Willie Soon on Sea Level Rise – along with some climate ugliness

This is a video of presentation given in July at the Doctors for Disaster Preparedness conference in Houston, which I also had the honor of attending. Note the beginning of his talk where he points out these two blog posts (Part1 and Part2) of a fellow who calls Dr. Soon an “enemy of the planet” and “prostitute” among other things.

The irony is that the writer (Dr. Douglas Craig) is a practicing psychologist. One wonders how he treats patients he might disagree with when we see him write hateful vitriol like that.

From my viewpoint, the blogger needs a refresher on the code of ethics for the American Psychological Association: http://www.apa.org/ethics/code/index.aspx?item=3

In particular:

Principle B: Fidelity and Responsibility
Psychologists establish relationships of trust with those with whom they work. They are aware of their professional and scientific responsibilities to society and to the specific communities in which they work. Psychologists uphold professional standards of conduct, clarify their professional roles and obligations, accept appropriate responsibility for their behavior and seek to manage conflicts of interest that could lead to exploitation or harm.

Here is the video from DDP, compare for yourself how Dr. Craig conducts himself -vs- how Dr. Soon does:

About these ads

113 thoughts on “Willie Soon on Sea Level Rise – along with some climate ugliness

  1. Boy, Douglas Craig pulls no punches. I guess he forgets that in ‘real life’ he is a psychologist.

  2. Indeed, he shouldn’t have used language like that. Calling somebody a prostitute is simply unacceptable.
    Perhaps the monitors at WUWT will remember this when they allow through similar or worse comments about Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.

  3. @Bob – I’m with you – name calling on either side of an issue does nothing to improve the process of arriving at truth. That being said, I’d suggest that the appropriate standard of discourse for a professional giving a formal presentation presentation might be different (and perhaps should be higher) than for a comment on a blog.

  4. “Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues?

    That’s a bit of a stretch describing them as ‘scientific’ – grant addicted, data manipulating, opportunists would be much more apt.

  5. “Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.”
    Thanks for the Monday morning laugh. Mann and his colleague are no more scientists of anything,let alone climate,then I am JP Morgan.Your one brain cell must be getting really lonely.

  6. The definition of delusion just got a medical update.

    On the ground, mental health professionals are often required to decide if someone’s thinking indicates a disturbance in their understanding of the world, and this is where the new DSM-5 definition of a delusion may usher in a quiet revolution in psychiatry. No longer are psychiatrists asked to decide whether the patient has “a false belief based on incorrect inference about external reality that is firmly sustained despite what almost everyone else believes and despite what constitutes incontrovertible and obvious proof or evidence to the contrary”. A wordy and unhelpful definition that has so many logical holes you could drive a herd of unicorns through it.

    Instead, the new definition of delusions describes them as fixed beliefs that are unswayed by clear or reasonable contradictory evidence, which are held with great conviction and are likely to share the common themes of psychosis: paranoia, grandiosity, bodily changes and so on. The belief being false is no longer central and this step forward makes it less likely that uncomfortable claims can be dismissed as signs of madness.

    In fact, a situation where someone is incorrectly diagnosed as delusional but turns out to be right has just been named the “Martha Mitchell Effect” in honor of the wife of US Attorney General under Nixon, John Mitchell, who was telling the inside story to journalists and editors before Watergate broke and maintaining her husband’s innocence. She was sedated to shut her up in 1972. http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2013/08/04/the-concept-of-delusions-gets-a-big-but-unnoticed-overhaul/

    The new definition encompasses

    Delusions, in the medical sense, are not simply a case of being mistaken, as the everyday use of the term suggests. They are profound and intensely held beliefs that seem barely swayed by evidence to the contrary….

    Dr, Craig, whose ravings are unbecoming a doctor to begin with, may have to face the music from his own profession.

  7. Moving goalposts!
    My comment wasn’t about his scientific qualifications (which IMO are excellent, but that isn’t the point). The article above complains about Willy Soon (a WUWT friend, I think) being called a prostitute – but ignoring the fact that WUWT uses much worse language about the people it doesn’t like.
    ‘Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ as they say …

  8. A prostitute is someone to who takes money in exchange for sexual services.

    What does one call someone who takes money in exchange for faking up scientific-sounding results?

    Mann et. al. are not scientists, they’re activists. And I’ve never heard anyone call them prostitutes… but I have to admit, it’s probably pretty appropriate.

    By the way, if you want “enemy of the planet”, just check out the horrific damage being done by wind turbines, aka bird slicer/dicer/clubbers. People putting those things up, now THEY’RE enemies of the planet.

  9. Bob,
    “‘Sauce for the goose is sauce for the gander’ as they say …”
    Except that’s not the actual saying. Try again, or better yet take your foolishness elsewhere, like Thinkprogress.com. That sounds more your speed.

  10. Re: Bob Tuner:
    Hang around here awhile. If you can avoid 3-monkey syndrome, you will eventually receive enough education to reverse that discrepant attitude.

  11. What many Warmists fail to observe about sceptical scientists is this: They can make their lives a whole lot easier and get more funding by jumping on the bandwagon. No loss of income likely, increased income most probable. Warmists would embrace them with open arms and lavish funding upon them. All they have to do is accept the dogma.

  12. Mr Turner, Mann repudiated his qualifications when he chose to become and remain an insttutional co-dependent ( a term that also could be applied to prostitutes, but at least they provide a service. Note, I didn’t call Mann a prostitute. Readers of WUWT are well aware that correlation doesn’t equal causation…)
    Psychologists, hmm. When I was passing through university and appropriately arrogant, psychologists were viewed generally as wannabee psychiatrists that didn’t make it into medical school….

  13. Only in the world of the Looney left do you call prostitutes ‘sex workers’ and scientists prostitutes.

    I have to say though as with Lewanksey and Grieg all psychologists tend to be of a lefty background my ex sister in law being a good example. It’s like a CSE compared to an ‘O’ Level. Also lefties always look for reasons to blame the world i.e. capitalism and are never concerned with biological reasons on victim.

