Is it hard to find credible the 3% of Scientists who deny Climate Change when they fail to disclose they were funded by Big Oil interests?

I am in favour of having the same rules for everyone. The case of Willie Soon has been raised again. Clearly, the warmies have difficulty with comprehension and reading skills.

The case where Soon received flak recently was because he is an independent scientists who was working for the Harvard Smithsonian for Astrophysics. The Smithsonian were funding Soon. His contract with the Smithsonian forbade him to disclose anything about funding in the paper they had requested.

The Smithsonian received the funding from whoever it is that the warmies don't like this week. Soon was not in a position, contractually, to reveal where his employer received their funding. His funding, remember, was from the Smithsonian.

Yet again, the lack of scientific argument for anthropogenic climate change and/or global warming is made very clear by this kind of question. Is this all you have - just slurs and innuendos against people you consider to be "off message". It really is quite pathetic.

I cant really gove you an answer,but what I can give you is a way to a solution, that is you have to find the anglde that you relate to or peaks your interest. A good paper is one that people get drawn into because it reaches them ln some way.As for me WW11 to me, I think of the holocaust and the effect it had on the survivors, their families and those who stood by and did nothing until it was too late.