Scandalized climate change researcher defends himself

soonLast week, the name of scientists Wei Hock “Willie” Soon [pictured] became popular after a report revealed that his researches on climate change involved a funding of $1.3M from private interest groups such as Exxon Mobil and Koch Industries. Soon is one of the scientists who said that climate change has nothing to do with human activities and that it is inevitable part of the evolution process.

Soon is criticized for failing to declare any potential conflicts of interest in his papers after receiving money from oil companies.

Soon is a part-time researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

In his response to the accusations, Soon said that, his critics are part of “various radical environmental and politically motivated groups.”

“This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy on global warming,” said Soon.

After the news broke, Smithsonian Institution started an investigation to determine whether Soon violated ethical standards in his research.

The news broke about Soon’s involvement with the oil companies who gave him money when Greenpeace, a nonprofit organization obtained the information through the Freedom of Information Act.

“If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply,” read Dr. Soon’s statement. “I would ask only that other authors — on all sides of the debate — are also required to make similar disclosures.”

Soon’s statement was released through the Chicago’s Heartland Institute.

“He’s a brilliant and courageous scientist devoted entirely to pursuing scientific knowledge,” said the organization’s president, Joseph Bast. “His critics are all ethically challenged and mental midgets by comparison.”

Bast is the president of Chicago Heartland Institute.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (9)

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Dispute the science if you can .
    The moral train wreck promoters of AGW
    launched another self destruct example this week . The IPCC ,Pachauri , facing muli allegations of sexual harassment is just one more in the list of creeps trying to pass themselves of as planet savers .
    Dr. Soon at least has some actual experience in the field of climate studies .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Will Scribe

    |

    Dr Soon is a threat to the one eyed politicians who are trying to blind the population with pseudo science, and who are debasing the name of real science in the process.

    http://wp.me/p3KQlH-CL

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    Well, we shall see who the [i]real[/i] scientific organizations really are…

    [i]”AGU unwaveringly supports a scientist’s right to academic freedom, and nothing in my previous post should be interpreted to suggest otherwise. We view the singling out of any individual or group of scientists by any entity – governmental, corporate or other – based solely on their interpretations of scientific research as a threat to that freedom…”

    Margaret Leinen
    President, American Geophysical Union[/i]

    http://fromtheprow.agu.org/blog/protecting-academic-freedom-holding-accountable/

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      [i]The American Meteorological Society is warning a top House Democrat that singling out funding provided to certain climate scientists “sends a chilling message to all academic researchers.”

      The meteorological society said it is committed to transparency, but took issue with letters sent by Rep. Raúl Grijalva (D-Ariz.) this week asking universities to provide documents on the funding that was provided to seven professors for climate research.

      “Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources — and thereby questioning their scientific integrity — sends a chilling message to all academic researchers,” director of the meteorological society, Keith Seitter, wrote in a letter to Grijalva on Friday.

      Seitter said Grijalva’s request “impinges on the free pursuit of ideas.”[/i]

      http://thehill.com/policy/energy-environment/234126-meteorological-society-climate-research-funding-probe-sends

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Grijalva will have his chance to share his $$ sources and Email’s.

    Nice to see the American Meteorological Society has not been cowed by bullies trying to silence scientists from exercising their Democratic Rights .

    What’s next put crosses on their doors ?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      No, they’d tattoo the “d” word on their forehead. It has already been suggested. I’m at work or I’d spend a few minutes in Google and tell you who is was that came up with that lovely idea.

      And these people consider themselves to be the “tolerant and enlightened” among us…

      Reply

  • Avatar

    GR82DRV

    |

    Yet billions of dollars of politically co-opted tax dollars combined with millions from left-wing interest groups directed toward predetermined outcomes supports “true” science.

    I sometimes wonder if when this massive scam is finally exposed whether scientists will scramble to explain how they were duped. The whole thing is so massive that most researchers are ultra compartmentalized, never seeing the bigger picture and political manipulation. I expect the hardest criticism to overcome is how, as scientists, they were comfortable with the statement that this kind of science can ever be considered “settled”.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    This would certainly explain why Dr Soon was a primary target of the grantologists…

    1 Apr 11 – [i]In testimony yesterday before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, forecasting expert Professor J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania called on Congress to cease funding global warming research, programs, and advocacy organizations.

    Referring to an analysis he conducted with Kesten C. Green of the University of South Australia and [b]Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics[/b], Armstrong told the subcommittee, that forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) “violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles.”

    “The warming alarmists have not demonstrated the predictive validity of their procedures,” says their report. “Instead, their argument for predictive validity is based on their claim that nearly all scientists agree with the forecasts. Such an appeal to “voting” is contrary to the scientific method. It is also incorrect.”

    “In this ongoing study, we have, to date, identified 26 historical alarmist movements. None of the forecasts for the analogous alarms proved correct. In the 25 alarms that called for government intervention, the government impost regulations in 23. None of the 23 interventions was effective and harm was caused by 20 of them.”

    Armstrong and his colleagues recommend that Congress:

    [b]End government funding for climate change research

    End government funding for research predicated on global warming (e.g., alternative energy; CO2 reduction; habitat loss)[/b]

    End government programs and repeal regulations predicated on global warming

    End government support for organizations that lobby or campaign predicated on global warming

    “Based on our analyses, especially with respect to the violations of the principles regarding objectivity and full disclosure,” Armstrong told members of Congress, “we conclude that the manmade global warming alarm is an anti-scientific political movement.”[/i]

    No sane person would invest another dime of their own money into such a losing proposition. That’s what government is for.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Professor Armstrong deserves a prize for accurately describing the global warming hoax and calling for corrective action that if followed would have saved the USA government tax payers $$Billions .
    The Obama teams answer is to send out little yappy politicians to try and scare scientists that don’t drink the exaggerated global warming cool -aid .
    The IPCC will be looking to fill the Chair position vacated by the sudden departure of Chair Pachauri who is now under police investigation for numerous alleged sexual harassment claims by at least one former IPCC employee .

    Reply

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.