JoNova

A science presenter, writer, speaker & former TV host; author of The Skeptic's Handbook (over 200,000 copies distributed & available in 15 languages).


Handbooks

The Skeptics Handbook

Think it has been debunked? See here.

The Skeptics Handbook II

Climate Money Paper


Advertising

micropace


GoldNerds

The nerds have the numbers on precious metals investments on the ASX



Archives

Support Willie Soon and science: This mudball gets return-to-sender

When personal, ad hominem attacks are launched against a scientist there is no upside for science. People who care about science discuss the science, not the scientist’s-biography. Instead there are five potentially ugly outcomes that the mudslingers are presumably aiming for:

  1. The target scientist may be effectively silenced: spectators tune out. Weaker journalists feel less inclined to cite them for fear of the push-back against themselves.
  2. Another day where the scientific national conversation wallows in the gutter instead of discussing science.
  3. The target scientist feels dissuaded.  Who needs this hassle?
  4. The message to thousands of silent skeptical scientists is unmistakable –  “don’t speak” or you’re next.
  5. Philanthropists, and corporate donors feel the heat too, and may (if they are not made of strong stuff) figure that their funding does more harm than good. This starves independent science of essential support.

These attacks don’t raise a single scientific argument. Their aim is not “better science”.  Let’s turn the pain back on the mudslinger and those who aid and abet. It won’t be so much fun for them if each attack makes us stronger, crystallizes support, and exposes their anti-science intent.

This mud-ball is begging to be turned

We don’t want to play in the stupid-theater of mud, but they picked the fight, and the sooner we win, the sooner they stop. Why wait? With every email to the target and in support of the target, we win. The Smithsonian and its senior management need to hear from the good smart people of this world.  Christopher Monckton, David Legates, and Matt Briggs have written a scathing report and letter inviting the Smithsonian to investigate, apologize to Willie Soon, and repair the damage.  All you need to do is add your name.

For the sake of the science-donors, the other university deans, the journalists, fence-sitting politicians, and the thousands of silent onlookers, let’s stand up and stand together. Let’s let them know there are thousands of people who will not let them get away with their anti-science pogrom.

To support Willie Soon, this letter and good science, send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com.

Christopher Monckton, David Legates, and Matt Briggs:

Our letter invites the Regents to ensure that the Smithsonian investigates the wrongdoing by the Smithsonian and its senior officials identified in our report, and, when they have confirmed that our report is in substance correct, to see to it that the Smithsonian issues a public apology to Willie, pays him just and full restitution, and meets his legal costs.

If you are willing to support Willie by signing the letter, please send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com. Your name and qualifications will be added to the list of signatures, which is led by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, the distinguished international expert on sea level rise, who has written more than 600 papers in his half century of studying sea level.

[Name and address of Smithsonian Regent]

[Date]

Dear [Name of Regent],

Recent misconduct by senior managers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

We are friends, colleagues, or supporters of Dr Willie Soon, a solar physicist who has been on the strength at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, part of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, for a quarter of a century. Recently, with Lord Monckton, Professor David Legates and Dr Matt Briggs, Dr Soon co-authored a paper in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that led to widespread but false allegations by the Smithsonian, echoing various advocacy groups, that he had improperly failed to disclose a source of his funding for his work on the paper.

When those allegations were proven false, the extremist advocacy group originally responsible for them circulated further false allegations that in 11 earlier papers Dr Soon had acted improperly in not having disclosed the source of his funding. However, the Smithsonian had negotiated a contract with the funder in question by which the funder’s identity was not to be published. The only papers in which Dr Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which the Smithsonian, not he, was solely responsible.

The Smithsonian, however, unlawfully and publicly issued a series of statements intended to blame Dr Soon, though it was at fault for having improperly agreed to the obligation of confidentiality by which he was bound. His three co-authors of the Science Bulletin paper have investigated the allegations by the Smithsonian and various political advocacy groups against their colleague. Their findings are set out in the first two pages of their report to the Regents, attached hereto, followed by the evidence.

We now ask you –

(1) to instruct the Inspector-General of the Smithsonian to investigate the co-authors’ findings (pages 2-3) and the evidence in support of the findings (pages 4-17) as part of his investigation of this matter,

(2) to investigate Dr Alcock’s malicious and dishonest interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education; his subsequent refusal to make any correction of his falsehoods upon request by Dr Soon and separately by Dr Soon’s lead author; and his failure to pass on to the general counsel the lead author’s freedom of information request;

(3) to request the Attorney-General of Massachusetts to investigate those aspects of the conduct of the Smithsonian in general and of Dr Alcock in particular that constitute a fraudulent campaign of connected and co-ordinated deceptions, persisted in despite requests to cease and desist and, therefore, intended to cause not only continuing reputational harm but also financial loss to Dr Soon; and

(4), if the report’s findings are in substance correct, to order the Smithsonian to apologize publicly to Dr Soon and to make just and full restitution to him for the loss and damage it and its defalcating senior management have caused.

Yours sincerely,

Monckton of Brenchley; Professor David Legates; Dr Matt Briggs

More details are on WattsUp. Attached to the letter is a report with details, dates, and names showing how Willie Soon was put in an impossible bind by the Smithsonian, but has acted at all times in an outstanding way:

These many falsehoods and false implications, within days of each other, were intended to reinforce each other, to cause severe financial loss to Dr Soon and to compound the damage the Smithsonian had already done to his health, reputation, livelihood and career as a solar physicist. The inexplicable and continuing refusal by the Smithsonian to correct the record, despite Dr Soon’s requests and ours that it should do so, further aggravates the damage to him and evidences the Smithsonian’s intent to cause him loss and damage.

Dr Soon is manifestly blameless. He has acted at all times correctly, in compliance with the policies of the Smithsonian and with the terms – however repugnant – of his donor’s funding contract with his employer. Dr Soon declared his sources of funding all his published papers that were not funded by the Smithsonian, being under no contractual obligation not to disclose the funders’ identity. It was only in the 11 papers to whose funding Southern Company had contributed that he did not disclose the funders’ identity, for – through the Smithsonian’s fault and not his – he was bound in law not to disclose it.

Yet the Smithsonian and its personnel acted incorrectly in agreeing to the confidentiality clause, in failing to honor it once they had agreed it, in failing to follow its own FOIA policies, in failing to come to the aid of a long-standing and award-winning colleague suffering because he had complied with a contract term to which they had improperly consented, in conducting a campaign of coordinated and false allegations and implications intended to damage him, in failing to correct the record when asked, and in failing to respond to our legitimate FOI request for copies of the Center for Astrophysics’ founding documents.

