climate skeptic or propagandist?

[bud]

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change has admitted to being paid more than $1m in the past decade by major US oil and coal companies.

Dr Willie Soon, an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, is known for his view that global warming and the melting of the arctic sea ice is caused by solar variation rather than human-caused CO2 emissions, and that polar bears are not primarily threatened by climate change.

But according to a Greenpeace US investigation, he has been heavily funded by coal and oil industry interests since 2001, receiving money from ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Insitute and Koch Industries along with Southern, one of the world's largest coal-burning utility companies. Since 2002, it is alleged, every new grant he has received has been from either oil or coal interests.

link

where is slim shady to put this into perspective?

[Michael Hardner]

That's fine - he's a respected climate scientist... I just don't want to hear people talking about Green funding like it's mafia money anymore.

The science will stand or it will fall, no matter who pays for it.

[dre]

That's fine - he's a respected climate scientist... I just don't want to hear people talking about Green funding like it's mafia money anymore.

The science will stand or it will fall, no matter who pays for it.

Well its fine, but you gotta take what he says with a pretty big grain of salt.

[Michael Hardner]

Well its fine, but you gotta take what he says with a pretty big grain of salt.

What he says is backed up by his research. I'd rather have oil companies back real research than nutbar blogs.

[TimG]

What he says is backed up by his research. I'd rather have oil companies back real research than nutbar blogs.

The quality of scientific discussion at blogs like climate audit exceeds that of many pro-climate alarm papers that get published in journals. Blogs have become a important communication medium and it is very silly to suggest they have no place in scientific discourse.

[TimG]

Well its fine, but you gotta take what he says with a pretty big grain of salt.

yep, just like you have to take most reasearch from government funded institutions with a big grain of salt. Edited June 30, 2011 by TimG

[Michael Hardner]

Blogs have become a important communication medium and it is very silly to suggest they have no place in scientific discourse.

They have a place in public discourse but why would you bog science down in discussions with people who aren't qualified ?

[TimG]

One of the world's most prominent scientific figures to be sceptical about climate change...

Soon made a big splash years before I even looked at the climate issue but he has done nothing recently and is certainly not a source that most sceptical blogs even look at.

[TimG]

They have a place in public discourse but why would you bog science down in discussions with people who aren't qualified ?

Who says the people on the commenting on the blog are not qualified? If you dont have at least a degree in science or engineering you won't understand much of what is posted at climate audit. A large number of the commenters have PhDs in relevant fields. Judith Curry used to comment on climate audit defending the alarmist position until she set up her own blog.

Blogs are self-selecting. Create a scientific blog that does detailed scientific analysis and you will largely get readers that are qualified to comment on that analysis. Same goes for law, medicine or any other subject. The blog owner always has the option of snipping commenters who have nothing to contribute.

[Bryan]

All research is funded by someone. You always have to take that into consideration. But David Suzuki also has received funding from energy companies, does that make HIM a shill for big oil too?

In Soon's case, he's been doing this for a long time, long before the 2008 Exxon grant. Nothing to see here.

[Oleg Bach]

That's fine - he's a respected climate scientist... I just don't want to hear people talking about Green funding like it's mafia money anymore.

The science will stand or it will fall, no matter who pays for it.

The science will prove it self all by itself no matter who is bribed or not bribed. When in less than a generation seletal Polar bears fade into extinction..the science will be supported by nature...and nature states - that higher temperatures kill.

[dre]

yep, just like you have to take most reasearch from government funded institutions with a big grain of salt.

Thats not the same. Private industries have a direct financial stake in the results. Government is accountable to the population at large. When it comes to climate change governments will actually be harmed if AGW becomes a serious problem.

This is really no different than how the Tobacco industry was able to drag the consensus that their products are dangerous out for decades. Its silly to suggest that scientists studying the effects on behalf of the tax payer were biased to the same degree as tobacco industry reps.

Having said that... It doesnt mean that shills for big oil or big tobacco cant produce usefull work. But it has to be validated and peer reviewed very carefully, and any opinion pieces from these people that are not supported by real peer reviewed research and studies should be summarily dismissed.

