Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

[FixedGear]

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html

A couple of excerpts:

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 documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders, described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.

Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding

Though often described on conservative news programs as a “Harvard astrophysicist,” Dr. Soon is not an astrophysicist and has never been employed by Harvard. He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering. He has received little federal research money over the past decade and is thus responsible for bringing in his own funds, including his salary.

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 Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human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.

[zipdoa]

Would this be associated with those ridiculous anti-climate change ads I see on 9th ave headed into downtown?

[A790]

Careful now. Beyond doesn't luck like hearing about climate change.

[BerserkerCatSplat]

That's some straight-up shady stuff. I can't imagine how the guy figured nobody would find out.

[gatorade]

Pretty weak for an academic with a PHD not to disclose any possible conflicts of interests. Even in undergrad master's thesis you are supposed to state whether and who you received any funding by. It is frowned down upon hard in academia not to be honest in disclosing any possible biases or conflicts of interest.

[FixedGear]

interesting to compare reactions (or lack thereof) to this clear violation of ethics and concomitant bad science, versus the "climategate" leak from 5 years ago, which had the media and certain segments of society (including this forum) up in arms about out-of-context colloquialisms like "trick" from hacked emails of private conversations.

[Thales of Miletus]

I can only hope that Canada never becomes America. Where decisions and reality are based on money.

This is the reason I do not like Harper. He seems to wish to make Canada like the United States. A thing that no sane person should ever desire. The United States is a horrible country.

[msommers]

Another look on this:
http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/02/24/388682684/my-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic?utm_source=facebook.com&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=npr&utm_term=nprnews&utm_content=20150224

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus
I can only hope that Canada never becomes America. Where decisions and reality are based on money.

This is the reason I do not like Harper. He seems to wish to make Canada like the United States. A thing that no sane person should ever desire. The United States is a horrible country.

We already have our own version of this, and i'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sept2011/friends_of_science

Also that's a pretty broad brush you're using, the U.S. has plenty of good things going for it.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by EM2FTL


We already have our own version of this, and i'm sure there are plenty of other examples out there.

http://www.ucalgary.ca/news/sept2011/friends_of_science

Also that's a pretty broad brush you're using, the U.S. has plenty of good things going for it.

Calgary has produced some pretty shitty things over the last few decades.

Ralph Klein, Ted Cruz, and the data trying to criticize the Hockey Stick graph.

Canada is a social republic, the United States is a fascist plutocracy. I think Canada is in much better shape.

If you can name something that the U.S. has, that is better than Canada, I am all for hearing about it. But it isn't their government, their legal system, the health care system, or their freedom.

[EM2FTL]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus

If you can name something that the U.S. has, that is better than Canada, I am all for hearing about it. But it isn't their government, their legal system, the health care system, or their freedom.

• Economies of scale;
• A space program (and yes there are budgetary issues that come and go);
• Pure academic research on a level still unmatched around the world;
• World class cultural industries with global reach

etc.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
So if environmental groups fund climate research... is that a conflict of interest as well?

:drama:


http://www.forbes.com/sites/jamestaylor/2014/01/02/dark-money-funds-to-promote-global-warming-alarmism-dwarf-warming-denier-research/

"Five environment-specific groups alone raise more than $1.6 billion per year (Greenpeace, The Nature Conservancy, World Wildlife Fund, National Wildlife Federation, and the Sierra Club). All five focus solely on environmental issues and are frequent and prominent advocates for global warming restrictions. When global warming activists claim global warming skeptics receive the lion’s share of funding in the global warming debate, they are lying through their teeth."

1.6 billion dollars from some of the most crooked and morally devoid propaganda spewing organizations around, and you wonder why people are skeptical of the "science" produced.

This isn't even the pot calling the kettle black... it is like the pot calling a white i-pod black.

Greenpeace - Protecting the environment

Big Oil - raping the environment

Common sense - not so common.


The fact that anyone can be convinced that Climate Change does not exist makes me weep for our current education system.

I learned about electromagnetic waves in grade 5.

[killramos]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


Greenpeace - Criminal Organization

Big Oil - Tax Paying Busineses

Common sense - not so common.



Fixed that for you Mensa Boy

[killramos]

One of the most hilarious things out there.

"oil companies should be doing more to investigate their environmental impacts"
->
"That study was sponsored by big oil its obviously biased and wrong"

:nut:

[Sugarphreak]

...

