The smearing of Dr. Soon, climate change denier

[TitanTiger 21,665]

The Smearing of Willie Soon

A blockbuster peer-reviewed paper in the Science Bulletin, authored by Christopher Monckton, Matt Briggs, David Legates and Wei-Hock (“Willie”) Soon, is roiling the global warming Left. The paper identifies flaws in the computer models that predict major global warming–which shouldn’t be a surprise, since the models’ predictions have flopped. It concludes that due to mathematical errors, the models overstate the impact of CO2 on the climate by a factor of three times.

So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors. Greenpeace focused on Dr. Soon, an astrophysicist who works part time for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Greenpeace served a Freedom of Information Act request on the Smithsonian, a public entity, for documents relating to funding of Dr. Soon’s projects. Greenpeace claims that these documents show that Dr. Soon’s projects received funding from Southern Company Services that was not disclosed in certain papers that Dr. Soon published.

The New York Times, having been fed the documents by Greenpeace, eagerly took up the cudgels for global warming Leftists, publishing a supposed expose under the headline, “Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher.” The Times and its fellows on the Left argue that Dr. Soon should have disclosed certain corporate funding with respect to past projects–not, however, the recent paper that the Left seeks to discredit.

You can read about the controversy here and here, and draw your own conclusions. I am not able to sort out whether Dr. Soon should have made additional disclosures with regard to the funding of projects completed years ago; in any event, that has nothing to do with the current paper on the defects in the alarmists’ models.

This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. Put aside, for a moment, the fact that the American environmental movement is funded by Russia’s state-controlled oil company. Also the fact that Greenpeace gets money ($203 million) from the American Petroleum Foundation, with another $214 million coming from the Chamber of Commerce.

That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.)

Governments fund climate research–but only climate research that feeds alarmism–because they are the main parties in interest in the climate debate. Governments stand to gain trillions of dollars in revenue and unprecedented power if voters in the U.S. and other Western countries can be stampeded into ceding more power to them, based on transparently bad science.

The New York Times and other left-wing news sources assume that government funding is no problem, but private funding is a scandal. I think the opposite is true. It is a scandal that our government spends billions of dollars, enriching many compliant climate scientists–Michael Mann is just one of many examples–to promote its own power. Thank goodness that there is a tiny amount of independent funding that supports objective research and contributes to a debate that is being won, hands down, by climate realists like Dr. Soon.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/the-smearing-of-willie-soon.php

[Mikey 16,781]

Nice find!

[WarTim 3,534]

Conservative conspiracy. Bill O is most likely behind it...

[AUDub 12,028]

Handy tactic from the denialists. Accuse your critics of what you're guilty of, with a handy helping of false equivalency concerning funding to boot.

He’s clearly on the take — over a million dollars from fossil-fuel polluting industries is persuasive. Selling your Harvard-associated soul is only apparently worth less than $100,000/year.

[AUDub 12,028]

And Monckton? Seriously?

http://freethoughtblogs.com/dispatches/2015/01/15/jones-monckton-they-want-to-kill-6-billion-people/

[TitanTiger 21,665]

Handy tactic from the denialists. Accuse your critics of what you're guilty of, with a handy helping of false equivalency concerning funding to boot.

It's not a wrong tactic. If you're going to try and accuse someone of something, then you probably should examine one's own closet first to see if you could be accused of any undue influence. Or has the Bill O'Reilly issue taught us nothing?

He's clearly on the take — over a million dollars from fossil-fuel polluting industries is persuasive. Selling your Harvard-associated soul is only apparently worth less than $100,000/year.

Is it your position that one should never take money from corporate groups for scientific research, or that government money is pure and free of ideological agendas or biases?

And what's funny is, thus far they haven't really bothered to deal with the science in the paper. It's more about shooting the messenger.

[AUDub 12,028]

It's not a wrong tactic. If you're going to try and accuse someone of something, then you probably should examine one's own closet first to see if you could be accused of any undue influence. Or has the Bill O'Reilly issue taught us nothing?

We have proof positive that he received money from sources that very obviously started with their conclusion and want to work their way backward from there.

Is it your position that one should never take money from corporate groups for scientific research, or that government money is pure and free of ideological agendas or biases?

You shouldn't take money from groups that are hunting for a conclusion that better serves their interests, like the fossil fuel industry. It's an obvious conflict of interest.