  14. By the way good lecture by Willie. Not sure about sea level proof regarding Pevensey Castle as I know much land in the SE of England was reclaimed with drainage.

  15. One wonders how he treats patients he might disagree with when we see him write hateful vitriol like that.

    No doubt he subjects his patients to electroshock therapy when they don’t give him the “correct” answers on climate related questions. I’m thinking something similar to Bill Murray’s character in the opening scene of Ghostbusters:

  16. > Note the beginning of his talk where he points out these two blog posts (Part1 and Part2) ….

    Those links go to webcitation.org which interferes with everything you might look at on the target site. Craig’s page is a blog at

    where he has at least ten blog articles about PBS giving you air time on that PBS Newshour report last year. It looks like a cross between SkS and Bill McKibben:

    Dead trees and climate change (1)

    By Doug Craig on July 8, 2013 10:48 PM
    My older brother Jim sent me the above picture he recently took of a few dead trees in Colorado, deceased lodgepoles that stand like a million monuments across the ancient, sacred Rockies; silent sentries that no longer breathe but remind us of what once was before the beetles were unleashed by runaway climate change. The photograph is beautiful and haunting, a work of art to be admired like surreal corpses in a mortuary, a memorial to a world we once had and pissed away. Here is how NBC News tells it: “Tiny, winged bark beetles have been the ecological…

    » Continue reading…

    I didn’t continue.

    I did continue this, but the tease is adequate, though I’ll note “The [third] thing I know about Stanford is that smart people go to school there and it is hard to get into.” I figure that someone had only heard of Stanford University twice by age 25 or so, and then only in the context of football games is not worth following about complicated science.

    Stanford and climate change

    By Doug Craig on May 24, 2013 12:03 AM
    I first became aware there was a university in California called Stanford in 1971 when they beat Ohio State in the Rose Bowl. I had only lived in Ohio for about a year when Larry West, my 9th grade gym (P.E.) teacher tried to convince our class that one of the worst tragedies in the history of the world had occurred when Jim Plunkett and the Stanford Indians beat Woody Hayes and his Buckeyes. The next time I became aware of Stanford was in 1982 when their band helped the California Bears football team beat their own team on the…

    » Continue reading…

  17. Very informative lecture by Willie Soon. Trying to measure such small changes in a massive system is impossible. The same with temperature changes. 0.75 degree C change since 1850? I would suggest this could be within the error margin and there has been no warming.

  18. Were all doomed! but wait, according to the ice charts, it’s not melting fast enough to end the world. Also, if global warming equals no days in the 90’s here in Ky for Aug. I welcome it. :-)

    All humans report to the disintegration chambers, your destroying the planet with CO2

  19. “Dead trees and climate change (1)

    By Doug Craig on July 8, 2013 10:48 PM
    My older brother Jim sent me the above picture he recently took of a few dead trees in Colorado, deceased lodgepoles that stand like a million monuments across the ancient, sacred Rockies; silent sentries that no longer breathe but remind us of what once was before the beetles were unleashed by runaway climate change. The photograph is beautiful and haunting, a work of art to be admired like surreal corpses in a mortuary, a memorial to a world we once had and pissed away. Here is how NBC News tells it: “Tiny, winged bark beetles have been the ecological…

    I thought I might add, there was a bark beetle outbreak in the German National Park in Bavaria 6 years ago after storm Kyril uprooted thousands of spruce trees there. The policy of the park is to let nature take its course, and it looked like a moonscape of dead trees for a while; until young spruce and other trees took over.

    The dead trees still serve as habitat for rare woodpeckers and rare insect and fungi species that don’t find a place in a managed forest. It is about the only “secondary Ur forest” in Europe.

  20. DirkH says:
    August 5, 2013 at 5:32 am
    “I thought I might add, there was a bark beetle outbreak ”

    And just so you know, I heard a report about this forest today on ultra green German state radio. Not some evil capitalist propaganda organ; but on a radio program that is a living embodiment of Political Correctness of the most Leninist sort.

  21. Bob Turner says:
    August 5, 2013 at 3:31 am

    Perhaps the monitors at WUWT will remember this when they allow through similar or worse comments about Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.

    I don’t, so I went looking. A search of the blog here (see little search window above) for |prostitute Mann| yielded a single hit. (N.B. This only covers the article, not the comments.) The word prostitute didn’t occur anywhere, but I found it in the source in a URL:

    Meanwhile, legions of subsidized researchers are trying desperately to tie every conceivable phenomenon and event to global warming – even rape and murder!

    I did a Google search for |prostitute Mann site:wattsupwiththat.com| and while there were several hits I didn’t see anything that looked it linked the two terms.

    I conclude there’s a good chance that the monitors at WUWT will not remember this when they allow through similar or worse comments about Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.

    Your comment will be read by several thousand people. It’s worthwhile taking the effect to research your claims, especially if you expect to be taken seriously.

  22. Dr Soon is clearly a victim of this man’s paranoia. Having listened to his responses in the video, I think he can take care of himself.

  23. Yet another who believes it is those who hold conservative views who must make the effort to be civil, in order to have a civil discourse.
    Well… in the last two Presidential elections, that was tried. Doesn’t work.
    And there is plenty of evidence to show it does not work re: Climate Change as well. Skeptics called ‘Deniers’ when the evidence for that is only on the fringe.
    The PROPER term would be ‘[Grant] Whores’… an invective that has been used for decades by politicians.
    ‘Liar’ is also a rough term but sometimes you have to call ‘em out. So before people get their panties all in a bunch over invective they should take a look at what certain warmists like the German group PIK have to say.
    It appears that the complainer never reads Bishop Hill or Notrickszone. Either that or objects to Alinsky’s Rule of ‘Identify Isolate Ridicule’ being used against them.

  24. Anyone who is interested in the sea level “data” debate, needs to watch Dr. Soon’s presentation here.

  25. I did have some elementary Psychology in the early 1980’s. And I still remember the teacher telling us that this knowledge should be the used to understand oneself and others and not misused to manipulate others and rule the people.

  26. “What does one call someone who takes money in exchange for faking up scientific-sounding results?”
    Policy based scientists? In this case it would be social climate scientists?