[msommers]

Yeah I'm on the fence with Greenpeace. I think some things they do are positive but so much of it is nutbar and hypocritical that I can't take them seriously. I mean they completely fucked up a very sensitive area (Nazca Lines) and just came out saying essentially 'we're kinda sorry'. Plus a bunch of other shit they've done, vandalizing things, pulling on heart strings in videos...Greenpeace is hardly a scientific community so take from that what you will.

I'm all for funding coming from wherever, even if that means O&G. But it needs to be properly mentioned and the results can't be skewed because of it. This scientist was crooked as hell, and the article I mentioned above even makes note that his science didn't make sense anyways.

A girl I used to work with was doing a study which was both publicly and privately funded, figuring out benthic environments in tailing ponds and gauging their "health". Well one pond kept coming up with unusual, unexpected results. It was noted but not excluded, but still wasn't following the trend. Well turns out that the company did something to that pond on purpose to test the scientists themselves to see if they were being completely truthful and intelligent.

People in the scientific community, worldwide, find out quickly who is worth their weight. Conferences happen all the time and let me tell you, there are lots of people who go to these things to literally pick you apart for shear enjoyment. I'm shitting my pants for whenever I have to present at CSPG lol.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I also didn't say anything about climate change not existing, I've said all along the climate is changing... and I recognize that billions of cars dumping emissions into the air is bad, however I just don't believe it is all our fault.

The Propaganda machine sure is effective.

Orwell writes a book called 1984 and warns of everything that is happening today, yet people still get brainwashed.

How can any person not believe it is mankind who is changing the environment? Scientists believe it. Monitors indicate there has been a near doubling of CO2 concentrations. Yet you don't believe?

What do you base your disbelief on? Science or hyperbole?

I sure hope you don't believe what you do because you watch American news.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by killramos


I am an idiot.

Fixed that for you.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


The Propaganda machine sure is effective.

Orwell writes a book called 1984 and warns of everything that is happening today, yet people still get brainwashed.

How can any person not believe it is mankind who is changing the environment? Scientists believe it. Monitors indicate there has been a near doubling of CO2 concentrations. Yet you don't believe?

What do you base your disbelief on? Science or hyperbole?

I sure hope you don't believe what you do because you watch American news.

For someone that likes to post about how smart they are you sure can't read worth shit.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Nitro5


For someone that likes to post about how smart they are you sure can't read worth shit.

Actually everyone else posts about my intelligence.

Like you just did.

If you doubt climate change, without reason, then you are brainwashed by memes.

[A790]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I also didn't say anything about climate change not existing, I've said all along the climate is changing... and I recognize that billions of cars dumping emissions into the air is bad, however I just don't believe it is all our fault.
What you believe and what is happening don't need to be one and the same.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Oh I don't know... how about the fact that where you sit right now was once covered by a few kilometers of ice.

Past glacial periods coincide with the Earths eccentricity, axial tilt, and precession. These variations lead to astronomical seasons.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
When you look at the history of the earth, there are wild swings to both extremes, and scientists want us to believe that a tiny barely quantifiable fluctuation in temps is 100% due to our presence? Even in the short existence of human life, there was a medieval warming that compares to the current climate, followed by the little ice age. What caused that?


During the age of the dinosaurs there was a massive geographical upheaval. This increased CO2 levels to as high as 1000 ppm. The average temperature on the Earth was about 50C. Even the antarctic was covered in forests.

The medieval warming period had higher than average solar radiation and less volcanic activity. Combined these factors had an influence on ocean currents. Other parts of the planet were cooler, which averaged out the global temperature. However we live on a warmer planet today than in the medieval period.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Finally, even if we are facing a few degrees of warming, big fucking deal.

All of the ocean currents, fresh water resources, and jet streams are influenced by a few degrees. So yes it is a big fucking deal. The Oceans PH is changing, causing blooms of jellyfish and the reduction in the numbers of game fish.

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The serious things like ozone depletion, toxic pollution, and acid rain have been dealt with; a few more feet of sea water (which we were bound to get eventually as the glaciers were receding anyway) isn't the end of the world.

all of the above are related to global warming. If you reduce acid rain, you will increase the global temperature as Sulfur dioxide is a global coolant.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


Not really...

I guess time will tell.

In the distant future, it is my hope that those how have spent money to cast doubt on climate change science, will be put in jail.

But mankind never changes. Sociopaths and their minions have always been the norm.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
[B]Yea sure, time will tell.... lol



Why would you post discredited deniers talking points, in order to make your point?

The 18 year pause graph is long debunked. It only looks at a flat spot in 2% of the overall climate. The other 98% of the climate is showing rapid warming.

This is how deniers work. They use vagueness and omission in an effort to cast doubt.

