The South China Morning Post's Science Focus is an often interesting page.
Its editor is Alex Ho has decidedly "climate science denial" (or "sceptic" if you wish) tendencies, so I suspected there may have been more to the story that simply the case of a brave "climate sceptic" facing off the brute forces of the "global warming orthodoxy".
I was suspicious. A letter to the editor followed:
I was intrigued to read the article by Wilie Soon (“Gloves come off in bitter fight over climate change”, Science Focus, 19 July). Why give such prominence to an article complaining about “personal attacks”? [1]
Its editor is Alex Ho has decidedly "climate science denial" (or "sceptic" if you wish) tendencies, so I suspected there may have been more to the story that simply the case of a brave "climate sceptic" facing off the brute forces of the "global warming orthodoxy".
I was suspicious. A letter to the editor followed:
I was intrigued to read the article by Wilie Soon (“Gloves come off in bitter fight over climate change”, Science Focus, 19 July). Why give such prominence to an article complaining about “personal attacks”? [1]
So, I hied me to the internet and find that Soon’s statement had first
appeared on 2 March, in response to a New York Times article claiming
that Soon had not fully disclosed the source of grants for his studies on
climate change. These totalled $US 1.5 million over ten years, almost
all from the fossil fuel industry.
One may choose to believe Soon’s claim that “I have never been
motivated by financial gain…”. And one may also choose to believe in the
tooth fairy. In any case, whether or not he was influenced by the source
of his grants is irrelevant. What is relevant is that he did not always
disclose those sources. The Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics
(HSCA), at which Soon works part-time, has said: “Soon had failed to meet disclosure
requirements of some of the journals that published his research”. Google
“Willie Soon” for many more references to this brouhaha. Virtually all
are dismissive of Soon’s claims, and indeed of his science.
Wikipedia has this to say about the controversy:
"He also requested that journalists who had reported on his actions
similarly examined disclosure by other scientists. An investigation
by InsideClimate
News could find no cases where mainstream climatologists
had failed to disclose the funding of their research. Unlike Soon, who had
approached private funders directly, their funding was almost entirely obtained
through open competitive peer-reviewed applications to public bodies."
Soon describes himself as “research physicist sat the
Harvard-Smithonian Centre for Astrophysics”. Yet he released his claim of
victimisation via the Heartland Institute, a climate sceptic organisation,
rather than the HSCA. Why? Perhaps because on 26 February a
Smithsonian statement said: "The Smithsonian does not support
Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change. The Smithsonian’s official statement on climate change, based
upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a cause
of global warming."
As to the substance of Soon’s research, the nub of it is this: he
believes that sun-spots are the sole cause of global climate changes, and that
CO2 can be discounted. Many climate scientists agree that solar activity
plays a part, but not the sole part, and that all the evidence points to rise
in CO2 emissions as the chief cause of global warming.
Given that fully five months have elapsed since this
controversy first erupted, surely your editors could have found time
to research and report this background. Your readers would have
been better served by understanding the context as balance to
Soon’s farrago of victimhood.
Yours, etc....
******************
[1]: Soon's original statement via the Heartland Institute is here. The SCMP version is very slightly different, but behind a paywall.