  27. People on the right side of a scientific debate encourage open discussion. Those on the wrong side, stifle it.

  28. Bob Turner says:
    August 5, 2013 at 3:31 am

    Perhaps the monitors at WUWT will remember this when they allow through similar or worse comments about Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.

    I think (hope) what Bob is getting at is that when some commenters on WUWT post insulting remarks about the likes of Mann, Gleick, Hansen etc, then some of the moral high ground is lost. With regard to Mann, I’ve read The Hockey Stick Illusion and much else about him and I abolutely deplore his conduct, and think, like many, that he should be held to account for what he has done – but I STILL feel uncomfortable at some of the attacks on him in these pages, however satisfying it might be to post them. It gives the Warmists ammunition with which to discredit the level of debate on this site, when the vast majority of it is quite correctly focused on the actual science.

  29. Moderator: someone asked me on this thread for a historical example of the kind of language I was complaining about. I’m trying to provide such an example. You are blocking my reply, thus leaving the impression open that I’m making a baseless allegation.
    Is this fairness on the part of WUWT?

    REPLY:
    I don’t see where you made a reply that is being held. When you put the word “moderator” in a post it holds it for attention by a moderator, hence the delay in this one. Nothing nefarious there. I see an upstream comment was stripped by a moderator overnight. The question is: did it contain an example or simply something of your own that violated site policy. Moderation isn’t 100% perfect, but if there is something wrong that you can point out, I’ll examine it for site policy and redact it if need be.

    If the comment you are referring to is this one: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/02/27/another-climate-billboard/#comment-1234720

    Then the moderator was correct in both cases. You had your verdict. – Anthony

  30. Referencing Dr.David Suzuki as the paragon of AGW science acumen unfortunately critically illustrates the ignorance of the psychotically narcissistic psychologist.

  31. Ed Zuiderwijk says:
    August 5, 2013 at 3:14 am
    Well then, is the correct term for someone promoting the AGW gospel: AGW pimp ?

    I think we should work the word monger into that term.

  32. It has been my experience that psychologists and psychiatrists have a high percentage of self harm and suicide compared to the general populace by a huge margin.

    This Craig person seems to be on a collision course between reality and stupidity, I hope he keeps himself safe.

  33. Dr Soon clearly does not match the standard definition of ‘prostitute’ as a person providing sexual services for money.

    On the other hand the metaphorical definition, ‘ a person who uses his or her talent or abilities for base and unworthy purposes, usually for money’. Might be applicable at least in part given the very poor citation record, (most are critiques!) for Dr Soon’s papers and the known source of his funding.

  34. What does a psychologist know about sea-level rise? Oh, wait, the sea can only rise if it really wants to.

  35. “Tim Clark says:
    August 5, 2013 at 6:59 am
    Referencing Dr.David Suzuki as the paragon of AGW science acumen unfortunately critically illustrates the ignorance of the psychotically narcissistic psychologist.”

    Now we are getting closer to identification: Psychopathic Narcissist. It is well known in the world of leadership that many who rise to power in public, corporate and private, are narcissists. They will eat their own.

  36. “Respect is given to those with manners, those without manners that insult others or begin starting flame wars may find their posts deleted.”

    Justthinkin says:
    August 5, 2013 at 4:19 am
    “Michael Mann and his scientific colleagues.”
    Thanks for the Monday morning laugh. Mann and his colleague are no more scientists of anything,let alone climate,then I am JP Morgan.Your one brain cell must be getting really lonely.

  37. Dr. Craig is a professional and a member of a professional society. Such society’s enforce their codes of conduct and can publicly reprimand a member for unprofessional conduct or expel him if the breach is serious enough. I’m sure that if Dr. Soon were to make a formal complaint, the APA would review the case and make some sort of judgement as to Dr. Craig’s behavior.

  38. Stocky says: “Trying to measure such small changes in a massive system is impossible. The same with temperature changes. 0.75 degree C change since 1850? I would suggest this could be within the error margin and there has been no warming.”

    Somehow the error margin is glossed over. The 0.75 degree C is an extension of the original figure given for temperature change by Phil Jones in the 2001 (hockey stick ) IPCC Report. In the Summary they wrote that : “Over the 20th century the increase has been 0.6 ± 0.2°C.”

    http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/

    That is a ±33 percent error factor; a number that makes the results meaningless. Of course, the rate of increase was essential to form the blade of the hockey stick and allow them to claim this was beyond a natural rate and clear evidence of the human signal.

  39. What a pity that a long and excellent lecture by Wille Soon has been drowned out by comments on some stupid psychologist (Dr Craig) who knows little or nothing about sea level rise. Soon is couragoeus and honest and takes on the corruption of the very scientific method that we all depend on for veracity and true research. His comments on satellite measurements and tidal guages are very informative. Do take the time to watch it all. Is there any chance of getting copies of Prof Soon’s slides?

  40. What a pity so much discussion has been taken up with the stupid comments by DR Craig, psychologist, who knows next to nothing about global sea level. Prof Willie Soon makes some excellent points in his lecture on Satellite measurments and tidal guages as well as other vital issues relating to river delta subsidence and postglacial land form changes. He addresses full on the shocking corruption of scientific method that has been a woeful consequence of the AGW belief system. Do make sure to watch the full video, it is excellent. Is there any chance of getting copies of his slides?

  41. I cannot link to the blog posts in question. I don’t have the time to watch the video just now, is Dr. Craig on is somewhere? if so when? so I can skip to his comments.

    Tom

  42. “Dr. Craig is a professional and a member of a professional society. Such society’s enforce their codes of conduct and can publicly reprimand a member for unprofessional conduct or expel him if the breach is serious enough. I’m sure that if Dr. Soon were to make a formal complaint, the APA would review the case and make some sort of judgement as to Dr. Craig’s behavior.”