They will say ice coverage, without including ice thickness. Or talk about weather, as if weather is climate.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
Whatever, you are clearly just another green-corp global cooling denier... global cooling is real, and it is here and now. If we don't do something Canada will be covered under a sheet of ice. Where will the dolphins swim when the ocean becomes a chunk of ice, huh?


And you seem to get your information from deniers web sites. You don't want to know, because you made up your mind based on what others told you.

When I am confronted with something that goes against my beliefs, I research it until my beliefs are changed, or I understand why I should doubt.

Deniers on the other hand, go to their local deniers web site, and post up more denial. Usually denial that they don't even understand.

The time article you posted was based on the idea that the northern jet stream would collapse and allow Northern air to flow south. That is happening.

What was not known at the time was the oceans capacity to store energy. Nor was it known that the North would likely melt and that the south would become more isolated.

Scientist warned 30 years ago that man was going to burn the house down. You are skeptical because they didn't know which room was going to burn first. But in your mind, since science was wrong 30 years ago that means that it can't do anything right.

Men predicted that few people would have cell phone, then science made it possible for everyone to have two. Men doubted man could ever get to the moon, then science made that possible as well.

In reality deniers are simply the modern era's flat Earthers.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


And you seem to get your information from deniers web sites. You don't want to know, because you made up your mind based on what others told you.

When I am confronted with something that goes against my beliefs, I research it until my beliefs are changed, or I understand why I should doubt.

Deniers on the other hand, go to their local deniers web site, and post up more denial. Usually denial that they don't even understand.

The time article you posted was based on the idea that the northern jet stream would collapse and allow Northern air to flow south. That is happening.

What was not known at the time was the oceans capacity to store energy. Nor was it known that the North would likely melt and that the south would become more isolated.

Scientist warned 30 years ago that man was going to burn the house down. You are skeptical because they didn't know which room was going to burn first. But in your mind, since science was wrong 30 years ago that means that it can't do anything right.

Men predicted that few people would have cell phone, then science made it possible for everyone to have two. Men doubted man could ever get to the moon, then science made that possible as well.

In reality deniers are simply the modern era's flat Earthers.

Wait, shit are you saying theories change over time as new information is discovered?

Fuck me, that's brilliant!

[FixedGear]

god the idiocy in this thread is mind-boggling. why is it that the most ignorant imbeciles have the biggest mouths? go outside and fertilize your lawn or something.

Guy Callendar published this figure in 1938:

http://media.treehugger.com/assets/images/2013/04/guy-callendar-graph.jpeg.650x0_q85_crop-smart.jpg

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
What I don't see is reports showing the rough percentages of what is natural, what other factors might be at play (soot, sun, cloud), and how much is a result of increased temps that would be caused by an increase in atmospheric C02.


i'll post this again, although i know you're not going to read it: http://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar5/wg1/. This is the most recent summary of our current understanding of the processes driving climate change. I expect you to stop complaining until you've read this.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak
The fact that you immediately resort to the low brow method of classifying people as "deniers

What do you prefer? Unbeliever, doubter, gainsayer?

Why is saying denier to a person that is anti-science, lowbrow?


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
One of the best examples of this, happens to be receding glaciers. As I've pointed out numerous times, they have been receding for centuries. This is a fact, and as far as I know, most scientists would agree. There have also been scientific studies that show pollutant particulates (such as soot)


Soot would be part of the global warming problem. Greenland wasn't melting before the industrial revolution. Now it is losing 12 feet of depth a year.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
What I don't see is reports showing the rough percentages of what is natural, what other factors might be at play (soot, sun, cloud), and how much is a result of increased temps that would be caused by an increase in atmospheric C02.

All that information is available, you just have to read it. Look up albedo, or radiative forcing, for example.



Originally posted by Sugarphreak
This kind of alarmist approach is applied for everything primarily because it grabs attention, makes a great soap box speech, and makes it easy to target wealthy companies.

Why shouldn't people target wealthy companies? Companies certainly target populations. They exploit for their benefit and are amoral. If the minions don't demand better for themselves they get crushed.


Originally posted by Sugarphreak
I think in another 20 or 30 years, we will look back at these claims the same way we look back at the claims of an oncoming ice age in the 1970's. The very fact that the term "global warming" has been replaced with "climate change" is already a clear indicator of back pedaling.


in 1970 a new ice age was predicted. But that had to do with mans use of aerosols. The Ozone layer was being rapidly destroyed and ozone destruction would create a much cooler world. Since then man has cut the use of ozone destroying aerosols dramatically. However there is still a huge Ozone hole over antarctica, which has cooled much of that continent.