[dre]

What he says is backed up by his research. I'd rather have oil companies back real research than nutbar blogs.

If thats the case, and this guy is doing peer reviewed research then some of his work might be usefull. The problem is that scientists paid to shill for industry often dont produce any peer reviewable work at all. They just publish opinion pieces, put their "PHD" beside them, so that the industry can say "look! PHD baby!!!"

[TimG]

Thats not the same. Private industries have a direct financial stake in the results. Government is accountable to the population at large.

Government bureaucracies are not accountable to anyone - especially the science funding bureaucracies which throw a hissy fit any time a politician tries to push them in a direction they do not want to go. The science funding bureaucracies are only interested in "problems" that can generate more research funding.

Its silly to suggest that scientists studying the effects on behalf of the tax payer were biased to the same degree as tobacco industry reps.

They are no less biased. They care about getting more funding. If the science funding bureaucracies decide that AGW alarmism is the meme they want to push government funding scientists will dutifully produce papers that support this meme. This means their work can be taken no more seriously that an oil company funded scientist.

Of course, what is forgetten is the oil companies have spent a lot of money funding alarmist scientists over the years but alarmist want to claim that only sceptical scientists are corrupted by money and fame. A pathetic hypocracy.

Edited June 30, 2011 by TimG

[dre]

Government bureaucracies are not accountable to anyone - especially the science funding bureaucracies which throw a hissy fit any time a politician tries to push them in a direction they do not want to go. The science funding bureaucracies are only interested in "problems" that can generate more research funding.

They are no less biased. They care about getting more funding. If the science funding bureaucracies decide that AGW alarmism is the meme they want to push government funding scientists will dutifully produce papers that support this meme. This means there work can be taken no more seriously that an oil company funded scientist.

Of course, what is forgetten is the oil companies have spent a lot of money funding alarmist scientists over the years but alarmist want to claim that only sceptical scientists are corrupted by money and fame. A pathetic hypocracy.

Thats a fun conspiracy theory but for the most part its bullshit.

[TimG]

Thats a fun conspiracy theory but for the most part its bullshit.

Of yes, roll out the "conspiracy" canard. A sure sign that you have no counter argument. You are naive if you believe that science funding bureaucracies objective and unbiased. They are human organization like any other and are no more altrusitic than a corporation. They obviously construct rationalizations for why their biases are justified but that does not make them any less biased.

That said, that does not mean that all science produced by science funding bureaucracies is useless. One just has to take the biases of funders into account when looking at it.

Edited June 30, 2011 by TimG

[bud]

That's fine - he's a respected climate scientist... I just don't want to hear people talking about Green funding like it's mafia money anymore.

The science will stand or it will fall, no matter who pays for it.

not so respected anymore since the findings of his research, which were funded by several oil and energy companies, all support the companies' quest to make more profit.

you still think he deserves respect, considering this:

Charles G Koch Foundation, a leading provider of funds for climate sceptic groups, gave Soon two grants totalling $175,000 (then roughly £102,000) in 2005/6 and again in 2010. In addition the American Petroleum insitute (API), which represents the US petroleum and natural gas industries, gave him multiple grants between 2001 and 2007 totalling $274,000, oil company Exxon Mobil provided $335,000between 2005 and 2010, and Soon received other grants from coal and oil industry sources including the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute.

Exxon provided $55,000 for Soon to study Arctic climate change in 2007 and 2008, and another $76,106 for research into solar variability between 2008 and 2010.

Southern gave Soon $120,000 starting in 2008 to study the Sun's relation to climate change, according to the FIA documents.

In one 2003 email released to Greenpeace, that Soon sent, it is believed, to four other leading sceptics, he writes: "Clearly [the fourth assessment report] chapters may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all ... But as a team, we may give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters ..." He adds: "I hope we can ... see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report."