    I believe that this statement is false, and all we have to do is to watch events unfold to demonstrated it’s falsity. Furthermore, I think it is highly likely that if Dr. Soon complains, HE is the one who will be disciplined for daring to complain. (acting in an un-collegial manner or some such will be the charge)

    I have some basis for this belief – I’m in a couple of professional societies myself, and I know full well how provincial and let’s face, it corrupt they can be. The simple fact that Dr. Craig felt entitled to stand up and make these statements in public is prima facie evidence that he was fully confident that there would be no professional repercussions to him for doing so.

  43. It would certainly be wrong to refer to Mikey as a prostitute. That would be a huge insult to prostitutes, who after all are simply providing a service for a fee. There is nothing dishonest about it, whereas Mikey is pathologically unable to tell the truth, which benefits his career, so it’s a win-win for him.

  44. izen says:
    August 5, 2013 at 7:17 am

    Explain please why Dr. Soon’s funding makes him a hooker but Mann’s doesn’t.

    Mann provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, United States Agency for International Development & the Office of Naval Research the results they want. Science is corrupted by government more surely than by private enterprise.

    That Soon can’t get funding from governments & leftwing foundations puts him squarely in the tradition of Galileo, whose science was suppressed by the authorities of his time with orthodoxies to protect.

  45. “”””””……bob sykes says:

    August 5, 2013 at 7:58 am

    Dr. Craig is a professional and a member of a professional society. Such society’s enforce their codes of conduct and can publicly reprimand a member for unprofessional conduct or expel him if the breach is serious enough. I’m sure that if Dr. Soon were to make a formal complaint, the APA would review the case and make some sort of judgement as to Dr. Craig’s behavior…….””””””

    Professionals don’t have a job; they have a “practice” , and they practice their “profession” on their clients / customers / patients / victims / whatever , on a no guarantee , no money back basis.

    A lot of them aren’t so good at their practice, so they all have to have malpractice insurance to cover their tracks, when they screw up.

    Professionals set up their societies to keep others out of the enterprise, and they arrange for laws to prevent non-members of the society from doing what they do for big bucks.

    I’m not a professional; I have to guarantee that the stuff I do, actually works the way I say it will, or I don’t get paid. And as for professional societies; why would I want to belong to any outfit, that would have me, as a member.

    As for Dr. Craig , is he a Psychologist, or is he a Psychiatrist ? The former, study behavior; some of them quite admirably.

    The latter; who were appropriately described by Ricky Ricardo, as “Pee-sic-key-a trists” , with the accent on the “sick” . get their kicks by having perfect strangers relate, to them the most personal details of their life; usually including those they share with someone else, who thought it was private and personal, and confidential.

    The common result is the immediate destruction of personal relationships. Why would anyone ever again trust someone, who is willing to go blab to some perfect stranger, who will bleed them of their financial resources, while satisfying their own prurient interests ?

    So which is Dr. Craig ?

  46. What is the carbon footprint of Doug Craig’s two dogs and 2 cats ? A medium size dog is responsible for the annual GHGs of a Toyota Highlander travelling 10,000km/yr. and cats are responsible for the annual GHG emissions of a VW Golf travelling 10,000/yr. He also claims to have three hybrids which emit the equivalent of a Chevy Cruz travelling 140,000 miles when all sourcing of raw materials and land use change are measured.

    So even though Mr. Craig spews hate towards others that he deems evil deniers, he himself is responsible for the equivalent GHG emissions of putting seven fossil fuel powered automobiles on the highway. So who is really in denial? Mr. Craig seems oblivious to his own climate damaging sins and seems to suffer from the “people who throw stones in glass houses” syndrome.

  47. @Bob Turner –
    Uh, Michael Mann has no scientific colleagues, only fellow political activists . . .

  48. I would also like a copy of the charts. Maybe Dr. Soon could create an article for WUWT with a few of his explanatory words around these charts. It would be classic and get worldwide exposure.

  49. This is yet another example of how, as much as we may mistrust the Manns, Joneses, etc. it’s the pseudoscience hangers-on like Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and this guy who are far and away the most loosely-hinged of the alarmist community.

  50. Lawrence13 says:
    August 5, 2013 at 5:08 am

    By the way good lecture by Willie. Not sure about sea level proof regarding Pevensey Castle as I know much land in the SE of England was reclaimed with drainage.
    ————————————————————————————————
    Drainage reclamation is through lowering a water table via drains. You cant reclaim land invaded by the sea in this way drains would just fill up with the prevailing sea water elevation.

  51. JEM says:
    August 5, 2013 at 9:50 am

    “… the pseudoscience hangers-on like Lewandowsky, Oreskes, and this guy who are far and away the most loosely-hinged of the alarmist community.”

    Yeah, but you never see any of the big shots of the AGW milieu attempt to reign in any of the pilers-on.

  52. Great vid by Dr. Soon. He took many post entries and combined them into an hour’s worth of watching. Glad I took the time to watch it.

  53. izen says:
    August 5, 2013 at 7:17 am
    “Dr Soon clearly does not match the standard definition of ‘prostitute’ as a person providing sexual services for money.

    On the other hand the metaphorical definition, ‘ a person who uses his or her talent or abilities for base and unworthy purposes, usually for money’. Might be applicable at least in part given the very poor citation record, (most are critiques!) for Dr Soon’s papers and the known source of his funding.”

    When you don’t have facts, attack the person…

  54. izen says:
    August 5, 2013 at 7:17 am

    “Dr Soon clearly does not match the standard definition of ‘prostitute’ as a person providing sexual services for money.

    Please tell us exactly what are the sources of Dr Soon’s money, and WHY “you” can claim that source might prejudice his conclusions about his science.

    But first, please tell us the source of YOUR funding, and how that DOES affect your prejudices about your conclusions.

    And, by the way, tell us the source of Dr Hansen’s funding during his entire career, Dr Mann’s funding and the extra funding HE brought to Penn State because of his propaganda (er, research), and the funding of the entire NASA-GISS staff next year, the source of NOAA’s funding and its entire staff next year, the funding of the NSIRDC and its entire staff next year, the funding of the DOE and its entire staff next year, and the funding of the EPA and its entire staff next year …..

    What is the source of the IPCC’s funding and the entire expressed purpose of their lives the last 30 years, the explicit purpose of Obama’s NASA staff the past 5 years ….

