For most of the last few years, whenever a politician stands up in opposition to climate change legislation, he usually quotes work from Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, a scientist who has frequently argued that global warming isn’t man-made at all–but is caused by natural changes in the sun’s energy. However, much of that work now stands discredited, according to a bombshell article in this morning’s edition of The New York Times (below the fold). Documents obtained by Greenpeace and the Climate Investigations Center show that Soon has taken over $1.2 million from fossil-fuel companies over the last decade. In many of his papers on climate change, he has failed to disclose that conflict of interest.
It’s been no secret to anyone covering environmental issues that Soon has taken a lot of money from the fossil-fuel industry. However, he has steadfastly maintained that his work is not influenced by these donations. This latest document dump seems to prove otherwise. See for yourself–you can view the full trove of documents at the Climate Investigations Center, or a smaller sample at The New York Times. In several email exchanges with his donors, Soon referred to his scientific papers, as well as his prepared testimony at congressional hearings, as “deliverables” in exchange for corporate money. In other words–much of Soon’s published work was directly linked to corporate donations, a violation of scientific publishing standards. Soon received at least $409,000 from Southern Company, the main power company for much of Georgia and Alabama. He got another $230,000 from the Charles M. Koch Charitable Foundation. Much of the rest of the money came from numerous oil companies such as ExxonMobil, as well as Donors Trust, a fund that anonymously donates money to right-leaning interests.
Environmentalists pounced on this revelation, saying that the fossil-fuel industry is using the same playbook as many corporations that want to derail legislation that may harm them–create the false impression that there isn’t a broad scientific consensus on this issue. As Harvard science historian Naromi Oreskes put it, Soon was a pawn in “a certain kind of political theater” intended to make it appear there’s actually a debate about climate change. Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, says that this revelation is part of “a long-term campaign” by the fossil-fuel industry to undercut the evidence for climate change.
When Charles Alcock, the executive director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, where Soon works, saw these documents on Friday, he concluded that Soon had indeed violated the disclosure standards of some of the journals where he published his work. Alcock said bluntly that this was “inappropriate behavior” that had to be addressed with Soon posthaste. W. John Kress, the interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian, was also concerned and said the Smithsonian is conducting its own review. Soon gets his paycheck from the Smithsonian, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard. A number of journals are also looking into the issue as well.
The companies who lined Soon’s pockets may also have some explaining to do as well. When Senator Ed Markey (D-Mass.) read these documents, he announced an investigation into what he described as “junk science.” He sent letters to those companies, as well as other stakeholders in carbon fuels, demanding an explanation. Markey is a member of the Senate Environment and Public Works Committee, That committee’s chairman, Jim Inhofe (R-Okla.), is perhaps the Senate’s most adamant climate change denier, and frequently quotes Soon in his floor speeches. However, Inhofe would be a fool to ignore evidence of such blatant scientific misconduct.
To understand how serious this is, remember that Andrew Wakefield’s now-infamous study on the links between the MMR vaccine and autism was funded in part by lawyers who were planning to sue vaccine manufacturers–something Wakefield never disclosed. Wakefield’s study was ultimately exposed as completely fraudulent, resulting in the study’s retraction and Wakefield being stripped of his medical license. While there is no evidence as of yet of anything that egregious with Soon, there is enough that he’s probably going to have to be one helluva talker if he wants to keep his job.
