How One Climate-Change Skeptic Has Profited From Corporate Interests 448
Lasrick writes Elected officials who want to block the EPA and legislation on climate change frequently refer to a handful of scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. One of scientists they quote most often is Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming. Newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon has made a fortune 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 Koch Brothers are cited as a source of Dr. Soon's funding.
disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
'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. Im a little curious if it is standard practice to not disclose this type of relationship. If it is, it is wrong. I see an ethics issue at hand
Id like to see a breakdown on which scientists are getting paid and by whom in all their works.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
'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. Im a little curious if it is standard practice to not disclose this type of relationship. If it is, it is wrong. I see an ethics issue at hand
Id like to see a breakdown on which scientists are getting paid and by whom in all their works.
Most of the scientists I know make a salary and that's it. A $ 100 honorarium (say for giving a talk to the public) is regarded as a big deal.
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, but they get millions to conduct research. I doubt he took that $1.2 million home.
It still should have been disclosed, it was unethical for him fail to disclose it, and he certainly knew that. Science doesn't work without integrity.
Re:disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
"Here's 1.2 mil. We want you to tell us that it is possible that global warming is being caused by the sun"
A few months of well funded but blindly done research - ie, you know the answer to the question, what can we do to prove it? - and wallah! A paper. That is then submitted to a supposedly peer-reviewed journal, where of course no such review takes place (there have been several stories about that on /.).
So... are we shocked that the NRG Industry went shopping for the answer they wanted to hear? Are we shocked that a person who either needs to be top in their field or at least bringing in grants accepted a grant to do research? Are we shocked that a peer-reviewed journal is in fact not very often reviewd by the peers?
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Indeed it does. Just like the claims that nothing is peer reviewed in journals and whatever else you just rambled on about discredits the actual science without touching the science because you do not want to agree with the results has real world consequences.
The science will speak for itself. Character assasination to discredit science is not science at all. In fact, it makes it appear as if there is something to hide.
Re: disclosure (Score:3, Funny)
Re:disclosure (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You are obviously not a scientist.
If you have "blindly done research" and you're publishing in a reputable journal... then you'll get your ass handed to you if your science isn't correct (trust me: my ass still stings from some of the scathing reviews I've received on a few of my papers).
The funding agency DOES NOT MATTER... if proper peer review is undertaken. If the science is good... then the science is good... this isn't an opinion piece in the New York Times paid for by big oil...
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
"Wei-Hock Soon, 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's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014 The IPCC discredited him, but they have never predicted anything correctly. In fact their model flew off the rails with 75% error after 35 years of refinement.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v... [youtube.com]
http://rs79 [vrx.net]
Re:disclosure (Score:4, Informative)
> NASA, NOAA point out warming has stalled, no temperature has exceeded 1998's.
You deniers have got to stop using that one.
By now, we've all figured out that any mention of 1998 is just cherry-picking at its worst. [motherjones.com]
All you do is identify yourself as a zero-knowledge shill that should be ignored.
Re: (Score:3)
That your rebuttal is purely ad hominem in the truest sense of the word just shows how big of a useful idiot you are.
That you seem to think it's ad-hominem is telling.
Mother Jones is about as far from an unbiased source as you could have found anywhere. That's not ad-homimem; it bears directly on the quality of your argument.
That many official published charts of "warming" temperature started in 1979 [google.com] is an objective fact.
The "official" argument was that 1979 was about when the satellite record started. But now they're largely just leaving the satellite data out, because it doesn't support their models... which me
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014.
Did they predict it for the whole globe? If they did they were wrong. They were right if they only predicted it for Eastern North America.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Informative)
He's in good company here, this scientist in 2008, using the same hypothesis correctly predicts the awful and cold winters of 2013 and 2014
The winters of 2013 and 2014 were in the top-10 warmest. Not sure why you would refer to them as "awful and cold".
You think it's warming? Show me your data that proves NASA wrong then.