We are asking the Inspector-General of the Smithsonian and the Attorney-General of Massachusetts to investigate the Smithsonian’s misconduct. When they have confirmed our findings, the Smithsonian must apologize to Dr Soon and make just and full restitution to him for the loss and damage it has caused.

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: monckton@mail.com: +44 7814 556423

Professor David Legates

Dr Matt Briggs

Christopher Monckton invites emails in support and to obtain the full report.

“If you are willing to support Willie by signing the letter, please send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com. Anyone who would like the full report, which includes the evidence in support of our findings, should email me.”

VN:F [1.9.22_1171]
Rating: 9.4/10 (105 votes cast)
Support Willie Soon and science: This mudball gets return-to-sender, 9.4 out of 10 based on 105 ratings

Tiny Url for this post: http://tinyurl.com/namtyk5

105 comments to Support Willie Soon and science: This mudball gets return-to-sender

  • #
    Michael P

    Is it possible that this post could be “sticked” for as long as possible,so it’s not pushed down the page,as this is important. The more signatures we get the better,as people and indeed Lord Monckton himself have said that

    Those who say our findings look like a legal letter before claim are not entirely amiss. Actually our findings are the result of a careful investigation: and, when one summarizes the Smithsonian’s misconduct on a couple of brisk pages, the full horror of its behavior becomes clear. We did things this way so that when the Regents get our letter, backed by hundreds of signatures, including learned professors and doctors of science, they will be able to read the first two pages in a couple of minutes, realize they have to do something, and order the relevant people to sort this out.

    If the Regents don’t act, they make themselves party to the Smithsonian’s criminbality: and that will not be wise. The Regents will order an investigation of the Smithsonian’s behavior, and they will know by the sheer weight, quality and quantity of the signatories to this letter that no whitewash will succeed.

    593

  • #
    Peter Miller

    You occasionally see the term ‘Climate Inquisition’ used.

    Well, this is a classic instance of the Climate Inquisition in action. Alarmists are targeting Dr Soon for not supporting their holy writ of imminent Thermageddon.

    The alarmist cult is deliberately targeting those who expose their ‘science’ for what it is: mostly a bunch of fantasy tales supported by a tiny smidgen of truth, which then gets distorted out of all sense of proportion.

    I am proud to sign this letter, I am a practicing scientist in the private sector and like most of my peers are hugely disturbed by the tactics of the alarmist cult in trying to push their unsupported theories down the throats of an unsuspecting or gullible public.

    The problem is science in the public sector, or quasi-public sector has been hijacked by zealots with political motives. None of this would matter, if our western ‘political elite’ were not so intent in signing up to voluntarily commit economic suicide in Paris later this year.

    594

    • #
      Lars P.

      “You occasionally see the term ‘Climate Inquisition’ used.
      Well, this is a classic instance of the Climate Inquisition in action.”

      Exactly

      “The alarmist cult is deliberately targeting those who expose their ‘science’ for what it is: mostly a bunch of fantasy tales supported by a tiny smidgen of truth, which then gets distorted out of all sense of proportion”
      It is all that they have left and they use and abuse it as much as they can

      00

  • #
    FIN

    To be fair, I’m not sure Willie actually qualifies as a scientist does he? Apart from some utter junk he’s produced for the Koch Brothers Inc., and the Heartland Foundation I don’t think there’s much else? So if people have criticised him it’s for his rubbish propaganda not his non- existent “science”. I’m sure people will set me straight here if I’m wrong but I don’t think so.

    4129

    • #
      ianl8888

      Instead of squirting childish ad-homs, just look for Dr willie Soon in Google Professional

      523

      • #
        sillyfilly

        A professional view of solar theory being responsible for global warming as per W Soon:
        Nature:
        “No solar hiding place for greenhouse sceptics”
        and
        ERL
        “A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it. From the absence of corroborative evidence, we estimate that less than 23%, at the 95% confidence level, of the 11 year cycle change in the globally averaged cloud cover observed in solar cycle 22 is due to the change in the rate of ionization from the solar modulation of cosmic rays.”
        and
        from Geophysicist Raymond Pierrehumbert:
        “That’s a coffin with so many nails in it already that the hard part is finding a place to hammer in a new one.”
        Many more at hand to denounce Willie and solar boys!

        488

        • #
          Dariusz

          I am geoscientists that does geophysics as my job and whoever this person is he should know better as he has the knowledge and the tools. Any geoscientists that believes in man made global warming is either a money [snip] or just not equipped with the mental faculties worthy of geoscience.
          SF you are out of the depth as usual. Silly talk about recipes is your strength I noticed.

          [Why I snipped you should be obvious. Please keep it a little more civil.] AZ

          403

          • #
            Dariusz

            AZ I did use this expression before on this site and there was no problem. This expression has a specific meaning to describe people that succumbed to the grid money,
            Having said my apologies for unintentionally offending.

            [No apology needed. Different moderators may interpret the rules somewhat differently. In this case your comment was caught in moderation otherwise I might not have noticed it. Just be aware that Jo has been tightening up her moderation filter and judge what you do accordingly.] AZ

            123

        • #
          James Bradley

          sf,

          “Even the rain that falls wont be enough to fill our dams… ”

          Professor Tim Flannery

          262

        • #
          Pat Frank

          A Google scholar search for W. Soon stellar.

          It provides a long list of papers on stellar physics authored or co-authored by Willie Soon.

          Willie Soon is a scientist — a stellar physicist — of international standing. Anyone who supposes differently is either ignorant or malicious.

          Here is a Google scholar search on W. Soon climate.

          It provides a long list of papers Willie has authored or co-authored on climate-related subjects. This list provides the entire rationale for the vile attacks on Willie’s character. These attacks are purely politically motivated, and those motives are the very worst sort of politics.

          The people who are attacking Willie are “show-trial” prosecutors. Making things up — inventing crimes and accusations — to sustain the political narrative. They are Andrei Vyshinsky wanna-bes, and shame be upon them.

