2011-07-07 22:41:34RealClimate find Soon playing dirty
Mark Richardson


If I understand it correctly, Soon and a bunch of mates submitted a paper on polar bear populations trying to remove the link between global warming and danger to polar bears.

It was rejected in 2003 by both reviewers and the editor agreed. They reposted it as a non-peer-reviewed article in 2007 with very few changes.



Turns out that Soon performed calculations with relevant met data (Churchill, which is next to where he was doing the polar bear analysis), and found that there was a very weak correlation. So instead he used a site 1,000 miles away for his weather data, a site that isn't even on west Hudson Bay where he was looking at the polar bear dynamics. This had a higher correlation, so he used it. The reviewers suggested it was wrong, but he didn't change it and he hid the fact he had tested his hypothesis properly and found the data disagreed.

2011-07-08 00:07:32
Paul D


Geez, if that is true he is one corrupt individual.

2011-07-08 00:35:11


So in a couple of days we have that Spencer's job has changed from science to politics and Soon who almost openly plays with the datasets to find the one fitting his needs. I wonder if we should start to take notice to compile a comprehensive list of self-discredited scientists.

2011-07-08 00:41:45
Anne-Marie Blackburn
Anne-Marie Blackburn

This can certainly be used as an example to why there are very few 'sceptic' papers published - it's not down to conspiracy, just incompetence/dishonesty. Pretty shocking.

2011-07-08 01:08:35



We already have a section for Disinformation promoters, and Spencer already has his list.

2011-07-08 01:27:23
Julian Brimelow

Soon has benefitted very nicely from the FF industry.

2011-07-09 11:57:37
Rob Honeycutt


Paul said... "Geez, if that is true he is one corrupt individual."