How about NASA's own data where they show it's warming ?
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/resea... [nasa.gov]
Re: (Score:3)
A few barrels of mustard gas that you chuck out of a plane is not going to kill millions of people like a nuke.
Iraq was simply not a threat to the US/its allies.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Bullshit. Papers directly supported by funding/grants should, and usually do, thank/credit the sources. But just because someone funded you for one thing doesn't mean you have to disclose that in every paper you write that is remotely related.
Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).
Also, keep in mind that he got the $1.2M over the last decade
So.....$120k per year? That's not actually very much.
in 2004...that was back before "global warming" became "climate change".
'Climate change' and 'global warming' have been used interchangeably long before 2004.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Informative)
Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).
Every paper I've ever seen in geosciences credits the public funding agency as part of the grant requirements. Not just "usually do", it's all do.
A paper funded by private sources will credit what is required by that source. Carnegie-Mellon, etc, usually do, but it isn't required. It's polite to do so as a way of saying "thanks". The fact that someone hasn't doesn't mean anything.
So.....$120k per year? That's not actually very much.
That's a pittance. It will cover salary and benefits for one researcher. It won't cover much in the way of travel.
Compare that to other grants that cover the salaries of five or six researchers and travel to conferences in Hawaii or Spain or other nice places...
This is another example of "if we can't discredit the science, discredit the scientist for being paid to do research." That ignores all the scientists who are part of the consensus who are also paid to do research. No, nobody is pocketing the loot, it just shows up as salary. Salary for research that means that the scientist doesn't have to be paid on state money so he doesn't have to teach or do other stuff that is attached to non-grant research salary. A stable source of funding means you can hire people and build a lab and build a reputation that helps get more money. The more people you pay, the higher your status. The more stuff you get from the University because your overhead fees benefit them, too.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
The problem is that we can't just leave it up to the science in the public sphere. This guy's "science" has already been widely discredited and debunked through the scientific method, and yet it's still held up as evidence. It shouldn't be surprising therefore that people getting fed up of that then start attacking the scientist himself.
I'm also not sure why you're trying to equate typical funding from a public sector source with typical funding from a private sector source. They're not in any way equivalent.
For example, in the UK, Met Office climatologists have their job guaranteed no matter what the outcome of their research, they're paid by the public sector to give public sector entities a realistic view of what we might expect and want to plan for - there is no partisanship there, their jobs are guaranteed and they just need to be as accurate as possible regardless of what the actual outcome is.
Compare and contrast to an energy sector company, whether fossil fuel or green energy and if they fund research they do so because they want papers to hold up their viewpoint to protect their profits.
The Met Office worker can go to work and think "Great, I can just focus on the science, my job is secure regardless of what I find.". The energy sector worker goes to work and has to think "I better do all I can to give them the results I want, or else I might lose my funding".
Quite how you can place these two scenarios as equivalent I've no idea. They're very clearly not - funding source is an inherent indicator of whether there is any partisanship in a study. If the money has come from a source that just needs to know the facts without seeing any benefit from an outcome one way or the other then that research is far less tainted than if it's come from a source that has a vested profit interest in one outcome over the other.
This is basic stuff, I'm amazed on Slashdot anyone is even trying to argue it, much less mod such drivel up.
Re: (Score:3)
It is exactly like that! ... with the sole exception that we don't have any difficulty discrediting the science, that is :-)
Re: (Score:3)
You're raising a red herring issue. It's not that all papers have to disclose their funding: it's that he was required to disclose any potential conflicts of interest, which in this case would have included his funding sources. In essense he committed a mild form of scientific fraud. That doesn't mean he was wrong, it does mean he was deceptive.
That's a pittance.