          342

    • #
      Dariusz

      You just follow the big Al. He never produced any propaganda and he got even a noble price for it. So why so many have demonstrated numerous factual and scientific errors in his work that was not noticed by the noble price committee, no doubt people with great “credentials”. Not just because he is a politician and he got rich on trade in the invisible substance conning a lot people in the process?
      What terrible things Willy has done to you that he deserves this abuse from you again? Attack an idea not a person.

      451

      • #
        Tim

        He dared to challenge big AL’s global propaganda with his own inconvenient truth and the manipulators of science disapproved. Their hockey stick simply chose to intentionally overlook the global MWP and was therefore the basis of a huge worldwide disinformation campaign.

        If scientists stray outside accepted study subjects or find information inconvenient to the sponsors, they can be penalized, sometimes severely. “Publish or perish” means going where the funding is, and staying away from controversy. Willie deserves recognition for bravery, not denigration.

        341

      • #
        Shane

        ”What terrible things Willy has done to you that he deserves this abuse from you again? ..”

        maybe just being right is what annoys the hell out of such people

        00

    • #
      RB

      He has the qualifications. I assume that you want to jump on any comments that he has a PhD. in Science. The title to his thesis is “Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases”. He didn’t build a rocket, he did science.

      What qualifications do you have FIN, or are you M. Mann projecting?

      441

      • #
        Michael P

        For those ignorant I would like to post his full credentials

        Dr. Soon’s impeccable credentials:

        Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, B.Sc. Aerospace Engineering Cum Laude, University of Southern California (1985); M.Sc. Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California (1987); Ph.D. Rocket Science with distinction (Thesis: “Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases”), University of Southern California (1991); Graduate Scholastic Award, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society (1989); Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award, University of Southern California (1991); Member, Tau Beta Phi (National Engineering Honor Society); Member, Sigma Gamma Tau (National Aerospace Engineering Honor Society); Post-Doctoral Fellow, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1991-1996); Astronomer, Mount Wilson Observatory (1992-2009); Astrophysicist and Geoscientist, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1997-Present); Visiting Professor, Department of Science and Environmental Studies, University of Putra, Malaysia (1999-2000); Annual Reviewer, Progress in Physical Geography Journal (2001-2002); Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute (2001-2003); Former Member, American Astrophysical Society (AAS); Former Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Former Member, International Astronomical Union (IAU); Receiving Editor, New Astronomy Journal (2002-Present); Member, CANSTAT Advisory Board, Fraser Institute (2002-Present); Member, Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy Research (2002); Smithsonian Institution Award for “Official Recognition of Work Performance Reflecting a High Standard of Accomplishment” (2003); Science Director, Center for Science and Public Policy (2003-2006); Petr Beckmann Award for “Courage and Achievement in Defense of Scientific Truth and Freedom” (2004); Chief Scientist, Science and Public Policy Institute (2007-2010); Senior Visiting Fellow, State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Xiamen University, China (2013-2014); Courage in Defense of Science Award (2014)

        130

    • #
      YetAnotherSceptic

      @FIN. Yeah – right. So you’re not sure he qualifies as a scientist? What planet are you from? He’s an astrophysicist (actually, Dr Wei-Hock Soon, an award-winning solar physicist of international standing expert in the Sun’s modulation of terrestrial climate), so that’s just another ad hom attack to add to the list. As for the Koch brothers alleged funding – I suppose for have some documentary evidence? Thought not. However, even if you did, it wouldn’t change the fact that he has published peer-reviewed research in a wide variety of journals and publications.

      What he is criticized for is not supporting the CAGW meme and publishing actual date refuting it.

      Just like many other alarmists, can’t argue the facts so attack the man. I presume you have a PhD? No? Go back to sks.

      493

    • #

      If Willie Soon produced utter junk as you claim, then every real climate scientists who really understood the climate would be delighted to have comparisons made between their work and Soon’s in terms of quality and achievements. But that ain’t going to happen. In open competition and debate the climate community would lose hands down. So like in a nineteenth century autocracy, they seek to nobble the opposition through ostracism and denial of income. It has no place in a country that has freedom of speech enshrined in its Constitution.

      361

    • #
      OriginalSteve

      I think its time to push back.

      160

  • #

    Hi Joanne,
    Keep up the great work, as usual.
    It never ceases to amaze me!
    When I went to a meeting of ex-ex-PM. Julia Gillard’s Climate Commission rallying of the “similarly ignorant” (‘Flannery’s flunkies’ – not me) in Ipswich in 2011, I mentioned the web-site petitionproject.org, and for some strange reason, apart from the next day on radio 4BC, I have never since heard any mention of same.
    Over 31 000 scientists, over 9000 have Ph.D’s., who disagree with the IPCC’s. oft-stated position that man’s carbon (dioxide) emissions are contributing to deteriorating climate change issues all over the world.
    Why oh why is this never mentioned in the ‘lame-stream media’ of Australia?
    Not only this!! …
    But over 1200 scientific papers also opposing same on both populartechnology.net & nipccreport.org; also,
    Over 1000 international scientists also opposing same on..scienceandpublicpolicy.org; also,
    Over 129 IPCC. climate scandals on..notrickszone.com
    In Short, the Fourth Estate (esp. ABC and Fairfax) has become “The Rort Estate”!!
    I’m sick and tired of being force fed the implication that I, as a denier, am sabotaging my childrens’ future!! As Shakespeare would have said … “Talk about Projection and Denial”!! (Or words very close to that effect!!)
    Thanks for the great job you do.
    Regards, Reformed Warmist of Logan

    613

  • #
    Interested

    I have sent my details to Lord Monckton and asked that my name be attached to his letter.
    I think it is critical that everyone who can see the malevolence of the Global Warmists’ frequent ad hominem attacks on honourable scientists should stand up and be counted.

    In addition, I have promised to put my money where my mouth is, in the event that legal proceedings are undertaken against the perpetrators.
    I have already contributed cash to various worthy causes, including our warmly regarded Joanne Nova (God bless her!), and also to Mark Steyn, for his fight against the execrable Michael Mann.

    Why do I say so?
    Am I seeking applause and approbation from my peers?
    Not at all.
    There’s no time for that kind of narcissism.; this is a serious problem.
    All I’m hoping is that others might follow suit and do the same.

    Come on!
    Sign the letter!
    Support Dr. Soon.
    Offer to send money too, if that will help.

    With kind regards to you all.

    473

    • #
      Harry Twinotter

      “execrable Michael Mann”

      Ummm that is an ad hominem against Michael Mann.

