Renowned astrophysicist Willie Soon says that the general view in both science and the media that dangerous anthropogenic global warming is occurring, is not true.
The last paragraph is all you need to know. There is a massive conflict of interest if oil and coal companies are funding various shadowy institutions to carry out climate change. Industrial companies have been muddying the waters by funding 'research' for years, pioneered by tobacco and asbestos companies. The pernicious effects of drug companies on the medical knowledge data base is well known and this here is no different.
Thank you for pointing that out, Ian! However, the funding problem is not so one-sided. In fact, the problem at the moment is rather that to object to 'mainstream' climate science as a researcher means academic/financial suicide. There are many examples of this, e.g. https://www.freedom-research.org/i/137536595/climate-scientist-admits-i-left-out-the-full-truth-to-get-my-climate-change-paper-published. So, what I am arguing is that the last paragraph does not actually invalidate his notion that money determines the outcome nor the rest of his scientific contribution, but is important information to consider making up your own mind about the issue.
So seriously you cannot have it both ways. If all the pharmaceutical research is rightly recognised as tainted and biased because of conflicts of interest, the same must hold true for the 'antithesis' arguments. The example you give in your post is not a good one, and tells us nothing. Credit to him to get a Nature publication, but the editors would have stripped out any 'gratuitous' comments unsupported by his data. Coming back to Prof Soon - try and look for transparency on his institutions, like Ceres, on funding sources. There is none.
Well, I do consider this problematic if one has such conflicts of interest which might lead to a biased outcome. So I agree that you cannot have it both ways. And this is true in climate science as well. Soon has addressed the problem with his backers by saying that his conclusions are his only. You might believe it or not - the best solution would be to show his errors with facts, scientifically. And on the other hand other claims should be investigated also accordingly. If you did not like the other example, then it is worth pointing out that there have been prestigious scientists admitting that they have manipulated data related to climate because they wanted their sponsors to like it. Take dr. William Happer as an example. "In his September 2023 IPA video lecture in Australia, as a co-author of the 1980 JASON scientific report "Long-term impacts of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels”, he made an unexpected statement on the origins of the key indicator presented there. According to him, the 3 ºC rise in temperature which should follow a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and which is still considered by the IPCC as the likely scenario, was derived unscientifically to satisfy the expectations of the sponsors." "The first number we got was too small, so we increased it just arbitrarily until it was big enough that it would seem like an ok thing to put in the book that our sponsors would like. So we guessed three degrees of warming from doubling CO2 and I can assure you that wasn't science. That was just what do you think the sponsors want. I am actually quite ashamed of it." - https://www.freedom-research.org/p/trench-wars-of-climate-science
Does that mean everything Dr Happer has ever produced or claimed, should be now disregarded? I do not think so.
The last paragraph is all you need to know. There is a massive conflict of interest if oil and coal companies are funding various shadowy institutions to carry out climate change. Industrial companies have been muddying the waters by funding 'research' for years, pioneered by tobacco and asbestos companies. The pernicious effects of drug companies on the medical knowledge data base is well known and this here is no different.
Thank you for pointing that out, Ian! However, the funding problem is not so one-sided. In fact, the problem at the moment is rather that to object to 'mainstream' climate science as a researcher means academic/financial suicide. There are many examples of this, e.g. https://www.freedom-research.org/i/137536595/climate-scientist-admits-i-left-out-the-full-truth-to-get-my-climate-change-paper-published. So, what I am arguing is that the last paragraph does not actually invalidate his notion that money determines the outcome nor the rest of his scientific contribution, but is important information to consider making up your own mind about the issue.
So seriously you cannot have it both ways. If all the pharmaceutical research is rightly recognised as tainted and biased because of conflicts of interest, the same must hold true for the 'antithesis' arguments. The example you give in your post is not a good one, and tells us nothing. Credit to him to get a Nature publication, but the editors would have stripped out any 'gratuitous' comments unsupported by his data. Coming back to Prof Soon - try and look for transparency on his institutions, like Ceres, on funding sources. There is none.
This is a massive red flag.
Well, I do consider this problematic if one has such conflicts of interest which might lead to a biased outcome. So I agree that you cannot have it both ways. And this is true in climate science as well. Soon has addressed the problem with his backers by saying that his conclusions are his only. You might believe it or not - the best solution would be to show his errors with facts, scientifically. And on the other hand other claims should be investigated also accordingly. If you did not like the other example, then it is worth pointing out that there have been prestigious scientists admitting that they have manipulated data related to climate because they wanted their sponsors to like it. Take dr. William Happer as an example. "In his September 2023 IPA video lecture in Australia, as a co-author of the 1980 JASON scientific report "Long-term impacts of increasing atmospheric carbon dioxide levels”, he made an unexpected statement on the origins of the key indicator presented there. According to him, the 3 ºC rise in temperature which should follow a doubling of atmospheric CO2 and which is still considered by the IPCC as the likely scenario, was derived unscientifically to satisfy the expectations of the sponsors." "The first number we got was too small, so we increased it just arbitrarily until it was big enough that it would seem like an ok thing to put in the book that our sponsors would like. So we guessed three degrees of warming from doubling CO2 and I can assure you that wasn't science. That was just what do you think the sponsors want. I am actually quite ashamed of it." - https://www.freedom-research.org/p/trench-wars-of-climate-science
Does that mean everything Dr Happer has ever produced or claimed, should be now disregarded? I do not think so.
“ . . . it is these ocean state changes that are
1:02:28 correlated with the great disasters of the past impact can cause extinction but
1:02:35 it did so in our past only wants[once] that we can tell whereas this has happened over
1:02:40 and over and over again we have fifteen evidences times of mass extinction in the past 500 million years
1:02:48 so the implications for the implications the implications of the carbon dioxide is really dangerous if you heat your
1:02:55 planet sufficiently to cause your Arctic to melt if you cause the temperature
1:03:01 gradient between your tropics and your Arctic to be reduced you risk going back
1:03:07 to a state that produces these hydrogen sulfide pulses . . . “
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ako03Bjxv70 },
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/pipeline-push-co2-underground-cola/
https://childrenshealthdefense.org/defender/carbon-capture-schemes-co2-pipelines-rupture-cd/