Which is pretty much what he's worth. He's not an astrophysicist. That doesn't mean he can't publish. Some scientists have illustrious careers without having a degre
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
You've never heard of Willy Soon?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soon_and_Baliunas_controversy [wikipedia.org]
The "deal with science" bit is (among others) "On Past Temperatures and Anomalous Late-20th Century Warmth", Eos, Volume 84, No. 27, 8 July 2003 [psu.edu].
Re: (Score:2)
If I had mod points today, I'd say +5 informative. The rest of us had never read any papers before, or TFA, or any useful information linked in TFA like http://publicationethics.org/ [publicationethics.org], and we were wondering what you thought.
I will repeat what you said to my friend the geology professor who doesn't take grants from the fo
Re: (Score:2)
I will repeat what you said to my friend the geology professor who doesn't take grants from the fossil fuel industry. I'm sure he will be persuaded by your considered opinion. I'm guessing the reason he doesn't take money from the fossil fuel industry is because he just can't be bothered with such trifling sums. The average salary in the US is more like $350k or $400k, IIRC. 120k is for total losers.
Calm down bro, ask your professor friend how much time he spends writing grants, and why he needs all that money. Research is expensive, it's not like the Kochs were letting him pocket it.
Re: (Score:3)
I'm guessing the reason he doesn't take money from the fossil fuel industry is because he just can't be bothered with such trifling sums. The average salary in the US is more like $350k or $400k, IIRC. 120k is for total losers.
I can only presume your talking about research grants combined with salary, despite saying "The average salary" because otherwise you are simply flat wrong. The average salary for (full) professors in the US is $98,974 [wikipedia.org].
Re: (Score:3)
Papers directly supported by funding/grants usually don't thank/credit sources (or maybe it's just so small that I never noticed it?).
Maybe you don't read the Acknowledgements section? Most funding agencies have some boilerplate that goes in there. For industrial funding, there's usually no requirement, but we typically put something along the lines of 'We gratefully acknowledge Google, Inc. for its sponsorship.' This usually helps a bit the next time that you ask them for money, because you can say 'look at the cool stuff that you funded last time!' and easily point out the relevant papers. If a company wants to sponsor work but not
Re: (Score:3)
In the funding environment of the last 5+ years $120k/year is a fucking mountain of money.
He wasn't putting it all in his pocket, man.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
Right, and then you're somewhat bound to give the "right" result, because otherwise they won't fund more research.
Hence the conflict of interest.
Re: disclosure (Score:2, Insightful)
On a polarized issue like climate change, there is money on either side of the table. Probably more for being pro-climate change.
Re: (Score:2)
With all that private sector money piling up? Scientists who argue for climate change must be saints to resist the money jungle. Look how money has bought Congress; why haven't scientists all been bribed too?
What research (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
And even lower salary (Score:2)
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
The ethics violation isn't that he was paid by a corporation.
The ethics violation is in not disclosing it.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
The first thing conservatives usually say to discredit climate scientists is, they are in thrall to their funders. Now we know why; they're projecting.
Re:disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
And the first thing liberals say is that scientists don't fake global warming data, because they're scientists.
And they're right. Scientists are smart enough to know that if they fake the data sooner or later someone will out them because there's an objective reality to what they're studying.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Insightful)
Sometimes it is 'later' enough to influence entire generation of people in doing wrong or useless things. For example salt in food
http://www.scientificamerican.... [scientificamerican.com]
One wrong study done in 70ties and entire generation of people were scared from using salt. Bluff was called 20 years later but it took _another_ 20 years to officially admit 70ties findings were completely wrong - and I suppose another 20 years are needed before 'salt if white death' people will finally die out.
I think similar thing (other direction) happened with tabacco.
Climate is complicated enough that it is not really an 'objective reality'. Given all the possibilities of handpicking data points and applying arbitrary correction factors, you can manipulate data in subtle ways, rather than blatantly fake it. And as it is complicated enough that normal people cannot really doublecheck data, we are left to believe the 'consensus'.
