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.But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received 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 newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.Southern is one of the largest utility holding companies in the country, with huge investments in coal-burning power plants. The company has spent heavily over many years to lobby against greenhouse-gas regulations in Washington. More recently, it has spent significant money to research ways to limit emissions.“Southern Company funds a broad range of research on a number of topics that have potentially significant public-policy implications for our business,” said Jeannice M. Hall, a spokeswoman. The company declined to answer detailed questions about its funding of Dr. Soon’s research.Dr. Soon also received at least $230,000 from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. (Mr. Koch’s fortune derives partly from oil refining.) However, other companies and industry groups that once supported Dr. Soon, including Exxon Mobil and the American Petroleum Institute, appear to have eliminated their grants to him in recent years.As the oil-industry contributions fell, Dr. Soon started receiving hundreds of thousands of dollars through DonorsTrust, an organization based in Alexandria, Va., that accepts money from donors who wish to remain anonymous, then funnels it to various conservative causes.
As a researcher I think there are a few things we need to clear up here:- It is normal for researchers to rely on external funding. I work with sustainable transportation and reducing car-dependence but have received money from the car industry for some projects. Why? Because out of 5 funding sources they were the ones that accepted my application. Nothing spurious about that and I don't care where the money comes from. They have actually been some of the best sponsors since they didn't require a lot of additional BS administration and paperwork during the project, whereas you can set aside 10% of a research grant just to deliver progress reports with some public funds.- In terms of research grants $1.2 million is not a lot of money. The funding alone is not really a problem and can't be used as an argument against the quality of research. I certainly don't deny anthropogenic climate change, but I understand the feeling of having your research interests overlooked again and again by public research grants and needing to seek funding elsewhere.- There is nothing shady about promising deliverables. Nothing at all. All publications in a research project are called deliverables, no matter the source of funding. It means you have promised to publish your results (to deliver a report or article is a target deliverable), not that you have promised what those results will be.Now, that doesn't mean Willie is in the clear, it just means that NY Times are mixing real concerns with nonsense and bringing in the wrong issues for 80% of the article. His research should be evaluated based on the data, methods and explanatory power, all of which are criticised by many experts in the field. The only two things that really matter in this article are that he failed to disclose his funding sources for 8 papers and that the impact of his findings is criticised by his peers. That is serious enough, but all the other fluff in that article is completely normal research practice.
Lets be serious here for a second. If someone is waiving 1.2 Mil in your face, you're gonna do what they tell you.
Quote from: PSU on February 21, 2015, 09:29:45 PMLets be serious here for a second. If someone is waiving 1.2 Mil in your face, you're gonna do what they tell you.1.2 million isn't even enough to buy a decent fucking house these days.
Quote from: Sandtrap on February 22, 2015, 12:20:45 AMQuote from: PSU on February 21, 2015, 09:29:45 PMLets be serious here for a second. If someone is waiving 1.2 Mil in your face, you're gonna do what they tell you.1.2 million isn't even enough to buy a decent fucking house these days.are you kidding me? 1.2 million? nigga
Quote from: Gatsby | The Symbiote on February 22, 2015, 04:49:06 AMQuote from: Sandtrap on February 22, 2015, 12:20:45 AMQuote from: PSU on February 21, 2015, 09:29:45 PMLets be serious here for a second. If someone is waiving 1.2 Mil in your face, you're gonna do what they tell you.1.2 million isn't even enough to buy a decent fucking house these days.are you kidding me? 1.2 million? niggaHe is right. Let's take a look at Jesse's house in Breaking Bad. His parents wanted to sell the thing for $800,000 and it was just an average house. I know it's a fictional TV show but the prices of houses are correct. Depending on your area you could be buying close to a million or more for a house.
Quote from: Sandtrap on February 22, 2015, 12:20:45 AMwatSee this is why nobody takes goodbyes seriously.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 22, 2015, 09:46:37 AMSand, just a heads up, that funding isn't just dropped into the researcher's bank account. They're not really allowed to live off of it, they're supposed to use it for research expenses. And you realize you don't actually need a million dollars to buy a million dinner house, right? This isn't a bribe, it's corporations choosing research that will likely give results in their favor.They "fund" that "research" higher than others would.
Sand, just a heads up, that funding isn't just dropped into the researcher's bank account. They're not really allowed to live off of it, they're supposed to use it for research expenses. And you realize you don't actually need a million dollars to buy a million dinner house, right? This isn't a bribe, it's corporations choosing research that will likely give results in their favor.
Quote from: HurtfulTurkey on February 22, 2015, 09:46:37 AMSand, just a heads up, that funding isn't just dropped into the researcher's bank account. They're not really allowed to live off of it, they're supposed to use it for research expenses. And you realize you don't actually need a million dollars to buy a million dinner house, right? This isn't a bribe, it's corporations choosing research that will likely give results in their favor.While from a technical standpoint, yes, you don't need a physical million dollars to buy a house, at the same time you still have to pay off the mortgage on your house which therefore means that you still do need to earn a million dollars to pay for it, and not only that, but more because of interest rates. So from another standpoint, yes, you need a million dollars to buy a million dollar house.And on the end issue, favoritism. Oho boy isn't that always a fun concept concerning up and coming future issues.
Quote from: Meta Cognition on February 22, 2015, 12:15:25 PMSo are we all just going to forget that Koch-funded study from a few years back that concluded anthropogenic global warming was real? I mean, come on. If you want to ride some conservative dick, at least be original.Are you fucking defending the Koch brothers?
So are we all just going to forget that Koch-funded study from a few years back that concluded anthropogenic global warming was real? I mean, come on. If you want to ride some conservative dick, at least be original.
What is with you and "the Left"? Why are you buying into this blatant divide and conquer shit our governments are doing to us?
Nah there's no issue with nothing but the fact that you're down playing the whole thing.
Why are you buying into this blatant divide and conquer shit our governments are doing to us?
Leading climate-denier bribed by oil companies/Koch bros