      222

      • #
        Peter Miller

        That’s a thought, would serial litigator Michael Mann sue you if you publicly said his ‘science’ and statistics were “Mannian”.

        We all know that means, I for one would take deep offence if someone publicly described me as using “Mannian” techniques.

        232

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          Ad hominem and a straw man against Michael Mann.

          19

          • #
            Robert

            You really don’t understand what an ad-hom argument is do you? Just as you will never understand how much I enjoy seeing posts like yours because nothing we could say about you would be as damaging as what you do to yourself through your own comments.

            10

            • #
              Harry Twinotter

              “When personal, ad hominem attacks are launched against a scientist there is no upside for science.”

              JoNova’s words in her article.

              00

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        No. It means, “expressing or involving a curse, awful, fearful”.

        A lot of people have been the subject of threats of litigation (a curse), by the gentleman in question, so they would have every right to feel afraid of him.

        I think it is aptly descriptive.

        262

      • #
        Glen Michel

        Not necessarily……it could be an ad hominem in his spare time.Nonetheless the reasoning is correct:Manns contrivances underpin this whole bunch of misery.

        162

      • #

        The fake ID Harry Twinotter says

        “execrable Michael Mann”
        Ummm that is an ad hominem against Michael Mann.

        The calling of Micheal Mann “execrable” (utterly detestable or abhorrent) is an “ad hominem” – an argument is one that relies on personal attacks rather than reason or substance – if there is little or no foundation for that opinion.
        Dr Mann is famous for the Hockey stick graph – the claim that twentieth century warming was much greater than anything that has happened in the last thousand years. When Steve McIntyre thoroughly undermined it in multiple ways (see Andrew Montford’s Hockey Stick Illusion) rather than accept he was wrong – or slink away into obscurity – he chose to name-call those who opposed his perspective – principally by Twitter. This is true ad hominen attacks.
        When attacked as a non-scientist Mann not only made false claims (such as inferring he was a Nobel prize winner), but potentially used legislation designed to stop the use of protracted legal procedures as punishment (Anti-SLAPP Acts) to do the opposite. There are plenty reasons to define this individual as “execrable”, though my personal preference is of a dogmatist who does not understand personal bias, fallibility, scientific method or data analysis.

        322

        • #
          OriginalSteve

          I always notice the shrillness and loudness of attacks compensates for the lack of evidence to support a ( false ) claim.

          The more dubious the scientific proof, the more they substitute brow beating in place of proof. The attacks resemble more a day in the “Bear Pit” ( House of Reps ) than an open scientific exchnage – as such it just further highligfhts CAGW is a political invention.

          From “Yes Minister”

          ‘If only you’d had we’d have a departmental enquiry,’ he complained, ‘then we could have made it last eighteen months, and finally said that it revealed a certain number of anomalies which have now been rectified but that there was no evidence of any intention to mislead. Something like that.’ I allowed myself to be diverted for a moment. ‘But there was an intention to mislead.’ I pointed out. ‘I never said there wasn’t,’ Sir Humphrey replied impatiently. ‘I merely said there was no evidence of it.’

          I think I was looking blank. He explained. ‘The job of a professionally conducted internal enquiry is to unearth a great mass of no evidence.

          If you say there was no intention, you can be proved wrong.

          But if you say the enquiry found no evidence of an intention, you can’t be proved wrong.’ (The Complete Yes Minister, pp. 178-9)

          Sound familiar?

          110

        • #
          Harry Twinotter

          You are missing the point. The topic of this Jo Nova post is mudslinging is not good for science – I agree. But I think people saying it is bad mudslinging Willie Soon but it is OK mudslinging Michael Mann is hypocritical.

          111

          • #
            Ted O'Brien.

            When in Rome you don’t speak Dutch.

            10

          • #
            Just-A-Guy

            Harry Twinotter,

            Jo said:
            When personal, ad hominem attacks are launched against a scientist there is no upside for science. People who care about science discuss the science, not the scientist’s-biography.

            You said:
            You are missing the point. The topic of this Jo Nova post is mudslinging is not good for science – I agree.

            Cherry-picking. In writting your response to Kevin Marshall (Manicbeancounter), you seem to have ignored the cruicial statement in Jo’s post (bolded in the quote). An ad-hominem logical fallacy only applies in the case where speaker A makes a statement to which speaker B responds by attacking speaker A personally rather than addressing the statement speaker A has made.

            In the case of Dr. Soon, his hypothesis has not been falsified. Because of this, his detractors resort to ad-hominen attacks, attacks on him personally, rather than addressing his hypothesis directly. This is the whole point of this blog-post and the discussion in the comments revolves around this subject.

            You seem unable to grasp the substance of the discussion here.

            Abe

            10

      • #
        Geoffrey Williams

        Michael Mann – ‘execrable’ meaning poor quality, inferior, also detestable etc
        Don’t want to name call but . . . all seems pretty fair to me!
        Geoffrey Williams
        Sydney

        162

  • #
    Another Ian

    Done

    210

  • #

    Already sent my letter and hope many others do the same. The climate inquisition strikes again.

    https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/

    Pointman

    241

  • #
    Mikky

    AGW is very much the vocal minority (alarmists) vs the silent majority, though the propaganda wing of the vocal minority like to portray it the other way round, as we see here with Willie Soon.

    Support the mavericks like Dr. Soon, we need more like them, fewer trained consensus parrots.

    301

  • #
    Keith

    I sent my details to Lord Monckton yesterday and had confirmation of receipt straight away.

    200

  • #
    Keith

    In answer to a poster above, one of the things Willie Soon wrote was to compile a large number of scientific papers showing that the Medieval Warm Period was documented all around the world rather than being a local phenomenon as the warmists wanted to portray (Soon Balliunas, 2003). There was a tremendous amount of heat about that (pun intended) because basically it showed the flat part of the Mann et al hockey stick was not supported by data. At the time one of the editors of Climate Research resigned because an editor had let the paper be published. One open-minded editor out of 10 was apparently too much for her.The editor in question Chris de Freitas had various threats come his way regarding his academic position. The warmist tactic of ad hominem attack has being going on for over 12 years now.

    511

  • #
    Keith

    To clarify, Clare Goodess was the editor who resigned from Climate Research, and Chris de Freitas was the editor who accepted the Soon Balliunas paper for publication. Given that the Mann et al hockey stick has been shown to be based on short-centred principle component analysis (ie an inappropriate statistical approach), that it is the paper that famously hides the decline of the proxy result since 1960 while modern temperature data show a general increase, and is the paper that without proper clarification, splices modern temperature data with proxy data, as if they match perfectly, it is fair to say that the Soon Balliunas work showing the problem with the hockey stick has been corroborated by many other studies.