Re: (Score:2)
To be truthful I rather doubt the quality of science, there aren't many aeronautical engineers competent to do astrophysical research.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
Most people in the climate science community will not be surprised that Soon was on the FF payroll.
Re:disclosure (Score:4, Insightful)
Most of those who work on the IPCC reports are also paid by their universities, their respective governments or from grants to do their individual research when they are not working on an assessment report.
TapeCutter already said that they get their salary from the university, and thus indirectly from governments and/or grants.
I hope you are not trying to make us believe that only 5-6 million dollars a year is spent on climate research.
TapeCutter did not say that. S/he didn't even imply it. You made a straw man, and a pretty sloppy one at that.
Re:disclosure (Score:5, Interesting)
This is interesting, because despite the diplomatic title of the post, many if not most researchers who are publishing against man made climate change are funded by people who are going to lose money, at least short term, if man made climate change becomes a political reality. To be sure the improvements to industrial processes are going to create a whole new class of very wealthy people, but those who will no innovate will be left behind.
Re: (Score:2)
You're expected to cite your funding sources in the acknowledgements of all academic publications, and some funding orgs will get super pissed at you if you don't.
It's common practice to cite not only the funding sources, but the actual grant numbers. The agencies may be supporting several areas of research, and they want to be sure the funding supported the area for which it was intended.
Koch brothers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Their involvement says it all.
Re:Soros? (Score:4, Insightful)
Koch brothers vs George Soros
Rush Limbaugh vs Jon Steward
Ronald Reagan vs Bill Clinton
Tea Party vs Occupy Wall Street
Fox News vs Mainstream Media
Each team has their heroes and villains.
Re: (Score:3)
Fox News isn't mainstream media?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
I'll raise you Tom Steyer then. He spent ~$75 million on dem causes in 2014.
Re: (Score:2)
but the dems are just as good at spending the money, and simply better at acting like they are not taking money from the big donors But if you like, id love to add another name to the soros' of the world. Tom Steyer who has spend over 50 million of his own money on democratic candidates recently - http://www.powerlineblog.com/a... [powerlineblog.com]
but no, the republicans are the part of the big evil rich....
Envy (Score:2, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
I saw what you did there.
No doubt (Score:3)
Anyone who is surprised by this has really not been paying attention (or has been paid not to pay attention).
Is scientific research free? (Score:2, Insightful)
So 1.2 million over the last decade comes to about $120 000 a year.
With whatever it costs, per year, to do research, then whatever is left cant really be considered "getting rich from the fossil industry".
Seriously. If you are a scientist and your research is contrary to the establishments priorities, where will you get your funding if grants are only given to those who who will publish the "right" findings.
Re:Is scientific research free? (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Nice try. You saying so, does not make it true, in this age of climate scaremongering.
Try getting a government grant, if your research subject is, "The limits of CO2's radiative forcing."
Also, by the way. 120 000$ is the average salary of a tenured university professor.
What makes them less "bad" than someone making the same amount from another sources?
Should we ignore all papers from scientists who work for the pharmaceutical industries?
Re: (Score:2)
The last time? Are you serious?
The pharmaceutical is one of the biggest industries in the world with thousands and thousands of scientists, papers are being published every single day.
Where do you think vaccines come from?
Medicine?
Your post is so idiotic... I don't even know why I'm replying to it, except to just make sure some other morons with only 2 brain cells don't read the crap you posted and think it makes sense.
Re: (Score:2)
Funding grants are given irrespective of the findings. ...unless you're referring to the funding which comes from the fossil fuel industry.
This simply isn't true, funding grants normally look at what you are looking to find or research, only a rare few are actually independent and don't care which way your results go. If they are pro something and it looks like you are searching for proof against then good luck getting funding and vice versa.
And... the evidence? (Score:3, Insightful)
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.
And his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?
Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?
Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.
Let's focus on what's important, and leave the person out of the equation.
(Lots of doctors take money from drug companies - so much so that there's a government database [washingtonpost.com] that allows you to look up your doctor online.)
