Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about we treat Micheal Mann, James Hansen, and every other climate scientist the same way too... tell them all to resign..
The hypocrisy of the left is stunning..If its not my way they need to apologize and resign... Who the fuck do the left think they are?
When you find some evidence that Mann and Hansen have done what Soon has done, I'll be right behind you. Till then, it's YOU that has the lock on hypocrisy around here Billy.
Sorry, I mean Michael Mann, and Steve McIntyre is the one who unmasked this fraud. His findings about Mann's methods were confirmed by the NAS.So says a lying little bastard. But who with credibility claims that about Dr. Hansen?
Putting this all together;
1. Soon is an employee of the Smithsonian.
2. Southern made a contractual pledge of money to the Smithsonian for climactic research along with many other companies and organizations.
3. Soon, as an employee, received remuneration for his work from the Smithsonian.
4. When Soon published his work and identified himself as an employee he made all of the necessary notifications to the journal.
Soon has made no error or misjudgment and has no apologies to make to anyone. The slanderous rant by Greenpeace and the NY Times is defamatory and actionable. I encourage Dr Soon to take actions against those who slandered him.
As for the Smithsonian and the actions of those in authority, it is far from over. There is most certainly a conflict in interests with the inspector general or his counsel investigating themselves. The "it wasn't me" letter appearing to distance themselves from Soon is beyond disgusting and childish. The letter violates several areas of their code of conduct. It seems that it may be The Smithsonian that has acted unethically.
It'll be interesting to see how that works out for you.
How about we treat Micheal Mann, James Hansen, and every other climate scientist the same way too... tell them all to resign..
The hypocrisy of the left is stunning..If its not my way they need to apologize and resign... Who the fuck do the left think they are?
When you find some evidence that Mann and Hansen have done what Soon has done, I'll be right behind you. Till then, it's YOU that has the lock on hypocrisy around here Billy.
nice and sharp rebuttal. seems you've been out dueled. LoSiNg,, BIG TIMEWell, we will see what the journals say. Your opinion is hardly something that matters.
nope!!!!View attachment 37189
From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...
I personally think he owes the world an apology and a resignation.
they're manufactured in China?What's so noble about Government ties?
How about we treat Micheal Mann, James Hansen, and every other climate scientist the same way too... tell them all to resign..
The hypocrisy of the left is stunning..If its not my way they need to apologize and resign... Who the fuck do the left think they are?
When you find some evidence that Mann and Hansen have done what Soon has done, I'll be right behind you. Till then, it's YOU that has the lock on hypocrisy around here Billy.
What Hansen did is doctor his data and contrive algorithms to produce the desired results regardless of the input. He also refused to publish his data or turn over his emails at the university of Pennsylvania even though they are public property and subject to FOI laws.
Boston Globe said:
Boston Globe said:Climate change skeptic accused of violating disclosure rules
A paper by Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon and three other climate-change skeptics contends that the UN panel that tracks global warming uses a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. Soon and his co-authors claim to have a simpler, more accurate model that shows the threat of global warming to be exaggerated.
Science Bulletin, imposes a strict conflict of interest policy on authors, obligating contributors to disclose any received funding, financial interests, honors, or speaking engagements that might affect their work.
In a note at the end of the paper, all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study. But Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, an organization based in Virginia, said Soon’s long track record of accepting energy-industry related grants indicates otherwise and might constitute a violation of Science Bulletin’s disclosure policy.
In a letter to Science Bulletin, Davies points to the more than $1 million Soon has received from companies and interests supporting studies critical of climate change.
“At the end of the article under the heading ‘Conflict of interest’, there is this statement: ‘The authors declare that they have no conflict.’ This simply cannot be true,” Davies wrote. “I am concerned that Dr. Soon has not disclosed his funding sources or his outside consulting fees when submitting this article for publishing in your journal, and I am worried that such failure to disclosure may impact the reputation and credibility of both the journal and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”
Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian, and Science Bulletin did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Science Bulletin said in a letter dated Saturday to Davies that it will “look into the matter as appropriate.”
Christopher Monckton, the lead author of the article, denied Davies’s accusation. He said Soon cited his affiliation with Harvard-Smithsonian on the paper as a point of identification only. Soon did not receive any grant funding to support the paper, nor did any of the other authors, Monckton said.