    391

  • #

    Start making a list of scientits on the payroll of Big Green and Big Government.

    The general population is more than familiar being less than honest with the population. Let’s see how that plays out when “researchers” are outed for being possible shills for government and green paymasters. Green organizations that carelessly spill oil on the Barrier Reef and which have been banned from operating in India because their operations are too shonky.

    The lamestream media opened that can of worms: Make them eat it all.

    341

    • #
      Glen Michel

      I for one are sick of some scientists who use public money to fund their lifestyle.There is a chap up north who spends a lot of time scuba diving with post- graduates( and others) around the reef.One of the ABCs go-to scientists.There are others ,you know……name and shame.

      131

    • #
      Bulldust

      Was that a Freudian slip in the first line Bernd, or working as intended? LOLZ either way :D

      50

  • #
    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Splendid link – go even further, and look at the comments on the original article (http://gawker.com/arrest-climate-change-deniers-1553719888). My favourite is UnafraidRabbit’s response (hidden) to CaptainFabulous splendid response – “Never give up hope.” [followed by graphics; sadly, not able to put on here. Think: sunshine – unicorn – rainbow.] It does reassure us that we are not the only ones who see the scam.

      00

  • #
    TdeF

    What is worrying is the clear implication that scientists find the results they are paid to find, that Willie Soon is corrupt and that energy companies are corrupt and that the people who simply do not like what he has written are able to sit in judgement on his ethics. This slander is not only an incredible personal and financial assault on an individual scientist but a real attack on freedom of speech. It is unbelievable that the Smithsonian staff could be party to this and made what they now claim were effectively immoral secret payments, secret at their own insistence, while taking 30% of the donations for themselves? It is beyond hypocrisy.

    261

    • #
      Gary in Erko

      If the religious climate warming nuts really believed funding source buys results then all they would need to do is get a grant from Soros or WWF to fund Soon. Problem solved. But, however, umm, err – that doesn’t explain why the coal utility Southern Company is ceasing their grants for Soon’s research. Under this funds-for-results argument, shouldn’t they increase his grant. I guess all this is logical proof that there’s no real logic in it.

      41

  • #
    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      From your referenced article:

      In recent years we have all seen a worrying surge of hate speech against climate skeptics, and a disturbing level of political acquiescence in the face of murderous fantasy and intolerance.

      This was to be expected.

      In any controversy of note, people feel intense pressure to choose sides, and then demonstrate their allegiance by wearing team colours, or carrying a placard at a rally, or writing letters to the editor, etc. The more they do these things, the more entrenched they become in the conviction that they have chosen the right side in the first instance. Also the more they “show their colours”, the more hateful and antagonistic they become towards those who show different colours. Fights at soccer matches in the UK, are examples of this.

      While these adversarial tendencies, regarding sport or lifestyle choices, are unfortunate and unpleasant, they are at least equal in comparative terms.

      Problems arise, however, when one side receives financial backing, and the other side does not. It tilts the playing field. The side with funding takes on an air of entitlement, and the fact that they are funded is taken as proof that they are “on the right side”, and therefore whatever they believe to be the case, must be true.

      However, when the unfunded opposition stays resolute in their position, and in fact starts to gain more support, in spite of lack of financial backing, then the “entitled” group has no other option but to fight harder to justify why they are funded, and therefore superior.

      In fighting harder, they become more extreme in their views, and more violent in regard to their attitude towards those who disagree. This is where calls for the introduction of the death penalty for disagreement comes from.

      At this stage, some of the more moderate folks in the funded group, will start to feel less comfortable with the direction the argument is taking and will start to drift away from the cause. Eventually all that are left are the hard core, who will never change their position, even though, by this stage the moderates and the original opposition will have won.

      A popular misquotation sums it up:

      “First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win”.

      Incorrectly attributed to Mahatma Gandi.

      140

  • #
    • #
      OriginalSteve

      Oh no…..seems Skeptics are “Divergent”…..

      Watched that movie last night…..the tribal-ness of society manipulated by a few at the top and crushing anyone who steps out of their tribe ( i.e,. outside the society-based control mechanism ) and can think for themselves. They prefrred unthinking drones…..

      Sounds just like CAGW Leftists….

      71

  • #
    Roy Hogue

    The Smithsonian appears to be easily influenced by politics instead of science. It’s a good museum but hardly an institution doing scientific work. They should stay out of the climate debate since it’s not within the mandate of a museum.

    Added my name to the list in support of Dr. Soon.

    200

    • #
      Roy Hogue

      Chris Monkton was quick to reply personally to my email. I didn’t expect that.

      I replied back to thank him for his tireless work in support of honest science on behalf of skeptics everywhere. He immediately replied to that message also.

      He’s a high class act all the way around. I would surely like to meet him but that seems unlikely.

      211

      • #
        Rereke Whakaaro

        I met him when he visited Australia and New Zealand.

        He gave his presentation, in his usual inimitable style, which seemed to be well received by the audience, despite the fact that not many New Zealanders understand Latin.

        However, a number of meteorologists, from our National Meteorological Office, and some other “climate scientists”, from NIWA, were in attendance, and I thought we might be in for a good show. But alas, they just sat there, looking like they had been sucking lemons, but saying nothing.

        After the presentation they just left, taking their lemons with them. The rest of the audience seemed to thoroughly enjoy themselves.

        200

  • #
    douptingdave

    Just popped on to thank TIM for his comment above that gives a link to a blog called , Aletho News . Not come across that site before and found the article interesting, also being diabetic (type 2) i have an interest in the saturated fat v sugar scam, if you follow Tims link and scroll down the page there is a link on the right of the page to an article called ” the saturated fat scam whats the real story ?” one of the best articles that ive ever read on the subject.cheers Tim

    110

  • #
    Harry Twinotter

    “When personal, ad hominem attacks are launched against a scientist there is no upside for science”

    I agree, I do not like it. Just because people did it to Michael Mann and other climate scientists does not justify a similar attack on Willie Soon even if he is a climate change dissident.

    328

    • #
      Mikky

      Willie Soon is not a climate change dissident, just a solar physicist used to looking at historical climate data, the only possible place one can look for evidence of SOLAR change in the past.