  55. Much ado about nothing. I have heard the term “prostitute” used to describe many people who sell their services instead of doing what they want. Particularly engineers and salesmen. (salespersons?) From Webster

    a writer who prostituted his talents by writing commercials

    In the case of Dr Soon, because he is doing what he wants, I don’t think the term applies.

    As for Dr. Craig, it is obvious that he has not read much on the CO2 theory, but instead has just accepted it as fact. Like the religious zealots of old, he is simply throwing a temper tantrum because some heretic

    one who dissents from an accepted belief or doctrine

    said something he does not like. By the way, he has 5 related posts, not just the 2 linked above. I assume that if he had a scientific argument, he would make it. Instead, he just uses one logical fallacy after another.

  56. DirkH says:
    August 5, 2013 at 10:38 am

    When you don’t have facts, attack the person…

    —————–

    When you have the facts in Mann’s case, then you can’t help but attack the person perverting them.

  57. Scientific method [SCI TECH] The systematic collection and classification of data and, usually, the formulation and testing of hypotheses based on data.”

    Scientist [SCI TECH] A person having the training, ability, and desire to seek new knowledge, new principles, and new materials in some field of science.” McGraw-Hill Dictionary of Scientific and Technological Terms, 6th Ed.

    Dr. Willie Soon “is a physicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory.”
    Publications on “climate” by Willie Soon

    Review the standard: Richard Feynman, The Scientific Method

    It doesn’t matter how beautiful your theory is, it doesn’t matter how smart you are. If it doesn’t agree with experiment, it’s wrong.

    Consider the evidence. e.g., STILL Epic Fail: 73 Climate Models vs. Measurements, Running 5-Year Means, Dr. Roy Spencer

    For a review of most evidence ignored by the IPCC see the NIPCC Reports.

    I find Dr. Soon to be a scientist who is following the scientific method.

    David L. Hagen, PhD

    PS “ad hominem (to the person – Latin) In logic, an error in which criticism is aimed at the person supporting an idea rather than at the merit of the idea or the content of the statement.”
    The Dictionary of Psychology, Raymond J. Corsini Ed. Psychology Press 2002

    What are you following?

    PPS Comment not accepted at Craig’s blog

  58. milodonharlani says at August 5, 2013 at 11:12 am

    When you have the facts in Mann’s case, then you can’t help but attack the person perverting them.

    Weak.
    If you have the facts you can wipe the floor with the guy and put him down for good.
    But, as you are well aware, Mann runs a mile from a public debate on the science with scientists.

    He can’t defend the accusation that Soon is perverting the facts. And he know he can’t defend that claim.

    And you don’t even try to defend the slur.
    Weak.

  59. A most interesting talk by Dr. Soon, and a quite unnecessary display of nastiness from the other fellow.

    I have a feeling Lawrence13’s comment that there may be other factors involved in Pevensey Castle’s march inland is right. Should Dr. Soon pass this way, I’d suggest he uses Harlech Castle instead. Quote from the linked page:

    “The castle’s other remarkable feature is the defended “Way from the sea,” a gated and fortified stairway plunging almost 200 ft down to the foot of the castle rock. Once, this gave access to supplies from the sea, but the tide level has since receded, leaving Harlech somewhat isolated upon its rock. During Madog ap Llywelyn’s uprising of 1294-95, this maritime lifeline proved the savior of the garrison, which was supplied and victualled by ships from Ireland.”

  60. Frank K: sorry to rain on the parade but straight from wiki

    “The village of Pevensey is located on a ridge of land, which juts out onto marshland. Until the 13th century the marshes were an inlet of the sea, extending inland as far north as Hailsham and eastwards to Hooe; it was studded with small areas of high land which became islands at high tide: and having the place-names — in addition to Peven’s ey — of Rickney, Horse Eye, and North Eye. All are derived from the Old English word “ey” meaning island.

    With the effect of longshore drift this large bay was gradually cut off from the sea by shingle, so that today’s marshes are all that remain behind the shingle beach.[3]“

  61. Steve. Sorry didn’t see your post about drainage. Believe me everyone I would love that to be accurate about Pevensey Castle but if you check it out on google earth you’ll see that the castle although a mile or so inland is lower (1 metre ASL) than the area between it and the coast which is 2 m ASL. Also Frankie should forget the tides .

  62. The Envisat changes in the latest years were apparently caused by some orbit degradation. Even if this CNES explanation was to be taken at face value, it does not change the first 5 to 6 years of Envisat results showing very little sea level rise.

  63. milodonharlani says:
    August 5, 2013 at 11:12 am
    “When you have the facts in Mann’s case, then you can’t help but attack the person perverting them.”

    If Mann were right, which he isn’t, what reason would he have to attack anyone? He’s awash in funding and public recognition.

    His attacks on other persons show that he knows that he’s only a rent-seeking fraud.

  64. TomRude says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:39 pm
    “The Envisat changes in the latest years were apparently caused by some orbit degradation. Even if this CNES explanation was to be taken at face value, it does not change the first 5 to 6 years of Envisat results showing very little sea level rise.”

    Orbit degradation, that’s a good one.
    Part of the mission statement of Envisat was “Civil security” (“Civil security” is also the mission statement of EUGENDFOR, the European Gendarmerie Force…)
    I think Envisat was one of these

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/KH-11_Kennan

    with some altimeter radar bolted on…

    In Oct 2010 they lowered the orbit by 17 km.

    http://suyts.wordpress.com/2012/05/26/the-predicated-argument/#comment-11362

  65. DirkH says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:48 pm
    “Orbit degradation, that’s a good one.”

    …as CO2AGW plus ecologism is the official religion of the EU they use it as the pretense for everything they are doing… Much like the US “defends” American exceptionalism all around the world…
    I wouldn’t be surprised if the Germans in Afghanistan are protecting the threatened Afghan Poppy from extinction.

  66. Craig: “…Soon is a whore for the fossil fuel industry”. Has anyone here not been accused of being on the oil/coal industry payroll ? I wish.

