It's really not as simple a case as it might first appear to be.

1) Generally, journals require disclosure of current funding that might influence reported results. They generally do not care about past funding.

2) Generally, funding agencies want to be mentioned for every article produced that came out of their funding. This is how most funding agencies justify their existence to their money sources. "Hey, look. During the last round of funding, we generated X publications from research that we paid for."

3) While it is interesting to say that Dr. Soon did not disclose $1.2m from the energy industry while submitting articles, a great deal (or possibly all) of that funding was not related to the specific articles.

4) The energy industry funds a LOT or research. They actually fund both sides of the Climate Change debate. They fund a lot of people who argue for taxation on fossil fuels. I'm guessing a good percentage of this money is tax write-offs. And another chunk is for risk assessment. But they do fund it.

5) There are a lot of researchers on the green side of the climate change debate that are funded by sources that they do not disclose. And not for nefarious reasons. They don't disclose for the same reason that Dr. Soon didn't disclose. That it was not immediately relevant to the article that was published.

6) If we are actually talking about "science", and not about "opinion", then really, the source of the funding for any researcher should not matter. What should matter are the facts. If the facts are solid, then funding doesn't matter. 1+1=2, no matter who buys the chalk.

7) To cry foul at a non-disclosure of funding, when really in most cases citation of the funding source has no bearing on the quality of the actual research, is really pushing close to being ad-hominem attack.