American climate skeptic Soon funded by oil, coal firms

Comments (10)
auger wrote:

What were the firms investing in, if not a report favorable to their industries? The right labels Harvard a left wing think-tank until their stenographer, the WSJournal needs ivy credentials to use against corporate energy foes. I’d guess Soon would have you believe that one million wouldn’t sway a Harvard researcher – I’d believe otherwise

Jun 28, 2011 10:03am EDT  --  Report as abuse
DanToronto wrote:

$1 million to sell one’s soul. I guess the market price of integrity is pretty cheap nowadays.

Jun 28, 2011 3:39pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
MikeBee wrote:

We don’t need science prostitutes to tell us the climate is not changing when nature tells us every day that it is. This is just the “cigarettes are not harmful” scam all over again.

Jun 28, 2011 6:38pm EDT  --  Report as abuse
Educ8Now wrote:

I’m not defending Soon, but Kert Davies is a bit of a hypocrite here:

“Scientists like Dr. Soon who take fossil fuel money and pretend to be independent scientists are pawns.”

And researchers like Kert Davies who take money from and pretend to be independent researchers aren’t pawns?

Since, in most fields, scientists are not producing anything of immediate monetary value, aren’t we all dependent on funding streams, and therefore pawns?

Jun 29, 2011 8:37am EDT  --  Report as abuse
Educ8Now wrote:

Then there is this little gem:

“While corporate funding of science is not new, the focus on the ethics of such aid is growing as state and federal science grants are reduced amid budget cuts.”

So corporate funding of science may not be as ethical as federal and state funding? Because corporations have agendas to steer their scientists towards? But governments do not? Now there is a debate worth having.

Jun 29, 2011 8:42am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GA_Chris wrote:

Well, our politicians are for sale, so why not our ‘scientists’?

Jun 29, 2011 8:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GA_Chris wrote:

Well, our politicians are for sale, so why not our ‘scientists’?

Jun 29, 2011 8:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
GA_Chris wrote:

Well, our politicians are for sale, so why not our ‘scientists’?

Jun 29, 2011 8:54am EDT  --  Report as abuse
NilsPils wrote:

Global warming alarmists receive their funding from government (tax payers) agencies that stand to gain the most revenue by enacting laws that extract more money from us. Why doesn’t that connection merit a headline and some journalistic skepticism? Soon’s research should be dismissed if it’s bad science not because you don’t like who funded it. There is nothing of substance in this article to cause me to question Soon’s research. It’s all innuendo.

Jun 29, 2011 11:04am EDT  --  Report as abuse

Global warming is an established fraud. No matter who funds what research.

Jul 04, 2011 12:49am EDT  --  Report as abuse
This discussion is now closed. We welcome comments on our articles for a limited period after their publication.