“The allegation that Dr. Soon had but did not declare a material conflict of interest before our paper was accepted for publication is untrue and without foundation,” said Monckton, chief policy adviser at Science & Public Policy Institute, a Virginia group that disputes UN climate research. “Neither I nor any of my three co-authors, including Dr. Soon, received any funding whatsoever for our research, which was conducted in our own time.”
Soon, the subject of a lengthy Globe profile in 2013, has long been on the radar of environmental activists, who have kept close track of his academic papers, lectures, and funding sources.
Soon has received more than $1.3 million in grants from companies, think tanks, and organizations that have either publicly criticized human-caused climate change or have a financial interest in fossil fuels, according to documents obtained by environmental activist group Greenpeace through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Fossil fuel interests that have funded Soon’s work include the American Petroleum Institute, the Texaco Foundation, and the ExxonMobil Foundation. He’s also received funding from the Koch brothers, the libertarian-conservative moguls who have lobbied against anti-climate-change legislation.
Soon maintains a strong relationship with the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for hosting skeptical conferences on climate change. The authors of the Science Bulletin paper did obtain funding from the Heartland Institute to make the paper publicly available on Science Bulletin’s website, Monckton said.
Soon is listed on Heartland Institute’s website as an expert, and he has spoken at seven of the institute’s nine conferences. In September 2013, he appeared on Fox News with Heartland’s Joseph Bast to discuss the institute’s report “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science,” which downplays some of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change’s observations of global warming. He also spoke at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2013 to support a Heartland rebuttal of the panel’s claims, where he called the UN council “a pure bully” that pushed “blatant manipulations of fact.”
Though Soon uses his full Harvard-Smithsonian credential on the Science Bulletin paper, he is technically employed by the Smithsonian side. The institute has previously disavowed his work on climate change.
Sylvan Lane can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter@SylvanLane.
My God I am stunned at the level of naïve on this thread!!!
Not that I haven't seen it before.
Some people on here really do think that those who are a part of and advocate of AGW do it out of some altruistic intentions related to the planet and that those supporting the fossil fuel industry are these evil people.
Perhaps that is why they are losing in such spectacular fashion in 2014?
Climate science as it relates to green energy/policy bows at the alter of special interests in EXACTLY the same manner as the other side.
fuking duh
Neither his arrangements with the Smithsonian nor his contract with Southern, Koch or anyone else excuses Soon's failure to notify his publishers of a conflict of interest.
Boston Globe said:Boston Globe said:Climate change skeptic accused of violating disclosure rules
A paper by Harvard-Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon and three other climate-change skeptics contends that the UN panel that tracks global warming uses a flawed methodology to estimate global temperature change. Soon and his co-authors claim to have a simpler, more accurate model that shows the threat of global warming to be exaggerated.
Science Bulletin, imposes a strict conflict of interest policy on authors, obligating contributors to disclose any received funding, financial interests, honors, or speaking engagements that might affect their work.
In a note at the end of the paper, all four authors claimed no conflicts of interest on the published study. But Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, an organization based in Virginia, said Soon’s long track record of accepting energy-industry related grants indicates otherwise and might constitute a violation of Science Bulletin’s disclosure policy.
In a letter to Science Bulletin, Davies points to the more than $1 million Soon has received from companies and interests supporting studies critical of climate change.
“At the end of the article under the heading ‘Conflict of interest’, there is this statement: ‘The authors declare that they have no conflict.’ This simply cannot be true,” Davies wrote. “I am concerned that Dr. Soon has not disclosed his funding sources or his outside consulting fees when submitting this article for publishing in your journal, and I am worried that such failure to disclosure may impact the reputation and credibility of both the journal and the Chinese Academy of Sciences.”
Soon, Harvard-Smithsonian, and Science Bulletin did not respond to multiple requests for comment. Science Bulletin said in a letter dated Saturday to Davies that it will “look into the matter as appropriate.”
Christopher Monckton, the lead author of the article, denied Davies’s accusation. He said Soon cited his affiliation with Harvard-Smithsonian on the paper as a point of identification only. Soon did not receive any grant funding to support the paper, nor did any of the other authors, Monckton said.
