the consequences of their actions does this shit.
(Score: 0, Flamebait) by anfieldsierra on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:37AM
Please tell me more about all the climate scientists producing their research without being funded by any special interest groups. Can you tell me about how they manage to pay their bills without any funding ? Are the independently wealthy ? Or are they just philanthropists ? Or perhaps they live on pixie dust and unicorn milk.
I'm so glad to hear that it's only the evil skeptics that are funded this way and that no climate scientists stoop to accpepting research grant money.
"Mr Pot, there's a phone call for you from Mr Kettle." Again my irony detector is working overtime :-)
(Score: 1) by NickFortune on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:30PM
Impressive as your sarcasm undoubtedly is, you're missing the point entirely.
If I say to you "global warning isn't happening and anyway it isn't our fault! Now find me some data to support that", then what I'm asking you to do is politics, not science.
Similarly, if I say to you "global warming is real and it's dangerous! Go find me some data to support that", I'm still asking for politics and it's still not science.
In both cases doesn't matter if the guy doing the politics has been trained as a scientist or has a science degree or any of that shit. If the only acceptable outcome is fixed in advance the activity is not science.
As a corollary to that, suppose I say "I'm concerned about recent weather patters. Run some computer simulations and see how likely it is that human activity is affecting global temperatures". If I say that, then I'm asking you to do science. And the interesting thing is that (assuming you do as instructed) it's still science, even if I find the result unpalatable for some reason.
Well done. Now see if you can detect some science.
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Nobuddy on Friday February 27 2015, @07:16PM
You clearly cannot grasp the difference between research funding and checks in the pocket of the individual.
(Score: 1) by NickFortune on Tuesday February 24 2015, @07:37AM
It's not the job title that's important, it's the activity.
Scientists being paid to support a fixed predetermined conclusion are not doing science. And that's all they they do, then "scientist" is the wrong job description.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by AnonTechie on Monday February 23 2015, @12:59PM
As long as there are influential people willing to be bought, there are lobbyists willing to pay. This was true in case of "big tobacco", petroleum, in the pharmaceutical industry and in many others. What surprises me is that although such disclosures are public knowledge, there are people who still think they can avoid getting caught and are willing to take the risk for some extra cash.
Albert Einstein - "Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former."
(Score: 4, Insightful) by BasilBrush on Monday February 23 2015, @01:51PM
What risk? There's no risk he'll lose the $1.2m + the rest that wasn't discovered. And if his reputation lies in tatters, what does it matter, he's laughing all the way to the bank.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 5, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @01:08PM
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show [theguardian.com]
What a nice guy. What a nice industry.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by FuzzyTheBear on Monday February 23 2015, @01:26PM
Scientists on the take ? Come on ..
Haven't they always been ? Time after time these people have had no trouble to exchange their integrity and self respect for a few silver pieces. That guy's career as a scientist is over. No one in their right mind will ever consider seriously his papers. It's a waste of time.
I would not hire that guy to search for a paper clip. Would you ?
Greed One of the 7 deadly sins.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @02:02PM
Well, it doesn't matter what the scientific community thinks, only whether he can get column inches. Climate change isn't a debate about science any more...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by GreatAuntAnesthesia on Monday February 23 2015, @02:53PM
> That guy's career as a scientist is over.
Maybe, but his career as a millionaire playboy is just beginning. I'm sure he has received way more than the reported 1.2 million, and I'd bet nobody's going to make him it back.
Meanwhile; shit sticks, and the bullshit this guy has been flinging will continue to convince ignorant people that black is white for years to come, even if he is publicly discredited and dragged backwards through the streets. If you don't believe me, look how many dickheads still quote Not-a-Doctor Andrew Babykiller Wakefield as though he was a credible source.
(Score: 5, Funny) by Thexalon on Monday February 23 2015, @03:10PM
See, that's where he went wrong - Richard Feynman proved you could be a great scientist and a millionaire playboy. Just stick to the science, Mr Soon, and you could have had it all.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by n1 on Monday February 23 2015, @03:27PM
I would bet the odds of becoming a millionaire from being a good scientist are insignificant compared to becoming a millionaire from being a corporate shill in name of science.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @06:50PM
> See, that's where he went wrong - Richard Feynman proved you could be a great scientist and a millionaire playboy.