(And for the record, I'm not for or against the "school of thought" that is climate change. It's simply something I haven't looked into. I have seen some seemingly credible arguments against (due to selection bias in the news), but I leave it to the experts to decide.)
Arguments against (Score:2)
Oh, and in case someone poo-pooh's my claim of arguments against, it's Freeman Dyson [wattsupwiththat.com] making some reasoned points(*) against the predictions of climate science.
Again, I make no judgement on the movement, but it's hard to refute Freeman Dyson as an acceptable authority.
(*) Point one is that everything is predicated on models which are shot through with fudge factors. Real models shouldn't have fudge factors, or should be able to show that the factors are derived from first principles.
(*) Point two is that top
Re: (Score:2, Troll)
Someone upthread posted a presentation of evidence contra speculations about the problems with climate models [youtu.be] such as Dyson's.
The consensus models for AGW are accurate. You and Dyson need speculate no more.
Re: (Score:2)
Seriously, who is 'Freeman Dyson'? I've never heard of him.
Think back, remember that Star Trek episode [wikipedia.org] where they flew the ship inside a sphere the size of a planetary orbit? Remember what they called it? It was a Dyson Sphere [wikipedia.org].
That Dyson [wikipedia.org]. The one they named the sphere after.
He's still alive.
I'm framing this in terms you'll understand, since your parents haven't yet shown you how to use Google.
Re: (Score:3)
That doesn't make Dyson an expert on climate.
Re:And... the evidence? (Score:5, Insightful)
Would anyone say the same about the handful of "scientists" who were funded by the lead industry starting in the 1950s, and spent twenty years casting doubt on the fact that lead exposure is bad (and therefore tetraethyl lead in gasoline is really bad)?
Or how about the handful of "doctors" who the tobbaco companies paid millions to spread lies and doubt about the connection between smoking and cancer for decades?
When the truth is bad for corporate interests, expect a campaign against the truth that is as determined and well funded as it is slanderous.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Like those pesky scientists who dared do research and publish on the fact that cholesterol is not the evil boogey man we have been looking for.
The science was settled, those idiots should have let it lie...
huge difference (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
And his evidence? What about the evidence? What does him accepting money have to do with his results?
Did he fake his evidence, or fudge the calculations?
Science is all about the observations and the predictive conclusions. It shouldn't matter if he was funded by the devil himself - if science can't refute his observations and conclusions, then it's the science that must be revisited.
His papers in regards to climate have been thoroughly destroyed. A quick Google search will yield plenty of information on the topic. Just avoid the science denial sites.
what conflict? (Score:3)
Sounds Good to Me (Score:2, Informative)
"Profit"?? (Score:3)
If you don't understand how university research is funded, please don't write article summaries for slashdot on that topic. This scientist is described as having "made a fortune" for receiving research funds – but this is research money, not personal money. In fact his institution was given the $1.2M, and he just got to direct how it the money was spent (hint: his mortgage in not an allowable expense). Possibly the grants were used to cover part of his salary (though TFA doesn't say so), but that is a normal use of research funds and there are limitations on that.
I agree that he should have declared this funding in the paper (because the journal asks that funding sources be disclosed), but this is not him getting rich. This is him getting his research funded. You have a missing link:
Is it april 1 already? (Score:2, Troll)
" Wei-Hock Soon"
hock (v) 1. To sell or pawn something
Simple Economics (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Then why do we let the geriatrics who don't give a shit about this planet's shape in a decade run the show?
No reference to him in the Congressional Record (Score:3)
Elected officials who want to block the EPA and legislation on climate change frequently refer to a handful of scientists who dispute anthropogenic climate change. One of scientists they quote most often is Wei-Hock Soon, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun's energy can largely explain recent global warming.