  67. FrankK says:
    August 5, 2013 at 10:12 am

    ****
    ————————————————————————————————
    Drainage reclamation is through lowering a water table via drains. You cant reclaim land invaded by the sea in this way drains would just fill up with the prevailing sea water elevation.

    I’m not sure where you got that peculiar idea. Reclamation often operates precisely that way. The only item left out is the pumps which draw water from the drains and send it someplace else. In the Netherlands they used windmills for this purpose to keep polders dryish for centuries. In California the Sacramento-San Joaquin delta “islands” are drained the same way, though the pumps are electric. There are exterior and internal drains. The internal drains have to be adequate in size to keep ahead of percolation and graded to carry the seepage to pumping stations where the water is pumped over a dike (or levee here in the golden state) and carried away by the external drain. Both Netherland’s polders and the delta islands in California are well below sea level. I don’t know about the Netherlands, but in California the “floors” of some islands are more than 10 meters below sea level – and the level of the water in the sloughs around them.

  68. Southern England is sinking right now (about 1.0 mm/year) as the Islands adjust to the lack of thicker glaciers on the northern half. If sea level has fallen in the southern ports of Hastings etc., then it is even more significant given that the land is falling.

  69. Psychologists have worked for every totalitarian regime since psychology was invented – just like every professional type there is.

    Education and world experience have no impact on those with a “special” relationship to truth or history. Empathy, as well as an understanding of how each of us is part of a community of individuals with unique attributes, weaknesses and outlook, is not a necessary consequence of acquiring a headful of facts about the world. We should not be surprised when one of us with letters before or after his name stands for things that common sense says are untenable: it is the ability of each of us to deny stark horrors in our path that allows us to carry on and, at times, succeed.

    The real problem with the craigs amongst us is the societal power we give them only because, unlike the rest of us, they did something that gave them the alphabetic prefix or suffix.

  70. Four Questions?
    1. So that’s psychologist – not scientist?
    2. What the heck would he know about anything related to this topic?
    3. Why would anyone be so dumb as to listen to his regurgitated drivel on this subject?
    4. Is he part of the consensus?

  71. Bob Turner obviously prefers censorship, which is preferred by just about every alarmist blog on the planet. Apparently Turner wants this site to delete labels that he personally finds objectionable. Here is the problem with that:

    Who will be the gatekeeper? In other words, who will be designated to refereree whether any particular lable is accurate, or a personal judgement, or over the line? Who draws that line? Mr. Turner? Michael Mann? Who will the censor be?

    WUWT has done spectacularly well by allowing all points of view. A comment does not mean it is endorsed by WUWT, it simply means that the commenter is not being censored.

    There are a few exceptions listed in the site Policy, but by and large, consensus is reached by allowing all points of view. Turner also seems to be unaware of Mann’s incessant name-calling: he is like a broken record with his “contrarians”, and much more objectionable labels. Does Turner find a problem to Mann’s labeling of skeptics like that? Or is it just that one of Turner’s heroes is on the hot seat for a change?

    This trading of pejoratives began when scientific skeptics started to be labeled as “deniers” and worse. It really was started by the alarmist crowd. But now people like Turner can’t take the same heat. Too bad. They are reaping the whirlwind they sowed.

  72. Incidentally, I thought the rules on all of this were pretty obvious:
    I have letters both before and after my name and I am a scientists who completed his research at a very good University. I undertake work related to ambient air quality in the lower troposphere and near source modelling using EPA approved models for assessment of pollution sources. I even have completed research on indoor air quality. I have published papers in the relevant journals.
    However, I have never completed a formal course of study or formal research in the areas that encompass climate science. For these reasons; I have never worked in this area.
    In view of that, I am happy to accept that I am nothing more than an amateur in this area.

  73. DirkH says:
    August 5, 2013 at 1:41 pm

    I agree Mann knows he does not have science on his side, so is sue-happy.

    Since he knows he’s wrong, it’s justifiable to say he’s prostituting himself for “the cause”, IMO.

    What could be worse than calling real scientists, those who practice the scientific method & welcome criticism, “deniers”, lumping them in with Holocaust deniers? That’s arguably worse than figuratively comparing the blatant data molester Mann with a convicted child molester from the same university.

  74. Sundance says:
    August 5, 2013 at 9:20 am

    What is the carbon footprint of Doug Craig’s two dogs and 2 cats ? A medium size dog is responsible for the annual GHGs of a Toyota Highlander travelling 10,000km/yr. and cats are responsible for the annual GHG emissions of a VW Golf travelling 10,000/yr. He also claims to have three hybrids which emit the equivalent of a Chevy Cruz travelling 140,000 miles when all sourcing of raw materials and land use change are measured.

    Don’t forget that the animals, as well as us, are part of the natural carbon cycle, and eventually that CO2 we exhale ends up as plant food to be consumed again by us and animals.
    Its the circle of life.

  75. Dr Soon provides evidence that AGW is a scam and receives a miniscule amount of funding from fossil fuel industry who by the way WANT THE CARBON TRADING SCHEME!!! They invest in the carbon market and pass on their emissions cost to the taxpayer anyway. The reason they donate is to demonise the people they support by providing the ‘funding’ avenue for attack. You’ll notice they never donate enough to enrich the person and provide a larger platform for their skeptical views, just enough to show that fossil fuels supported this person.

    Dr Douglas Craig provides no evidence for AGW, receives large amounts of government funding and attacks Soon personally with hypocritical erroneous claims equating him with a prostitute, when in actual fact Craig is the prostitute.

    The vitriole and repetition of the Alarmist camp is growing as they become more desperate to save their scientific house of cards. Increasingly bizarre, and ludicrous baseless claims about AGW are becoming more and more prevalent in the mainstream media. A similar tactic was used with regard to Julian Assange, “He should be executed/waterboarded” were claims made by news anchors and their guests. They think by shouting louder and more often they can brainwash the public and silence dissent.

  76. Dr. Douglas Craig is a practicing psychologist

    That is all you need to know to ignore him. Listening to him on climate, or not to put too fine a point on it, anything at all, for even one breath, should be fineable as a complete waste of carbon.