“The allegation that Dr. Soon had but did not declare a material conflict of interest before our paper was accepted for publication is untrue and without foundation,” said Monckton, chief policy adviser at Science & Public Policy Institute, a Virginia group that disputes UN climate research. “Neither I nor any of my three co-authors, including Dr. Soon, received any funding whatsoever for our research, which was conducted in our own time.”
Soon, the subject of a lengthy Globe profile in 2013, has long been on the radar of environmental activists, who have kept close track of his academic papers, lectures, and funding sources.
Soon has received more than $1.3 million in grants from companies, think tanks, and organizations that have either publicly criticized human-caused climate change or have a financial interest in fossil fuels, according to documents obtained by environmental activist group Greenpeace through Freedom of Information Act requests.
Fossil fuel interests that have funded Soon’s work include the American Petroleum Institute, the Texaco Foundation, and the ExxonMobil Foundation. He’s also received funding from the Koch brothers, the libertarian-conservative moguls who have lobbied against anti-climate-change legislation.
Soon maintains a strong relationship with the Heartland Institute, a conservative think tank known for hosting skeptical conferences on climate change. The authors of the Science Bulletin paper did obtain funding from the Heartland Institute to make the paper publicly available on Science Bulletin’s website, Monckton said.
Soon is listed on Heartland Institute’s website as an expert, and he has spoken at seven of the institute’s nine conferences. In September 2013, he appeared on Fox News with Heartland’s Joseph Bast to discuss the institute’s report “Climate Change Reconsidered II: Physical Science,” which downplays some of the United Nations International Panel on Climate Change’s observations of global warming. He also spoke at the conservative Heritage Foundation in 2013 to support a Heartland rebuttal of the panel’s claims, where he called the UN council “a pure bully” that pushed “blatant manipulations of fact.”
Though Soon uses his full Harvard-Smithsonian credential on the Science Bulletin paper, he is technically employed by the Smithsonian side. The institute has previously disavowed his work on climate change.
Sylvan Lane can be reached at [email protected]. Follow him on Twitter@SylvanLane.
Soon fucked up. He's a lying scum bag. But you don't mind cause he says what you and the fossil fuel industry want him to say. Right? Good little zombies.
Mann's "white wash" by Penn State was epic. Mann was consulted about what was relevant or not relevant in his case and no witnesses were called nor were the ones stating the allegations allowed to rebut. IT was a total white wash and Penn State lost all credibility as a scientific institution.How about we treat Micheal Mann, James Hansen, and every other climate scientist the same way too... tell them all to resign..
The hypocrisy of the left is stunning..If its not my way they need to apologize and resign... Who the fuck do the left think they are?
When you find some evidence that Mann and Hansen have done what Soon has done, I'll be right behind you. Till then, it's YOU that has the lock on hypocrisy around here Billy.
What Hansen did is doctor his data and contrive algorithms to produce the desired results regardless of the input. He also refused to publish his data or turn over his emails at the university of Pennsylvania even though they are public property and subject to FOI laws.
Perhaps if you had reviewed some evidence in an attempt to support your charges you might have noticed that you seem to be conflating Hansen and Mann. Hansen was never at UPenn and no one was ever after his emails. That was the whack job Ken Cuuccinelli when he was trying to persecute Mann to gain a following with a few more right wing voters.
Poor Billy Boob and the rest of you fools. You tried to persecute a good man, and got your ears knocked down a notch. Same as when Bush Jr. tried to muzzle Dr. James Hansen. It only increased his reputation.
My God I am stunned at the level of naïve on this thread!!!
Not that I haven't seen it before.
Some people on here really do think that those who are a part of and advocate of AGW do it out of some altruistic intentions related to the planet and that those supporting the fossil fuel industry are these evil people.
Perhaps that is why they are losing in such spectacular fashion in 2014?
Climate science as it relates to green energy/policy bows at the alter of special interests in EXACTLY the same manner as the other side.
fuking duh
I wouldn't say exactly the same Skooks. The funding for skeptics gets a lot more bang for the buck. And it goes for better projects too, no 500,000 dollar video games that no one ever sees.