      301

      • #
        Just-A-Guy

        Mikky,

        . . .the only possible place one can look for evidence of SOLAR change in the past.

        This is incorrect. I suggest you review Willie Soon’s work and re-evaluate your position. He has taken into account all the relevant data including the latest/current satellite data.

        Abe

        161

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Harry Twinotter,

      Just because people did it to Michael Mann and other climate scientists does not justify a similar attack on Willie Soon . . .

      Michael Mann’s work has been shown to be scientifically flawed. Willie Soon’s has not.

      The two are not the same. Your support for Willie Soon is based on false premises and therefore not genuine. As far as I’m concerned you can keep your support to yourself.

      Abe

      202

      • #
        FIN

        Bwa ha ha ha ha ha………. Yeh that must be right.

        210

      • #
        Harry Twinotter

        Just-a-guy,

        some say that Michael Mann’s work is flawed. Other’s say Willie Soon’s work is flawed. The world is full of opinions.

        But you are also missing the point. Just because in your judgement you think Michael Mann’s work is “flawed”, does not justify mud-slinging against Michael Mann. Just like mud-slinging against Willie Soon is not justified.

        [So far I haven't seen you give an example of the mud-slinging against Michael Mann. But perhaps I missed it. In any case, Willy Soon's work is supported by sound science while Mann's hockey stick has been shown to be supported by nothing of the kind. So there is a big difference.

        Jo discourages mud-slinging and often deletes it or snips out parts of it. If you have examples of what you're talking about, let's see them. Otherwise I think this should be the end of your equating the plight of Dr. Soon with the plight of Dr. Mann.] AZ

        32

        • #
          Just-A-Guy

          Harry Twinotter,

          I said:
          Michael Mann’s work has been shown to be scientifically flawed. Willie Soon’s has not.

          The two are not the same.

          You said:
          some say that Michael Mann’s work is flawed. Other’s say Willie Soon’s work is flawed. The world is full of opinions.

          Science is not conducted on the basis of opinions. Either a hypothesis has withstood falsification or it has not. If you want to make a comment, at least have the courtesy of being up to date on the status of the science around which the discussion is taking place. I stand by my statement based on the facts and not opinions.

          But you are also missing the point. Just because in your judgement you think Michael Mann’s work is “flawed”, does not justify mud-slinging against Michael Mann.

          Projecting. You insist on making a comparison equating Dr. Soon to M. Mann. As I have explained at the beginning of this comment, by not acknowledging a difference between the status of the science involved in these two cases you have completely missed the point being made.

          To restate my point. Your statement of support for Dr. Soon is predicated on the assumption that M. Mann should be treated equally. Mann’s hypothesis behind the ‘Hockey Stick’ graph has been falsified. (If you were up to date, you would know.) Therefore, I cannot, in good faith, accept your support based on that assumption.

          Abe

          30

    • #
      llew Jones

      The distinction is between name calling or ad homs, which are mostly inconsequential, and an organised attempt by a highly politicised sect of climate science to silence evidence based criticism of critical elements of that science.

      In Soon’s case to silence his evidence based criticism of the alarmist’s speculative projections. A more scientific approach would be to deal with the scientific objections he raises. That he is attacked by journalists in such Left wing rags as the NYT indicates the campaign is not about science but rather about attempting to win a propaganda war with a generally scientifically illiterate (like Fin and SF) public in view.

      221

    • #
      Glen Michel

      The hockey stick reconstruction is a contrivance.I urge you to look at it from the dissents position.I was a rusted on believer inAGW. Looked at dispassionately one can ONLY conclude that Manns work is a confected load of BS.

      171

  • #
    Dave in the states

    No matter the discipline, academic freedom is an absolute imperative. If warmest must silence other scientists who disagree with them, then that alone says much about the validity of their position on the issue. It ceases to be scientific discovery and becomes little more than self validation.

    I suspect the intolerance has to do with advancing their political agendas before people lose interest.

    270

  • #
    Ruairi

    The warmists are fully intent,
    On silencing climate dissent,
    By forcing compliance,
    On those in defiance,
    Of their spurious 97 percent.

    391

    • #
      Robdel

      You really must collect your poems into an anthology of CAGW. They are brilliant.

      110

      • #
        PeterPetrum

        Hear, hear. They will go down in history, as long as they are archived – Jo?

        [Every nuance is captured for posterity] Fly

        40

  • #
    jorgekafkazar

    It was clear that after Climategate, the only possible outcome was more outlandish predictions and increasing ad hominem attacks. The warmists have nothing else…except buckets of our money. The scam will continue until we cut off their funding.

    211

  • #
    handjive

    When the ‘home of free speech’ calls on a shutdown for freedom of speech, you know you got trouble:

    “White House spokesman Josh Earnest told reporters Tuesday that senators who “deny” man-made global warming probably shouldn’t have any say over an international agreement to cut carbon dioxide emissions.” (dailycaller)
    . . .
    We got trouble, right here in Washington City
    With a capital ‘T’ that rhymes with ‘B’ that stands for Barry.”

    170

    • #
      TdeF

      Odd semantics in such a statement from Obama land.

      How can you deny Global Warming, man made or otherwise, when there is no warming?
      How can tiny 0.04% CO2 affect the weather when it does not even affect temperature?
      How can you deny something which is not true?
      Why shouldn’t a Senator who cannot see what CO2 has to do with weather and climate be able to deny a costly agreement to pointlessly cut carbon dioxide, the source of all life on earth?

      When did illogic become the hallmark of a President who has given Iran nuclear weapons, destroyed Iraq and Syria, devastated Libya and Yemen and Egypt and armed ISIS and without Russian intervention, would have given 2,000 tons of Sarin gas to Islamic terrorists?

      191

      • #
        TdeF

        No need to post my comment if it is too far off topic or too critical. There are just so many bad decisions from the worst administration in US history.

        100

      • #
        Bill

        What else can you expect when one side of their political system has become so wedded to the idea that rational discussion of science has become heresy? As for Obama, his sole “achievement” has been being awarded the Nobel for daring to be born partly black and then winning an election. Hardly a real credential or a beacon of hope for anyone.