And really, have you seen the makeup of our government lately? Climate change denial isn't rare.

And what's funny is, thus far they haven't really bothered to deal with the science in the paper. It's more about shooting the messenger.

http://motherboard.vice.com/read/peer-reviewing-climate-denial

The model they use is not new, and they arbitrarily restrict its parameters and then declare all other models wrong.

[TitanTiger 21,665]

We have proof positive that he received money from sources that very obviously started with their conclusion and want to work their way backward from there.

We have proof he accepted corporate grants for scientific research on previous studies he did. Not this one.

You shouldn't take money from groups that are hunting for a conclusion that better serves their interests, like the fossil fuel industry. It's an obvious conflict of interest.

You are begging the question here.

And really, have you seen the makeup of our government lately? Climate change denial isn't rare.

Not the among the ones that control the grants right now, particularly for environmental studies.

http://motherboard.v...-climate-denial

The model they use is not new, and they arbitrarily restrict its parameters and then declare all other models wrong.

I'll check that out. But the overall thrust of the paper makes a point that even a non-scientist can grasp: even if you agree with the idea that increases in CO2 are to some noticeable degree due to manmade causes, the scientists' models for the changes it will cause and their timelines are almost always wrong and by a large amount. To be skeptical as to whether they really understand all the mechanisms involved with the earth and climate is not being a kook.

[AUDub 12,028]

We have proof he accepted corporate grants for scientific research on previous studies he did. Not this one.

Why did he feel the need not to disclose them to the journals? It's very likely an ethical violation from the journals' standpoint. Why the need to keep it secret?

You are begging the question here.

In what way?

Not the among the ones that control the grants right now, particularly for environmental studies.

Read this.

I'll check that out. But the overall thrust of the paper makes a point that even a non-scientist can grasp: even if you agree with the idea that increases in CO2 are to some noticeable degree due to manmade causes, the scientists' models for the changes it will cause and their timelines are almost always wrong and by a large amount.

Not so. It's dependent on the model you're looking at, and the rise in temperatures falls well within the majority's margins of error.

And one should always be on the lookout if a paper is too easily understood.

To be skeptical as to whether they really understand all the mechanisms involved with the earth and climate is not being a kook.

To call their research into question by nefarious means is being a kook. The paper has issues, Titan.

[Auctoritas 2,940]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/02/24/388682684/my-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic

[AUDub 12,028]

http://www.npr.org/blogs/13.7/2015/02/24/388682684/my-depressing-day-with-a-famous-climate-skeptic

LOL! Got that opened in another tab.

[homersapien 12,386]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research? This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

[AFTiger 282]

Oh yeah. The democratically elected EPA is shutting down energy sources and is funding only alarmist studies, the democratically elected FCC is about to take over the internet, The democratically elected IRS is stifling free speech. The democratically elected DOJ smuggled weapons to Mexico used to kill Americans, and the democratically elected Dept of State is about to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes our government is so pure.

[AURex 2,323]

As far as those of us who actually do research and publish our research in peer reviewed journals --

The real problem here is not the scientific evidence presented by Soon. That is rightfully evaluated by other scientists who are experts in that area of research.

The real problem is not even the source of his funding. The Nazis funded research into rocketry, which ultimately benefited the world.

The real problem was his failure to *disclose* his funding sources when presenting his research findings and publishing his articles. Every researcher is required to disclose funding sources and is required to disclose potential conflicts of interest. This is an absolute pertaining to professional ethics in the world of research.

It is this issue which, ultimately, discredits every bit of his research. Not the results of the research, but his decision to try to keep secret the sources of funding for it. Now, because he is discredited, all his research has been discredited as well. Because of his serious ethics violation, all of his publications will be retracted by the publishers and basically erased from the overall research base pertaining to climate science.

[AUFAN78 4,174]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

[cooltigger21 0]

Somehow all the government funded studies are valid even though the government is invested in the outcome of AGW being true.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

Oh yeah. The democratically elected EPA is shutting down energy sources and is funding only alarmist studies, the democratically elected FCC is about to take over the internet, The democratically elected IRS is stifling free speech. The democratically elected DOJ smuggled weapons to Mexico used to kill Americans, and the democratically elected Dept of State is about to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes our government is so pure.