And you can win the lottery too. Doesn't really prove anything.
(Score: 2) by moondrake on Monday February 23 2015, @02:53PM
In all fairness, he did not get the money personally. He got it to do research. That is probably not really greed, but a way to be successful as a scientist. The problem is not so much that industry funded him (happens a lot, especially in NA, and more and more in Europe), but the problem is that he failed to openly acknowledge on the papers who funded that research.
The latter is not very good, but I will not claim such things never happen. If it was a fairly impartial organization that gave you the money it would easily been forgiven or at least forgotten, but in this particular case it will give him a stain that is hard to get rid of.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by khallow on Monday February 23 2015, @06:50PM
Haven't they always been ? Time after time these people have had no trouble to exchange their integrity and self respect for a few silver pieces. That guy's career as a scientist is over. No one in their right mind will ever consider seriously his papers. It's a waste of time.
If that were true, then we'd have rule out most of the big climatologists and research organizations on the same grounds. At some point, you have to start looking at actual evidence rather than just do ad hominem attacks.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @03:09PM
it's obvious ... the sun is HUGE!
nevertheless the money was well spent.
next up: scientists gets bribed to claim that cars make life easier ...
(Score: 5, Insightful) by bradley13 on Monday February 23 2015, @03:52PM
$1.2 million over 10 years - that's $120,000 a year. Just about pays one salary, or maybe 2-3 grad students. Gee, wow.
Lots of scientists are sponsored by lots of different companies and groups. Just as an example: Greenpeace funds piles of research. What a coincidence that the funded scientists publish things that Greenpeace likes! Guess what, the scientists who apply for funding from Greenpeace are those who already agree with what Greenpeace stands for, and want to (or already do) choose their projects accordingly.
It will be much the same in this case: the guy has ideas that go against AGW. Where is he going to get funding to pursue his ideas, to research them and publish the results? Probably not from organizations with a vested interest in proving AGW.
This article is basically an ad hominem attack: somebody doesn't like what the guy says, so they implicitly accuse him of corruption. If they had liked his message, the article would have read very differently.
How about concentrating on his science, rather than on his sponsors?
Everyone is somebody else's weirdo.
(Score: 3, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 23 2015, @06:32PM
This article is basically an ad hominem attack: somebody doesn't like what the guy says, so they implicitly accuse him of corruption. If they had liked his message, the article would have read very differently.
Good lord, learn the name of another fallacy already. Why is it always ad-hominem with you guys.
Also, for the record, scientific misconduct relates directly to the accuracy of the science in question. Therefore, this is absolutely not an ad-hominem fallacy.
(Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @08:26PM
This, a thousand times.
(Score: -1, Troll) by anfieldsierra on Monday February 23 2015, @09:09PM
Becuase ad-hominem is the modus operandi of the AGW crowd. You cannot attack the science so you attack the messenger.
If there was something wrong with Dr Soon's findings don't you think the warmists would be trumpeting any "flaws" in his research loudly ? But no, you cannot fault the science so you attack the man instead. It's getting a bit tired.
Good lord, learn another tactic already. Why is it always ad-hominem with you guys ? Can't you actually construct a counter arguement ? It's like you don't have the facts on your side. Clearly ad-hominem is the only weapon you have and it's failing badly for you.
And lets just inject a few facts into this discussion over funding. Dr Soon was paid (by some evil energy companies) for some research over a period of some 10 years which he rightly disclosed. During this time, he produced some other research which wasn't paid for (by evil energy companies). Now your argument is that he should have said that the research he wasn't paid for (by evil energy companies) should have been indicated as being funded by the evil energy companies who didn't actually fund that particular research.... You guys are a laugh a minute.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Monday February 23 2015, @09:36PM
> Becuase ad-hominem is the modus operandi of the AGW crowd.
Since I'm not so deep into this topic that I know what the AGW acronym means, it was really, really hard to figure out who you were criticising. Your screed was so generic it could be applied to either side.
(Score: 3, Informative) by nitehawk214 on Monday February 23 2015, @07:22PM
Why is climate change denying that a scientist was paid millions by energy companies?
