Science prides itself on having a logical peer-review method for questioning the status quo. So too should skeptics who cite things such as scientific sunspot theories.
Climate change skeptics point out 'the 2 sides to any story'. While this is intellectually noble, skeptics should equally question whether they 'balance' their views proportionately. If less than 10% of scientists dispute climate change, wouldn't 'balancing' restrict skepticism to 10% of the data used to form a conclusion?
The public is essentially a jury reviewing the following:
9 of 10 expert witnesses offer thousands of pages of data, while 1 of 10 offers far less to support their story. Which would you believe? In tobacco cases, there were always experts that disputed the link to cancer, but would you have believed them?
As regards motivation, which is more likely: Greedy multi-billion $ corporations banding together to sponsor skepticism that keeps the 'debate' alive; or greedy scientists contriving reams of data to protect $100k salaries?
Are skeptics constructively working towards the truth, or are they the scientific equivalent of anarchists intent on disruption & getting their masked face on TV? Might the face behind that mask actually be Exxon?
The media has it's share of 'sketchy skepticism'. When pressed, 'skeptic editors' have been quick to state that they are 'just reporting the news' in defense of seemingly slanted stories which cast doubt on climate change. It would be nice if they took their journalistic credo seriously.
Case in point: shouldn't reporting of stories such as Dr. Soon's recent sunspot theory research also include mention of his funding? After all, many critics of climate change state that researchers are just trying to protect their research funding by being alarmist. Couldn't the reverse be true, that oil/coal companies are funding 'research' to protect their interests?
A point of consistency has been publications like TG Daily feeding readers reports from sources which have received funding from big oil and coal. Unfortunately, Dr. Soon is no exception. See the following link for his links to Exxon, the Heartland Institute (skeptics of 2nd hand smoke) and Western Fuels Association (coal utilities).
Dr. Soon bio
TG Daily's slanted stories on Dr. Soon's sunspot theory