  77. Douglas Craig, surprisingly for a professional physcologist, personally attacks a professional scientist on subjectively based grounds; attacks on the grounds of calling the scientist evil because the scientist’s scientific work does not support his (Craig’s) perceptions of what is the only true science.

    Perhaps Lewandowsky can take Craig as a patient, they will be able to empathize through their common irrational thinking caused by their non-scientifically based ideologies related to climate alarmism.

    But Lewandowsky and Craig must first want to change or any mutually derived therapy will not have full benefits toward recovery.

    John

  78. Hats off to you DR. SOON!

    Great job once again!

    Anthony,,,,,,,,, interview on WUWT-TV opportunity?

    I think many of us would love to ask a few questions of the good Dr.

    Aquire questions in a blog post and reiterate them in a live interview?

    I figured I would toss it out there.

    You know you miss 100% of the shots you don’t take ;-)

  79. This is one of the most informative presentations I’ve seen in a long time. Really impressive. Some great thinking here. Thank you Mr. Soon.

  80. I think receiving money from the energy industry is a conflict of interest and makes anything you have to say about climate change suspect. It is no different than with the scientists paid by the tobacco industry

  81. Willie Soon:

    $1.3 Million in corporate funding: The FOIA response from the Smithsonian reveals that more than half (over $1.3 million) of Willie Soon’s total funding since 2001 has come from the oil and electric utility industry (coal). Since 2002, every new grant he has received has been from either oil & coal interests or Donors Trust.

    UPDATE FEB. 2013: Willie Soon now gets funding funneled through Donors Trust, the secretive “Dark Money ATM” used by the Kochs and other wealthy elites to obscure their contributions to controversial sources–see the Guardian and Mother Jones. Since 2002, Donors Trust and Donors Capital Fund have sent $146 million to 102 groups that deny climate science and obstruct policy solutions to global warming.

    Polar bear junk science funding revealed: While Dr. Soon revealed in a 2007 non-peer reviewed Ecological Complexity article on polar bears and Arctic ice that his research was funded by ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute and the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, neither the corporate funders or Dr. Soon have ever acknowledged the extent, dollar figures or timing of those grants.

    More Koch Funding: The FOIA response from Smithsonian uncovered an additional grant in 2010 from the Charles G. Koch Foundation of $65,000. UPDATE FEB. 2013: New FOIA results show an additional $55,000 from the Kochs for Willie Soon’s work from 2010-2012.

    Southern Company dirty coal funding: The Smithsonian documents also revealed two previously unknown grants totaling $230,000 from the Southern Company, one of the largest coal burning electric utilities in the United States and in world. FEB. 2013 UPDATE: New FOIA results show an additional $120,000 from Southern Company for Willie Soon’s work from 2011-2012.

    Additional corporate funders: Other papers written by Dr. Soon and reviewed by Greenpeace researchers show that the American Petroleum Institute has been funding Dr. Soon since the mid-1990s, a period when he also acknowledged funding from Mobil, Texaco and the Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) a research and lobby shop funded by the electric utilities.

  82. Bruce Cobb [August 5, 2013 at 8:46 am] says:

    It would certainly be wrong to refer to Mikey as a prostitute. That would be a huge insult to prostitutes, who after all are simply providing a service for a fee.

    So true! I would definitely describe prostitutes as much more ethical and less criminal in general. For example, prostitutes receive their money given by their customers VOLUNTARILY. The climate criminals like all Socialist endeavors involves money stolen from people INVOLUNTARILY. This explains why governments have always sought to illegalize prostitution, as well as gambling and drinking and other stuff which are all demonstrations of free association of private citizens outside of government control. Scientific Socialism is but the latest example of the destruction of free choice.

    milodonharlani [August 5, 2013 at 9:11 am] says:

    Mann provides the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Science Foundation, Department of Energy, United States Agency for International Development & the Office of Naval Research the results they want. Science is corrupted by government more surely than by private enterprise.

    That Soon can’t get funding from governments & leftwing foundations puts him squarely in the tradition of Galileo, whose science was suppressed by the authorities of his time with orthodoxies to protect.

    Perfect analogy. The Church of Global Warming ( or better yet, the Church of Climate Catastrophe ) continually release doctrinaire pronouncements of their settled beliefs, and woe to those few that dare challenge the church elders. The only real difference is that every now and then we get a glimpse of the inner workings of the Diocese, for example in the climategate email correspondence of church saints, bishops and priests.

    Bill Illis [August 5, 2013 at 4:46 pm] says:

    Southern England is sinking right now (about 1.0 mm/year) as the Islands adjust to the lack of thicker glaciers on the northern half. If sea level has fallen in the southern ports of Hastings etc., then it is even more significant given that the land is falling.

    Exactly. And this is mirrored on the North American continent and naturally the climate crooks and scoundrels run down to the shores that are sinking to perform their most blatant and criminal cherry pick yet. It’s almost as if the word “mantle” was stricken from their dictionary. It’s really no wonder it took so long for truly scientific discoveries from Wegener and others to stick, the climate cult are genetically programmed to believe in a near-static Earth and are impervious to thoughts of complex dynamics.

    Sea-Level really is such a trivial point on a planet that is completely wrapped by a viscous mantle. It’s so easy to visualize with simple experiments like one I remember from an Earth Science teacher long ago. Pour some cement and as it sets up put in a few slabs of slate and make a few puddles of water and pressing on the end of a slab and then backing off will exaggerate the effect sufficiently to understand what it is that we really live on. It also serves to perfectly illustrate how an equatorial bulge is possible and also how continents a capable of drifting around.

    I suppose that once they understand this basic geology perhaps they will inevitably conclude that all they need to do is build a huge taxpayer funded outboard motor on the southern tip of Greenland and then drive that sucker up over the North Pole and all warming worries will end ( so will much of mankind but they really don’t care too much about that ).