"Don't you ever miss the days when you used to be nostalgic?" -Loiosh
(Score: 3, Informative) by EQ on Monday February 23 2015, @07:51PM
Is this a religion we are talking about -- Or is it simply politics? Stop with the loaded prejudicial language, and concentrate on the subject matter: a guy acting as a lobbyist who is claiming to be a scientist.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by anfieldsierra on Monday February 23 2015, @09:18PM
Global warming absolutely is a religion. It is a belief system which is not backed by science, at least not using the traditional scientific method where you have a falsifiable hypothesis. One side of the debate constantly resorts to name-calling and smear tactics. (It is left as an exercise for the reader to figure out which side that is.)
(Score: 5, Informative) by DeathMonkey on Monday February 23 2015, @09:27PM
Global warming absolutely is a religion. It is a belief system which is not backed by science, at least not using the traditional scientific method where you have a falsifiable hypothesis.
Solar irradiance remains constant, C02 levels increase but temperatures go down = FALSIFIED HYPOTHESIS.
You must have to try really hard to not understand that.
(Score: 1) by anfieldsierra on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:26AM
Oh dear....speaking of trying really hard not to understand:
* CO2 levels have been rising consistently and yet global temperatures have remained flat for over 18 years = FALSIFIED HYPOTHESIS
* Historic temperature rises lead (occur prior to) CO2 level rises = FALSIFIED HYPOTHESIS
And I'm also grateful that you've been able to reduce this whole argument to a simple linear equation of y = ax + b such that CO2 is the only variable we must consider when calculating global temperatures. You really do need to go back to school.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday February 24 2015, @12:19AM
What identifies a case in this area?
Public trust in the peer review process and the credibility of published articles depend in part on how well conflict of interest is handled during writing, peer review, and editorial decision making. Conflict of interest exists when an author (or the author’s institution), reviewer, or editor has financial or personal relationships that inappropriately influence (bias) his or her actions (such relationships are also known as dual commitments, competing interests, or competing loyalties). These relationships vary from those with negligible potential to those with great potential to influence judgment, and not all relationships represent true conflict of interest. The potential for conflict of interest can exist whether or not an individual believes that the relationship affects his or her scientific judgment. Financial relationships (such as employment, consultancies, stock ownership, honoraria, paid expert testimony) are the most easily identifiable conflicts of interest and the most likely to undermine the credibility of the journal, the authors, and of science itself. However, conflicts can occur for other reasons, such as personal relationships, academic competition, and intellectual passion.
Disclosure
All participants in the peer review and publication process must disclose all relationships that could be viewed as presenting a potential conflict of interest. Disclosure of these relationships is also important in connection with editorials and review articles, because it can be more difficult to detect bias in these types of publications than in reports of original research. Editors may use information disclosed in conflict of interest and financial interest statements as a basis for editorial decisions. Editors should publish this information if they believe it is important in judging the manuscript.
A blog which discusses [cleantechnica.com] the actual research papers with the undisclosed conflict of interest. They actually have nine papers listed instead of eight mentioned in the NYT story, the paper titled "Multiple and changing cycles of active stars – II" should not be included since it is not climate research.
Bottom line is that Soon took considerable funding from sources that generate a conflict of interest and published at least three papers (and perhaps all eight) in journals that require as a condition of publication disclosure of relevant conflicts of interest. I would consider that scientific misconduct after all.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 24 2015, @06:19AM
Looks like this was started by greenpeace to vilify a scientist who's experiments disprove greenpeace's current objectives. The money mentioned above is for a grant to the Smithsonian Institute.
Meanwhile no mention of the 1.6million Dr James Hansen pocketed by himself in 2011 by being a cheer leader for man made global warming. Meanwhile his climate models which are, to his knowledge, 99% accurate - over estimated warming by several factors.
At what point will AGW believers start to remember quotes of their cheer leader scientists and hold them to account. Or are we playing games of shifting goal posts while this theory continues to be debunked? It feels like the public at large parrot what they heard today but forget what they parroted years ago once that claim has been disproven.
I think soylent should steer clear of AGW articles, or put them in a special area along with homeopathy and alien abductions.