I can find no reference to him in the recent Congressional Records. I am a skeptic of the phrase "One of scientists they quote most often is Wei-Hock Soon" as this is the first I've ever heard of him. And you would think the Congressional Record of floor debates and speeches would be the place to find a mention of him if "elected officials who want to block the EPA and legislation on climate change frequently refer to [him]." Does anyone have a reference to back this statement up?
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Gore has made close to one billion dollars.
Could be true, that (Score:4, Interesting)
Though that estimate might be a little high...
"Just before leaving public office in 2001, Gore reported assets of less than $2 million; today, his wealth is estimated at $100 million." [washingtonpost.com]
But then again, it could be right on the money:
"Mr. Gore is poised to become the world’s first “carbon billionaire,” profiteering from government policies he supports that would direct billions of dollars to the business ventures he has invested in." [nytimes.com]
Warning about global warming is a good business to be in it seems...
Re: Could be true, that (Score:4, Insightful)
Or he's investing in technologies and developments that he has openly and expressly said he believes offers the best economic potential due to what he has learned from those studies.
All Gore isn't one to declare profit is wrong, or attack capitalism on an existential basis. He's put his money where his mouth is, and thinks you should too.
Re:Corporate interests (Score:4, Informative)
Re: (Score:3)
Show me where Al Gore fudged his results, and then failed to disclose his financial dealings.
Re:Corporate interests (Score:5, Insightful)
climate change is not some scheme al gore cooked up for political purposes
but... for the sake of argument, let's make believe you are right for a moment
let's ignore the research of thousands of scientists, decades of observations, and go with the low iq fantasy that al gore, sitting on his gold toilet, made climate change up, just to hurt big energy donors to republicans
ok. and?
this is your argument?
"i know a guy once who committed murder and got away with it... so this guy here should get away with murder"
that's how you think right and wrong works?
it's like those moronic headlines about how many jets al gore flies in, or how much fossil fuel was burned to fly big wigs to a climate change conference. so what!
if someone does something wrong, *that hardly makes another wrong ok*
point out the grossest, most hypocritical, limousine liberal shallowness on the topic, and guess what einstein: climate change suddenly doesn't go away as a problem. the damage to our atmosphere from fossil fuels doesn't magically disappear and become a nontopic, just because you found a liberal somewhere who drives a gas guzzling 4x4. do you understand?
to not understand this very simple moral concept: that two wrongs don't make a right, simply makes you, and all of the ignorant propaganda that depends on that foundation, look fucking stupid and morally immature
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Scientific research is not necessary since Al Gore has said the science is already settled.
Re: Corporate interests (Score:5, Informative)
The basic mechanism is straightforward [wikipedia.org], even thought the physical system has many interacting processes.
The key observation is that human activity has changed the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere [wikipedia.org], and this has changed the equilibrium temperature of the system.
Al Gore, although not a scientist by training, is smart enough to understand this. You, on the other hand, are too biased and stupid to accept facts that have been well known for a long time.
Just to make sure that your are up to speed on basic facts, the world is not flat, the earth revolves around the sun, and the universe is more then 5000 years old. Glad that I could clear these things up for you.
Re: Corporate interests (Score:2)
Re: Corporate interests (Score:4, Insightful)
By the way, even if your are right, this is nit picking. It has no significant baring on when the phenomenon was proposed. Bell is just a well known figure, and he was not the first or last to bring up this possibility.
Re: (Score:3)
Gore is right: the science is settled. In fact, it's been understood for nearly 200 years [wikipedia.org].
That's kind of ignorant.....if we only were going to get warming from the CO2, then there would be little to worry about. It's the extra warming that we get from hypothesized feedbacks that really would destroy the world. Furthermore, even understanding the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference. There was a study in 2006 that further refined the effect that CO2 had on the atmosphere (narrowed the error bars).
We are still improving the computer mod
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
"the effect of CO2 is problematic, because it is mixing with other gasses and that makes a difference". Mixing how? Chemically? Via radiation? Interacting with clouds?