In other words the ice age theory had nothing to do with increased greenhouse gases. And nothing to do with current prediction. It is just another case of false conflation in order to make people doubt.

It is already too late to stop climate change from occurring.

[FixedGear]

here's a video made by IPCC:

6yiTZm0y1YA

the full report that summarizes all the science behind this is available at: http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/assessment-report/ar5/wg1/WG1AR5_ALL_FINAL.pdf

[Thales of Miletus]

It seems that the best way to end the debate with deniers is to ask them to read something.

[FixedGear]

oh well, whatever, nevermind. :D

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by FixedGear
oh well, whatever, nevermind. :D

The side of science won the debate, the doubters surrendered.

[msommers]

Nick there is a climate talk open to the public on Friday at the university, apparently friends of science were invited. Sure to be quite the show lol

[FixedGear]

Originally posted by Thales of Miletus


The side of science won the debate, the doubters surrendered.

hopefully they're reading and learning.

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by FixedGear


hopefully they're reading and learning.

I don't know if you can use reason to change a persons opinion, when they didn't use reason to form it in the first place.

Most people are convinced by non-factual, easy to repeat, memes.

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Sugarphreak]

...

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Sugarphreak


I actually wouldn't mind to see that, did they youtube it somewhere?

I don't fully agree with the full stance "friends of science" takes, but they usually bring up some interesting talking points.

You should go.

You have a lot of hostility toward the topic. Perhaps you watch too much FOX news and they have turned you into a rage zombie.

You keep bringing up points that I can explain. Why does this not satisfy you?

Do the calculation for yourself. Delta F = 5.35 ln (Co/Ci) w m-2 where Co is the modern level of co2 and Ci is 1750s level.

[msommers]

The talk is this coming Friday, hasn't happened yet. Everyone is looking forward to the fireworks, mainly me :rofl:

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by msommers
The talk is this coming Friday, hasn't happened yet. Everyone is looking forward to the fireworks, mainly me :rofl:

There shouldn't be any fireworks. There is just truth and fiction.

Unless it is at the University of Calgary, which has absolutely no integrity and doesn't even deserve to be called an institute of higher learning.

[msommers]

Oh do explain that please.

Be specific.

[Nitro5]

Originally posted by msommers
Oh do explain that please.

Be specific.

Because Toma

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by msommers
Oh do explain that please.

Be specific.

The University of Calgary took money from the Oil and Gas sector to disseminates pro-free market studies like a right-wing think tank.

This goes against the primary function of any Public University, which is to educate.

It is asserted that Enbridge even had an academic employee removed by applying pressure. That assertion came from Harvard Universities climate scientist David Keith. Keith was formerly in charge of the University of Calgary's Institute for Sustainable Energy, Environment and Economy.

The University of Calgary's School of Public Policy was set up after a donation from James Palmer. Condi Rice and G.W. Bush were keynote speakers at the SPP launch.

[msommers]

Wow had no idea about that. Super shitty

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/calgary/scientist-calls-u-of-c-energy-centre-a-failure-1.1337139

http://www.desmog.ca/2013/01/29/industry-money-corrupts-science-university-calgary-research-centre

[Thales of Miletus]

The maintenance of democracy relies on a free press that is consecrated by truth. Access to comprehensive, and quality information, gained through judicious reporting, is essential to the manifestation of a heuristic citizenship. The informed are the foundation of a society characterized by the civically engaged, the well-informed, and the principled. Thus, to any extent that access to factual information is willfully or purblindly inhibited , democracy itself is degraded and the citizens made servile.

[Nitro5]

Thales of Miletus wrote on 03-01-2015 10:42 PM:
Can you please go be an idiot on some other site?


No

[Thales of Miletus]

Originally posted by Nitro5


No

Well that is too bad.

I don't know what people have against Toma. He is pretty well informed and seems to care about the entirety of Alberta.

But if a person loves to flame and argue, I would direct them to the yellowbullet.

[Thales of Miletus]

I read a good article in the Guardian.

The most interesting point in the article is below.

Climate events that have yet to materialise may dwarf anything journalists have had to cover over the past troubled century. There may be untold catastrophes, famines, floods, droughts, wars, migrations and sufferings just around the corner. But that is futurology, not news, so it is not going to force itself on any front page any time soon.

Even when the overwhelming majority of scientists wave a big red flag in the air, they tend to be ignored. Is this new warning too similar to the last? Is it all too frightening to contemplate? Is a collective shrug of fatalism the only rational response?