Other than the DOJ's failed "Fast and Furious" operation, none of that is true. Reality is, that domestic oil and gas production have never been higher and, according to the IAEA, Iran is not currently making progress toward higher levels of enrichment required for making a nuclear bomb.

[AUDub 12,028]

Somehow all the government funded studies are valid even though the government is invested in the outcome of AGW being true.

(Thwacka Thwacka Thwacka)

[Strychnine 1,809]

Oh yeah. The democratically elected EPA is shutting down energy sources and is funding only alarmist studies, the democratically elected FCC is about to take over the internet, The democratically elected IRS is stifling free speech. The democratically elected DOJ smuggled weapons to Mexico used to kill Americans, and the democratically elected Dept of State is about to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes our government is so pure.

Other than the DOJ's failed "Fast and Furious" operation, none of that is true. Reality is, that domestic oil and gas production have never been higher and, according to the IAEA, Iran is not currently making progress toward higher levels of enrichment required for making a nuclear bomb.

There is also no evidence that they ever were.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

I have to go with 78 on this one. The sources of bias will find their way into government (both sides of government). Look at the deregulation of the financial industry. Leading economists were bought and paid for outside government. They weren't all from the world of academia but, some were. Some were Democrats like Larry Summers, some were Republicans like Alan Greenspan. All were influenced by the money and wound up in the government. Furthermore, all were proven to be cataclysmically wrong yet do not seem to suffer much, if any, loss of credibility.

[homersapien 12,386]

And Monckton? Seriously?

http://freethoughtbl...billion-people/

“They are ganging up together, the totalitarians, Islam and socialism and environmentalism, worldwide, getting into bed together to destroy as many of the world’s population as they can,” he added."

That sounds like Cooltigger.

[icanthearyou 4,468]

And Monckton? Seriously?

http://freethoughtbl...billion-people/

“They are ganging up together, the totalitarians, Islam and socialism and environmentalism, worldwide, getting into bed together to destroy as many of the world’s population as they can,” he added."

That sounds like Cooltigger.

Too funny. That is exactly what I thought. Somewhere, there is someone saying, "please, just stop trying to help".

[AUDub 12,028]

And Monckton? Seriously?

http://freethoughtbl...billion-people/

“They are ganging up together, the totalitarians, Islam and socialism and environmentalism, worldwide, getting into bed together to destroy as many of the world’s population as they can,” he added."

That sounds like Cooltigger. ;D/>

Too funny. That is exactly what I thought. Somewhere, there is someone saying, "please, just stop trying to help".

Shoot. The denialists love him. He was a co-author of the paper, for goodness sake.

[homersapien 12,386]

Oh yeah. The democratically elected EPA is shutting down energy sources and is funding only alarmist studies, the democratically elected FCC is about to take over the internet, The democratically elected IRS is stifling free speech. The democratically elected DOJ smuggled weapons to Mexico used to kill Americans, and the democratically elected Dept of State is about to allow Iran to develop nuclear weapons.

Yes our government is so pure.

That's delusional thinking. You are starting to sound like cooltigger.

[homersapien 12,386]

[

The Smearing of Willie Soon

.....So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors.....

.....This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. ....

.....That isn’t the real scandal. The real scandal is that the overwhelming majority of money spent on climate research comes from governments. Governments, most notably ours, fund climate hysteria to the tune of billions of dollars per year. Why? Because the whole point of global warming alarmism is to persuade voters to cede more control over Western economies to government. (No one actually cares about CO2 emissions from India or China, which together vastly exceed ours.).....

Yeah, nothing like a objective article on AGW. :-\

This is just another propaganda-pushing denier site.

I particularly like the parallel drawn between government and industry funding of research. That is truly delusional.

Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research. This idea that all governments world wide are collaborating to increase their control over their own people is just crazy, paranoid anti-government nonsense.

Last I checked, most of the governments who have funded research into this and other areas are democratically elected. Are we really suppose to assume that for-profit industries have more interest in the common good than our elected governments?

"Exactly who - other than government - is better suited to provide non-biased funding for scientific research."

Homes, I am struggling with the fact you could utter such words. Please ponder the statement.

Well, when you are done with your struggling, how about providing an answer?

The only other possible source of non-biased funds is academia and possibly some public interest non-profits, they are limited to how much they can fund.