The different gases overlap in their absorption bands, so that makes it hard to say what the individual contribution is. Also, while CO2 is well mixed in the atmosphere, water vapour is not. For instance, most of the water vapour is in the lower layers of the atmosphere, and in the arctic areas there's very little water vapour at all, so in higher layers and in the arctic, greenhouse effect is mostly determined by CO2. In humid layers, water vapor is the main contributor.
Re: (Score:3)
If Al Gore is your idea of a scientist, then you don't get an opinion on what is or isn't settled.
Re:Bullshit. (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
That's why there is a little thing called "peer review". If his observations are incorrect then a peer review will discover it. If his experiments can't be reproduced then the paper will be discredited (along with his career). And don't think they aren't being scrutinized given his unpopular stance. So although people tend to not bite the hand that
Re:Yes, it's a conflict of interest. (Score:5, Interesting)
That's why there is a little thing called "peer review". If his observations are incorrect then a peer review will discover it.
A common misconception. Peer review does not verify that the data is correct, that the methodology in the paper is followed, or in general that the results are reliable. It looks at the methods outlined in the paper and tries to spot obvious flaws or oversights, as well as any major problems with the structure of the paper. It can't detect fraud, cherry-picking data, or a host of other problems. Some "scientists" have gotten away for years with made up data or other fraud. And of course the quality of the peer review (or even if it is peer reviewed, in some cases) depends heavily on the journal that publishes it. Anyone can make the "Journal of American Climate Study" or some other professional sounding name and publish total garbage.
If his experiments can't be reproduced then the paper will be discredited (along with his career)
This has pretty much already happened [wikipedia.org]. He's published papers with deeply flawed methodology that has misrepresented the work of other scientists, espouses a scientific viewpoint (that solar variation causes most observed climate changes) that has been shown wrong years ago, and has failed to disclose the source of his funding, a fairly major ethical violation.
Re:Yes, it's a conflict of interest. (Score:5, Informative)
Dr. Soon may even truly believe his science is valid, but the funding he receives creates a lopsided megaphone which unfairly skews the perception of the debate.
Having a conflict of interest is understandable; hiding a conflict of interest is problematic.
By the same token, all scientists who receive funding from the pharmaceutical industry or groups they influence, should be barred from publishing papers on vaccine safety.
Scientists who receive funding from, for example, the pharmaceutical industry are expected to fully and explicitly disclose potentially conflicting interests--and by golly, they do. It's taken quite seriously, actually. If you look at any article in a respectable medical journal today, you'll find a section of the manuscript that's explicitly headed with Conflicting interests: or something synonymous. It will appear on every article, even on the ones where it's followed by "None declared" or the like, just so that it's clear that the journal asked for and got an on-the-record response from the article's authors. It doesn't remove the potential bias associated with outside funding, but it at least makes the potential for bias transparent.
Lying about competing interests - even through omission - is looked on very poorly by serious, credible medical researchers. Interestingly, one of the many, many types of misconduct engaged in by Andrew Wakefield was his failure to disclose significant financial interests when he published his (now-retracted and thoroughly discredited) Lancet paper suggesting a link between the MMR vaccine and autism. (Wakefield wasn't receiving pharmaceutical money, of course; he collected almost half a million pounds from lawyers involved in an anti-MMR lawsuit.)
And while the practice of mandatory disclosure started with the medical journals, the expectation has gradually bled across into other fields as well, particularly among top-tier journals.
Re: (Score:3)
Cited in the NY Times article; not in the papers published by Dr. Soon.
Re: (Score:2)
Oh by the way, I an atmospheric scientist and I work with computer models every day. I have serious doubts about how well we can simulate the future climate of earth in 10 years, let alone 100 years into the future.
Your doubts have been supported [ed.ac.uk]. You got the time scale (ten years) about right, too. It seems like they are over-estimating the magnitude of various feedbacks.
Re: (Score:3)