Climate scientist faces witch hunt after revealing money come from fossil fuel industry

Science is a hotly debated topic on Capitol Hill, as though scientific theories were subject to political interpretation; nonetheless this time it's Democrats who are leading a witch hunt of sorts against climate skeptics.

LOS ANGELES, CA (Catholic Online) - Democrats in Washington are demanding that universities disclose sources of funding for skeptic research on the strong suspicion that considerable funding for such research may be coming from the fossil fuel industry. Universities, companies and trade organizations have all been solicited to provide details on who funded these researchers.

Last weekend, news surfaced that Wei-Hock Soon, a Smithsonian researcher at the Center for Astrophysics, failed to disclose funding for his work which came directly from the fossil fuel industry. According to documents and testimony Soon provided, he corresponded regularly with the companies which funded is work.

March is Green Month on Catholic Online. Celebrate all of God's creation!

Representative Raul Grijalva (D-AZ) has spearheaded the spate of letters and requests that the funding sources be revealed. This is legal and it is common for funding sources to be released when questions are raised.

The problem is that Congress is informed by scientists. Scientists are typically seen as neutral parties and are expected to deliver answers with integrity so Congress can make informed decisions. When a scientist holds a contrary viewpoint that is unsupported by peer review, such as going against the consensus on global warming, an effort must be made to ensure their research is of the highest integrity.

Soon's research, being firmly in the "skeptical camp" met this criteria, so questions arose amongst the liberal elements in Congress over his support. It is widely believed that he has received substantial finding from the fossil fuel industry.

The problem is that politics, not science, is driving decision-making in Congress. Every scientist, no matter their results, should be required to disclose their funding and should be prepared to answer every question asked by our elected officials. Every bit of research, especially that which has the potential to impact legislation, should be scrutinized, first by fellow scientists, then by those who are concerned with the integrity of work.

The conclusions don't matter as much as the integrity of the work.

There is no room for politics in science. However, we need science in politics to drive informed decision making. The problem is that all too often we see the opposite. Politics is involved in science while science is being driven out of politics.

Our politics are the result of internal narratives we carry on within ourselves. Our politics are predicated upon our notions of how the world ought to be. However, science is concerned with how the world actually is. When we want to know the truth of a matter, we should turn to science, not politics, but it is very important that the science itself is untainted by the personal narratives of the researchers or the money that could influence scientific conclusions.

---

'Help Give every Student and Teacher FREE resources for a world-class Moral Catholic Education'