In 2003 Soon said at a US senate hearing that he had "not knowingly been hired by, nor employed by, nor received grants from any organisation that had taken advocacy positions with respect to the Kyoto protocol or the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change."

Edited June 30, 2011 by bud

[Michael Hardner]

Blogs are self-selecting. Create a scientific blog that does detailed scientific analysis and you will largely get readers that are qualified to comment on that analysis. Same goes for law, medicine or any other subject. The blog owner always has the option of snipping commenters who have nothing to contribute.

That doesn't sound like it would produce much of value. We already have a system that does this and it works.

[TimG]

That doesn't sound like it would produce much of value. We already have a system that does this and it works.

That is what journalists said about blogs 10 years ago. Now you have a glorified blogging outfit called HuffPo was sold for billions. Blogs have a place in scientific discussions which have public impact - climate science is perhaps the best example. You can defend the buggy whip makers because 'horse and carriages' work or you take your head out of the sand and accept that the automobile is the future.

Personally, I think that many scientists dislike blogs because blogs break their guild system. It is no longer necessary to be part of some research institute to participate in scientific discussions. They don't want to give up their monopoly.

[Michael Hardner]

That is what journalists said about blogs 10 years ago. Now you have a glorified blogging outfit called HuffPo was sold for billions. Blogs have a place in scientific discussions which have public impact - climate science is perhaps the best example. You can defend the buggy whip makers because 'horse and carriages' work or you take your head out of the sand and accept that the automobile is the future.

Personally, I think that many scientists dislike blogs because blogs break their guild system. It is no longer necessary to be part of some research institute to participate in scientific discussions. They don't want to give up their monopoly.

Blogs are a good way to reach the public. As with news, you still need a reputable source.

[TimG]

Blogs are a good way to reach the public. As with news, you still need a reputable source.

The trouble is there are no reputable news sources. Every news source is biased in one way or another. You can only get a good understanding of many important issues by reading material from new outlets and the opinions in blogs. We see the same with science journals. Many of people posting in blogs could get published in journals like Energy and Environment but simply dont bother because alarmists refuse to recognize any journal that does not editorially support the alarmist position. Blogging gets the message out to people who are willing to listen just as well.

[bloodyminded]

Government bureaucracies are not accountable to anyone - especially the science funding bureaucracies which throw a hissy fit any time a politician tries to push them in a direction they do not want to go. The science funding bureaucracies are only interested in "problems" that can generate more research funding.

They are no less biased. They care about getting more funding. If the science funding bureaucracies decide that AGW alarmism is the meme they want to push government funding scientists will dutifully produce papers that support this meme. This means their work can be taken no more seriously that an oil company funded scientist.

Of course, what is forgetten is the oil companies have spent a lot of money funding alarmist scientists over the years but alarmist want to claim that only sceptical scientists are corrupted by money and fame. A pathetic hypocracy.

If we're going to use "alarmist," then I don't think the "alarmist vs. sceptic" formulation is workable. It's sort of like "pro-life" vs "anti-life" (or choice vs anti-choice.)

So, "deniers" it is, after all.

[TimG]

If we're going to use "alarmist," then I don't think the "alarmist vs. sceptic" formulation is workable.

Nonsense. How else are you supposed to describe people that promote panic about climate and those who are sceptical of their claims?

Denier is nothing but an attempt to a associate one side of a political debate on climate policu with those that deny historical events like the holocaust. It is shameless propoganda that simply illustrates the moral bankruptcy of alarmists.

[bloodyminded]

Nonsense. How else are you supposed to describe people that promote panic about climate and those who are sceptical of their claims?

Denier is nothing but an attempt to a associate one side of a political debate on climate policu with those that deny historical events like the holocaust. It is shameless propoganda that simply illustrates the moral bankruptcy of alarmists.

No, you believe the debate should be framed according to your own propagandistic parameters, as if one side should be allowed to determine the delineation. Through insult, to boot.

I wasn't making a serious case for the use of "deniers"; I was delineating an argument ad absurdum which exposes your rhetorical method.

[Saipan]

So where's the global warm up?