He's paid quite a pleasant retainer and has the luxury to produce scientific papers that, by all accounts, are fairly devoid of science and easily debunked by those with the talents and experience to do so. As a result, his brand of science is pretty much ignored by just about every scientist on the planet. You can tell a lot about a man by the company he keeps.
Part of that company is Anthony Watts who has helped his cause no end by rushing to Soon's defence. You might think that Watts might want to keep his nose out but, no, he's up there on the barricades because, apparently, official documents released under freedom of information requests display to venality of Soon and question whether he has been totally forthcoming about his conflicts of interests. It is a valid ethical question rightly being asked. Let's consider how much dancing there would be if the boot were on the other foot.
Actually, let's not bother. We know that if Michael Mann were caught taking cash from Greenpeace, there would be a huge hoo-hah from the denialati. But that hasn't happened. Instead, a denier has been found with fingers in the till of fossil fuels and has somehow forgotten to mention this fact. You'd have thought that his co-author and expert on scientific ethics and the rules of academic discourse, the esteemed Lord Monckton of Brenchley, would have reminded him of this point. But, no, they appear to have forgotten to discuss it. Monckton & al, 2015, the infamous irreducible stupid paper that found a home in a benthic Chinese journal, claims no conflicts of interests. Perhaps that is true. It doesn't seem likely.
Still, the walls echo to the sound of stupidity.
From the comments:
I know. What is so hard to understand. The very idea that a scientist leaves his conflicts of interest at work and writes the same old discredited stuff down at Starbucks with his mates. That's what's so hard to understand.
Tom Trevor February 23, 2015 at 8:38 am If someone disagrees with Willy’s work let them find fault with the work, if all they can do is find fault with the person, then they probably can’t find fault with the work.
I know. If only we could find anyone who can find fault with little Willie's science.
There are more.
You'd think that, after getting rather eggy faces over Murry Salby, that Watts might keep his mouth shut, but the temptation to look, let's say, stupid is just too great. A skeptic worthy of the name would ask questions first, shoot later. But then again, Watts is not worthy of the skeptic name.