        140

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Sent my letter of support for Willie Soon.
    We all need to stand up to this kind of bullying!
    Geoffrey Williams
    Sydney

    130

  • #
    DMA

    I have just watched the recent London presentation by Professor Murry Salby(https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jZ0R1MCkSOU&feature=youtu.be) which adds much new work to his earlier presentations and further shows the futility of trying to control anthropogenic CO2.
    He stated that he cannot publish this work until he can recover his research files and is reinstated into the field. It seems to me that his treatment is even more egregious than that of Dr. Soon. Maybe this reasonable show of support for Dr. Soon will have some effect on McGuire U. as well. It seems to me that if his research stands it about removes any attempt at supporting AGW alarmism with science.

    181

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      DMA
      I also have watched this presentation by Prof Murry Salby regarding anthropogenic CO2.
      I agree with you. It is most impressive and highly informative presentation.
      He completely dismisses the idea that man-made CO2 has any effect on the climate.
      His treatment by Macquarie University is shameful and shows how much they fear the truth!
      Scientist’s who do not tow the global warming / alarmist agenda are dismissed for simply speaking out.
      I would like very much to help with his being reinstated to his original position.
      Can someone suggest how we may assist in this matter.
      I am ready to add my name to another letter.
      Geoffrey Williams-Sydney
      Sydney

      70

  • #
    Peter C

    BOM Technical Advisory Forum

    Readers may recall that I published my letter to the Hon Bob Baldwin on a previous thread.
    http://joannenova.com.au/2015/03/bom-forum-been-gone-rejoice-invisible-problems-being-solved-being-closed-doors/#comment-1695397

    I have received a reply from
    Brad Archer,
    First Assisitant Secretary,
    Climate Change and Renewable Energy Division
    Department of the Environment

    His letter acknowledges receipt of my letter, then notes ( as expected) that the previous review of the BOM rated their procedures and data analysis as among the best in the world. Letter also states that the Australian Government takes it primary advice on climate change science from the BOM and the CSIRO.

    The letter concluded however by saying the Dr Sandiland(Forum Chair) had indicated that he would provide a copy of my letter to all the Forum Members in advance of their first meeting to ensure that the members are aware of the matters I had raised during their deliberations.

    So a bit less that I hoped but more that I expected.

    130

    • #
      Peter C

      There is a bit more of interest in the letter. I wll try to digitize the letter over the next few days so I can show it on the next thread.

      10

  • #
    Russell Seitz

    Joe Bast kindly sent me a reprint of the Monckton, Soon, Legates & Briggs, paper.

    This crisply printed document does not bear the chop of The Chinese Academy Of Sciences, but the colophon of Springer China Press: a disparity that recalls the Chinese Academy’s stirring response to the NIPCC report Co-Edited by Willie Soon:

    “The claim of The Heartland Institute about Chinese Academy of Science endorsement of its report is completely false. If The Heartland Institute does not withdraw its false news or refuse to apologize, all the consequences and liabilities should be borne by the Heartland Institute.”

    111

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      Russell Seitz,

      This crisply printed document does not bear the chop of The Chinese Academy Of Sciences, but the colophon of Springer China Press: a disparity . . .

      There is no disparity except that which you have falsely stated. Neither Dr. Soon nor the current blog-post have stated that the paper Why Models Run Hot was published by The Chinese Academy Of Sciences. Co-author Dr. William M.Briggs PhD, has clearly stated that the paper was published by Science Bulletin.

      About the Journal

      Science Bulletin (Sci. Bull., formerly known as Chinese Science Bulletin from 1966 to 2014) is a multidisciplinary academic journal supervised by the Chinese Academy of Sciences (CAS) and co-sponsored by the CAS and the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC).

      Also from the Science Bulletin web-site:
      “As soon as an article is accepted for publication, authors will be requested to assign copyright of the article (or to grant exclusive publication and dissemination rights) to Science China Press and Springer.”

      You should really do your due-dilligence before making false statements.

      Abe

      170

  • #
    spaatch

    Suck on this Soonie!

    Utility Giant Cuts Ties With Willie Soon.

    Controversial climate contrarian and Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon has one more report to complete for a giant utility company that has pumped nearly a half-million dollars into his highly disputed research before the company cuts his funding.

    http://insideclimatenews.org/node/39010

    228

    • #
      James Bradley

      spaatch,

      Highly disputed by who?

      182

    • #
      Michael P

      Greenpeace and the Climate Information centre action group are not qualified to dispute anything.
      I posted Willie Soon’s credentials in post 3.3.1. Where are there credentials exactly? Maybe you could fill me in on there exact qualifications?

      140

      • #
        James Bradley

        Michale P,

        Thanks for that, as I thought, the completely non-credible Greenpeace and Climate Information Centre Action Group – representative arms for the vested political interests of ‘Big Renewables’.

        I understand now why the spaatch did not respond.

        80

        • #
          Mark D.

          The critically thinking Spaatch always looks to SourceWatch for supporting evidence. Not very bright……

          Suck on that Spatchie?

          10

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      spaatch,

      Utility Giant Cuts Ties With Willie Soon

      False. In a statement by the authors of the paper ‘Why Models Run Hot’ on WattsUpWithThat:

      The Smithsonian Trust Fund pays him out of money received from donors he has approached. He reports each proposed grant to the Observatory, which is then solely responsible for negotiating and signing a funding contract with the donor, receiving the funds, retaining 30% for overhead, and paying for his research out of the balance.

      In 2008 the Observatory negotiated such a contract with Southern Company. The contract included a term binding the Smithsonian and, therefore, Dr Soon as its employee not to publish the donor’s identity. The Smithsonian should not have agreed to that term, but, having agreed to it, should have honoured it. Instead, it acted in breach of contract, of the Stored Communications Act and of its obligations to Dr Soon by disclosing the funders’ identity. Dr Soon, in making no disclosure, honored the contract as the law requires.

      The Southern Company can only cut it’s ties with the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory – Smithsonian Trust Fund who are the sole arbiters of the funding contracts.

      Abe

      150

    • #
      Just-A-Guy

      spaatch,

      Just to show you the level of incompetence of ppl like yourself when making sweeping statements about which they know nothing, the article you link to states that:

      The Southern Company, which generates power for nine states––largely from coal––has decided it will no longer fund Soon’s work, which claims the sun is the primary driver of global warming.

      But they conveniently leave out this from wikipedia:

      About Southern Company

      Southern Company is building one of the largest all-biomass plants in the nation. The company expects the 100-megawatt Nacogdoches Generating Facility to serve the city of Austin for 20 years.

