Shocking News: Climate Skeptic Paid By Fossil Fuels Companies

Obviously, this invalidates everything, you guys!

Leading climate change denier was paid by energy companies
Wei-Hock Soon earned more than $1 million publishing erroneous reports

Wei-Hock Soon, a leading climate change denier whose work has fortified right-wing political arguments for years, was paid more than $1.2 million by energy companies, The New York Times reports. New documents uncovered by Greenpeace via the Freedom of Information Act show that over the last decade, Soon received sizable funding from oil and gas corporations, which he failed to disclose in scientific papers he published.

Who else will pay? The government surely won’t. They are in the business of only funding one side, the same as groups like WWF, Sierra Club, Greenpeace, etc. They in no way want anything that diverges in the least from their cultish beliefs

Climate Statistician Dr. Matt Briggs: ‘What effect do you think the billions of government money flooding into the system has? Why is it government money is seen as ‘pure’ and industry money ‘tainted’, especially when the government far outspends industry. The government is, after all, an interested source. Just think of EPA grants. What will you say of the common practice whereby scientists review grants and also receive them from the same agencies (not simultaneously of course)? Tremendous conflict of interest! Do you recall Eisenhower’s speech where he not only cautioned against the military-industrial complex but also about the corrupting influence of government money?’

I kinda missed the part about “erroneous reports”. Oh, here it is, back to original article

“What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” Kert Davies, executive director at the Climate Investigations Center, told the Times. Experts say Woon’s work employs “out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human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.”

Interesting. It’s called “erroneous” because it refuses to mostly/solely Blame Mankind. Does the Climate Investigations Center fund skeptics to do research? No.

This is a witch hunt designed to discredit people in order to discredit research Warmists do not like, rather than responding directly to the research and rebutting it. No one really cared about James Hansen being funded by Government and the Heinz Foundation. The media collectively yawned at all the errors and lies in multiple IPCC reports.

Yet, these Warmists still won’t practice what they preach.

Save $10 on purchases of $49.99 & up on our Fruit Bouquets at Promo Code: FRUIT49
If you liked my post, feel free to subscribe to my rss feeds.

Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed

17 Responses to “Shocking News: Climate Skeptic Paid By Fossil Fuels Companies”

  1. david7134 says:

    The problem is that the authors of the article do not understand science, in fact, the majority of people who comment on the issues don’t understand science. In this situation, a scientist was paid to raise objections to several proposed hypothesis. That is the nature of the scientific process. If you have material that you have presented, the obligation of your peers is not to accept your analysis as fact, but to try their best to destroy it. If they can not raise credible arguments, then your hypothesis might stand. The fact that the climate religion is associated with such broad acceptance by scientist is cause for concern in that the scientist are not providing adequate peer review.

  2. Jeffery says:

    Most journals have disclosure rules where you are forced to disclose financial ties.

    Soon apparently violated the rules. He’s done in academics.

    For example, Soon and Baliunas published a controversial paper in 2003, claiming it was funded by the Air Force and NASA (Soon did have large grants from both sources; AF49620-02-1-0194 and NAG5-7635), but the Air Force and NASA denied that the grants were to support the work described by Soon in the paper. In fact, Soon did not disclose his industry funding of that project. When Jim Inhofe trotted out Soon for a Senate hearing Soon lied to Congress, claiming he did not knowingly have any funding from private advocacy groups intent on impacting Kyoto, Congress or the UN emissions regulations.

    The Soon and Baliunas (2003) paper led to the resignation of Climate Research editors, including Editor in Chief, Hans von Storch, who stated: “The review process had utterly failed; important questions have not been asked … the methodological basis for such a conclusion (that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climate period of the last millennium) was simply not given.” (Before you assert that Dr. von Storch is just another warmist patsy, recall he is the authority that Deniers cite as an IPCC “lead author” who questioned the conclusions of the latest IPCC assessment.)

    The scientific community was already ignoring Soon’s flawed work as it was not consistent with all the other work in the field. That he was on the payroll of the API, Exxon, Marshall Institute, the Koch Foundation and the Mobil Foundation further cements their disdain.

  3. John says:

    Yeah it’s the cover up that killed his credibility
    Teach stop insulting thei US Navy by saying they are part of a cult. Because of their belief in AGW
    Teach just look at your own cultish beliefs that force you to believe the US Navy are either dupes or stooges
    Teach that Pope fellow you think he is deep into this hoax?

  4. John says:

    David he hid the fact that his opinions were paid for that is quite common among deniers they consistently refuse to say who is paying
    This AGW isn’t new conservative Margaret ThTcher warned about it 30 years ago

  5. jl says:

    “Ignoring Soon’s flawed work as it was not consistent with all the other work in the field.” Because something isn’t consistent with the rest of the work in the field doesn’t necessarily make it flawed. Otherwise, we’d still think eggs are bad for us, that stress causes ulcers, and plate tectonics are impossible.

  6. Deserttrek says:

    too bad the climate change abusers won’t own up to the fact that the vast majority of climate change liars and abusers are paid by taxpayer funds and are therefore under political pressure to toe the line of the government and the agencies that pay them

    real science is built on questions and research, not fear and lies and the force of a tyrannical government

  7. drowningpuppies says:

    Has Michael Mann disclosed his funding from the Koch Brothers?