      In partnership with Turner Renewable Energy, the company is building one of the largest solar photovoltaic plants in the U.S. near Cimarron, New Mexico. The 30-megawatt project will supply power to approximately 9,000 homes.

      The company manages and operates the National Carbon Capture Center, a focal point of U.S. Department of Energy’s efforts to develop carbon capture and greenhouse gas reduction technologies, under which various projects to test geologic sequestration are in progress at Plant Gorgas in Alabama, Plant Daniel in Mississippi and other company sites.

      Which means there can be no conflict of interest because Southern Company is involved in both coal & clean energy.

      Abe

      170

    • #
      Geoffrey Williams

      All the more reason why we will continue to support Willie Soon!
      So Southern Company has caved to perceived public opinion.
      Who are they anyway; A bio-mass plant churning out CO2 for 20 years is a joke right?!
      And a 30 megawatt mirror and steam plant in the middle of the desert the same!
      I can get more heat out pumping up my bicycle tyres!
      Suck on that Just-A-Guy!!
      Geoffrey Williams
      Sydney

      20

    • #
      Radical Rodent

      Spaatch: your poorly-punctuated initial sentence does say a lot about you, really. Should you come onto this site with clear, cogent arguments to support the AGW meme, people will engage in rational discussion, and you might even convince them of your points (something that no other alarmist has even attempted, so any efforts would be interesting). However, to come on here to disparage a globally-respected scientist who has done a lot of valid work, whose work has withstood the assault of sceptics (remember, not only AGW science has sceptics), and who has politely endured the assaults not only on his work, but on his character and his ethos, then you are on a hiding to nothing, and will be ripped to shreds by more academic minds than you obviously have.

      50

  • #
    Paul

    I also sent my details to Lord Monckton yesterday and have received conformation of receipt today.

    40

  • #
    Geoffrey Williams

    Sorry Correction;
    ‘Suck on that’ is for Just-A-Guy
    Geoffrey Williams

    [Fixed it for you.] AZ

    00

  • #
    George McFly......I'm your density

    Already done Jo

    20

  • #
    Bill

    I am disgusted to admit to all that even in Canada we are having to put up with the fools pushing this scam. Today the Premier of Ontario, our most populous province with a huge manufacturing sector, announced that the province is joining in the cap & trade shell game. http://news.nationalpost.com/news/canada/canadian-politics/ontario-and-quebec-to-sign-cap-and-trade-deal-today-to-let-polluters-buy-credits-for-emissions
    Makes on despair on whether sanity will ever win.
    (Disclaimer: I am not from Ontario and live in British Columbia – the pacific coast, the hot bed of enviro-weenies, yuppies, and other trendy fools…..so glad I outgrew such nonsense more then a half century ago.)

    60

  • #
    TdeF

    Global Warming is and always has been a socialist/communist political stunt. The fact that it is so obviously not true makes the story even more startling. Anyone who says the world has not warmed for twenty years is pilloried. Apparently the rapid, dangerous warming is there, underneath somehow, but anyone who says the emperor has no clothes should be locked up or starved to death.

    As the scam in windmills and solar and more is over $1Bn a day, who thinks a scientist who dares disagree will be allowed to speak? Superbly qualified University climate expert Professor Murry Selby made perfect sense in Germany when he saw no correlation between temperature and CO2 and was immediately stripped of his job, credit cards and return air tickets. The persecution of real scientists who disagree is accelerating. There has not been a single credible explanation for the failure of all the predictions of Global Warming, but anyone who says so will be attacked by communists as a stooge of energy companies. Willie Soon is another in a long line of victims of political extremists controlling the message and looking for the economic destruction of Western capitalist societies. Will we have public book burnings before the guillotine is finally erected in front of the UN?

    50

  • #
    Annie

    Jo…I’ve just sent the email. My husband wanted to join in and his qualifications are better than mine as he is an electronic engineer. He is very upset and disgusted at what has been going on.

    This Green Blob thing is like a very slimey, multi-tentacled creature that has worked its way into every nook and cranny of our lives. It’s also like an evil miasma and needs the fresh air and beauty of truth shone straight upon its every manifestation.

    30

    • #
      Rereke Whakaaro

      My husband … is an electronic engineer.

      Oh no! Not another one.

      This blog is becoming a satellite of IEEE Spectrum (or perhaps the other way around?)

      20

  • #
    Andy Pattullo

    It appears to me it was necessary for alarmists to smeer Willie Soon as he is indeed an accomplished scientist, with impeccable credentials and a whole lot of very inconvenient truths supported by evidence that threaten the alarmist cause – a very lopsided battle of wits. They used the only ammunition they have and that isn’t much. By the same logic it is entirely unnecessary to smeer Michael Mann. Why waist the energy when he has done such a fine job himself. Mannic regression indeed!

    30

  • #
    Dennis

    Science is the issue but money is the problem. This contrived conflict of interest issue about Dr. Soon is an affront to intelligence. The sophistic argument about $1.25 million dollars coming into the Smithsonian bank account over a ten year period which was partially used to support Soon’s fundamental research is easily exposed. If you want to see where the money train runs non-stop, just look to any of many government agencies and so-called environmental organizations around the world and you’ll have a clear answer. Just one example, over that same ten year period, hundreds of USEPA employees EACH were paid MILLIONS of dollars to blindly support alarmists nonsense that all went directly into their pockets in addition to the other costs to maintain the very comfortable lifestyle and working conditions of the bureaucrat. [link? AZ] If you doubt that statement, it’s public record what these folks are paid plus very generous personal benefits, some which will last a lifetime. I would suggest that the alarmists do the math however my experience leads me to believe dubious projections by the likes of Hansen and Mann( both who have been handed a ton of loot for being dead wrong) are preferable to truth in their world.
    It terrifies me how accurate George Orwell was in what I assume he hoped would be fiction instead of prognostication.

    00

  • #

    INteresting item at Junkscience.com:

    So far in my career of battling junk science by the EPA and other government sources, I have yet to get a dime from the Kochs or the Scaife foundatin while I watch University whorehouses adding on wings funded by political agendas.

    Consider of course the effect of NIH, DOE, EPA funding on enviro stuff, and the budgets of NOAA and NAS and NASA, just to name the N group.

    Then we have the NGOs, flush with cash, from green libs, but also other sources of interest, Russia and the Saudis know a little bit about bribery and corruption.

    10