  8. Jeffery says:


    Soon’s work isn’t flawed because it is contradicted by all the other work, it’s flawed because it’s flawed.

  9. drowningpuppies says:

    “Thousands of scientists have been funded to find a connection between human carbon emissions and the climate. Hardly any have been funded to find the opposite. Throw 30 billion dollars at one question and how could bright, dedicated people not find 800 pages worth of connections, links, predictions, projections and scenarios? (What’s amazing is what they haven’t found: empirical evidence.)”

    -Science and Public Policy Institute.

  10. Jeffery says:

    The Science and Public Policy Institute? Why not ask Exxon?

    The scientists are funded to find the truth. The Science and Public Policy Institute is funded to lie to you.

  11. drowningpuppies says:

    The global average temperature of 62.45 degrees Fahrenheit for 1997 was the warmest year on record…
    -NOAA Global Analysis 1997

    The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880. The annually-averaged temperature was 0.69°C (1.24°F) above the 20th century average of 13.9°C (57.0°F),…
    NOAA Global Analysis – Annual 2014

    Notice the lie there little Jeffery or did you sleep through math class?

  12. Jeffery says:


    Can you supply citations to support your enigmatic rants?


  13. gitarcarver says:

    And here we see how Jeffery “debates.”

    First, he tries to dismiss facts because the facts cited are from organization or group in which he does not believe.

    Secondly, he starts to attack the person doing the posting by childishly changing their name to something he thinks is clever.

    Third, he’ll make a big deal out of “sources.” Even if you give a citation, he will ignore the citation or forget about it down the road. (By “down the road,” I mean “within his next post.”)

    He then moves to attacking people’s writing. He feels free to attack anything in his writings,but believes anything contrary to his beliefs are “rants” or something along those lines.

    He is a true believer of the cult of AGW and debating him is fruitless as the debate assumes Jeffery is honest or at least intellectually honest to participate in discussions.

    But to answer his charge of “enigmatic rants,” the sources are easy to find but Google, Bing, Yahoo!, etc don’t exist in his world unless they support his beliefs.

    In this case the first quote is from NOAA’s Global Analysis of 1977.

    The second quote is from NOAA’s Global Analysis of 2014.

    Drowningpuppies asks the valid question of whether Jeffery could spot the lie. The fact that Jeffery did not answer shows he is deflecting or cannot spot the lie.

    Either way, it is all part of Jeffery’s (in)ability to debate with any sense of morals or integrity.

  14. Jeffery says:

    The only lies are whenever qc types. What you call a lie, I call your inability to understand simple science.

    But I’m used to the scattergun approach from cons. Change the subject, shoot out 20 weak objections, change the subject again. But remember, for all your bluster…. the Earth continues to warm because of the greenhouse gases we’ve added and continue to add to the atmosphere.

  15. gitarcarver says:

    The only lies are whenever qc types.

    Here we go again. Instead of addressing the original point, Jeffery chooses to make an attack on another writer.

    What you call a lie, I call your inability to understand simple science.

    We can add and see differences Jeffery.

    Apparently you cannot.

    Change the subject, shoot out 20 weak objections, change the subject again.

    Funny, I talked about your “debating” tactics and then you demonstrated that my assessment was accurate.

    Within my post was the very citations you asked for. Did you miss them? Or are you simply denying their existence because they show that you and the AGW crowd are frauds?

    For all your bluster, you can’t deal with facts.

  16. Jeffery says:

    Writers? LOL Typists is more accurate. I hope my typing is effective in the sense I intend it to drip with my disrespectful disdain for you and your dishonest ilk.

    Nice try. The “original point” was that the most famous “legitimate” Denier scientist is actually paid by the energy industry, and had Denied it.

    I recognize how you like to wallow in the mud on side issues to distract from the “original point”. It’s an effective strategy and you’re good at it. Of course your goal is to mock and ridicule (Alinsky Rule 5) those who challenge your ideology, since the truth is rarely on your side.

    The Earth is warming from the CO2 we add to the atmosphere. Deniers are paid by the corporations whose profits stand to be hurt by recognizing that fact. That’s the “original point”.

    Let me know when you wish to discuss the “original point”.

  17. gitarcarver says:

    I hope my typing is effective in the sense I intend it to drip with my disrespectful disdain for you and your dishonest ilk.

    Your writings may drip with something, but it isn’t anything that honest people will appreciate or latch onto.

    I recognize how you like to wallow in the mud on side issues to distract from the “original point”.

    And yet here you are typing as fast as you can ignoring the fact that you asked a question in a disrespectful manner. That question was answered and you haven’t addressed it.

    You called drowningpuppies’ post a “enigmatic rant.”

    You can’t deal with what he wrote and what NOAA claimed, so you are trying desperately to run away from the facts.

    You keep telling people you want a “discussion” or ask ridiculous questions but it is clear that like any cult member, you aren’t interested in answers.

    That being said, are you going to acknowledge what NOAA said or not?

Pirate's Cove