  83. Joseph says: August 6, 2013 at 6:19 pm ” … more than half (over $1.3 million) of Willie Soon’s total funding since 2001 has come from the oil and electric utility industry …. ”

    Not paying attention, are we? Your regurgitated talking point, while admirably memorized (or cut ‘n pasted) has already been dealt with by Dr Soon here: http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/07/26/dr-willie-soon-guest-comment-is-what-i-say-beyond-the-boundaries-of-reasonable-discussion/

    Now, please indulge all of us – specifically tell us what evidence exists to prove that any amount of funding ever received by any skeptic climate scientist came with instructions to fabricate false climate assessments, reports, papers, or viewpoints. Take your time, we’ll wait.

    You see, without any physical proof of corrupt work that resulted from illicit payments to effectively influence any reasoning person to dismiss skeptic scientist out-of-hand, YOU. HAVE. NOTHING. Believe industry associations are a conflict of interest if it makes you feel better, but if you do, then you must apply that same line of reasoning equally to IPCC scientists and Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele…. and then whatever position you have about AGW will go ‘poof’, because by your own standard, they are equally suspect.

  84. Its long been of interest the way that for the AGW faithful is not enough that they show that AGW sceptics are wrong on their facts , perhaps becasue this is actual hard to do , but that they ‘need to paint them as mad or bad . A stance which as nothing to do with science but does find a happy home in religion.

  85. Joseph
    ‘I think receiving money from the energy industry is a conflict of interest and makes anything you have to say about climate change suspect.’

    Expect when its goes to AGW advocates like the CRU or the IPCC or people who promote the scare like the cartoonist lapdog how is in direct employ of the energy industry?

  86. This subject seems perfect for another reference page. Dr. Soon’s charts would be a great contrast to the official, adjusted charts.

  87. “but if you do, then you must apply that same line of reasoning equally to IPCC scientists and Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele”

    IPCC scientists are not paid to support AGW. The energy funds science for one purpose and that is to discredit the theory.

  88. Joseph:

    At August 7, 2013 at 9:53 am you write

    “but if you do, then you must apply that same line of reasoning equally to IPCC scientists and Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele”

    IPCC scientists are not paid to support AGW. The energy funds science for one purpose and that is to discredit the theory.

    Either you are naïve and ignorant or your post is deliberately deceptive.

    Energy industries do NOT provide significant funds to AGW-sceptics but do provide large funding to IPCC scientists including Pachauri (IPCC Chairman), Jones (plus all other Hadley Centre staff), and Trenberth.

    Also, IPCC scientists are paid by their employers to work for the IPCC. And the IPCC only exists to support AGW. The IPCC says its purpose is

    The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) is the leading international body for the assessment of climate change. It was established by the United Nations Environment Programme (UNEP) and the World Meteorological Organization (WMO) in 1988 to provide the world with a clear scientific view on the current state of knowledge in climate change and its potential environmental and socio-economic impacts.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/organization/organization.shtml#.UgKBudVwbVI

    The IPCC operates in support of the UN Framework Convention on Climate Change(UNFCCC) and the IPCC Glossary specifically defines “climate change” as being “directly or indirectly” caused by “human activity” where it defines “climate change” as being

    Climate change
    Climate change refers to a change in the state of the climate that can be identifi ed (e.g., by using statistical tests) by changes in the mean and/or the variability of its properties, and that persists for an extended period, typically decades or longer. Climate change may be due to natural internal processes or external forcings, or to persistent anthropogenic changes in the composition of the atmosphere or in land use. Note that the Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC), in its Article 1, defi nes climate change as: ‘a change of climate which is attributed directly or indirectly to human activity that alters the composition of the global atmosphere and which is in addition to natural climate variability observed over comparable time periods’. The UNFCCC thus makes a distinction between climate change attributable to human activities altering the atmospheric composition, and climate variability attributable to natural causes.

    http://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/glossary/ar4-wg1.pdf

    So, your assertions are completely false.

    Your assertions are also ridiculous. The leading AGW sceptics (i.e. Lindzen, Spencer, Christie, etc.) are much, much better scientists than the mediocre AGW “Team” so they could easily gain much energy industry funding if they were to join the AGW “Team”. But – being good scientists – their integrity is not for sale.

    Richard

  89. You are trying to tell me that Pauchari and the others you mentioned are paid by the energy to do research. Ha now that is ridiculous! Let’s see the proof! And even if that were true, how could it be a conflict if there research supports AGW. Please explain..

    “Energy industries do NOT provide significant funds to AGW-sceptics ”

    lol Ridiculous! I just posted that Soon received over half of his funding from the energy industry since 2001. If you bother to look, there are NUMEROUS reports and articles on the massive amount of money poured into funding skeptics by the energy industry. You are either blind to this or willfully ignorant..

  90. In regards to the IPCC,, who is paying the individual scientists to conclude that AGW is happening? Is the IPCC paying the scientists to do their research or are they funded by the institutions they work for?

  91. Joseph:

    At August 7, 2013 at 9:53 am you made two assertions when you wrote

    “but if you do, then you must apply that same line of reasoning equally to IPCC scientists and Vice Chair Jean-Pascal van Ypersele”

    IPCC scientists are not paid to support AGW. The energy funds science for one purpose and that is to discredit the theory.

    My reply to you at August 7, 2013 at 10:51 am

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/wilie-soon-on-sea-level-rise-along-with-some-climate-ugliness/#comment-1383689

    showed – with links to and quotations from IPCC documents – that you were plain wrong when you claimed “IPCC scientists are not paid to support AGW”.
    THAT IS PRECISELY WHAT THEY ARE PAID TO DO.

    On that point alone I proved beyond any possibility of doubt that – as I said –

    Either you are naïve and ignorant or your post is deliberately deceptive.

    And my reply also correctly said

    Energy industries do NOT provide significant funds to AGW-sceptics but do provide large funding to IPCC scientists including Pachauri (IPCC Chairman), Jones (plus all other Hadley Centre staff), and Trenberth.

    But having been shown to be either a dupe or a deliberate and false propagandist, you have decided to put your other foot in your mouth, too, so you wrote your post to me at August 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/wilie-soon-on-sea-level-rise-along-with-some-climate-ugliness/#comment-1383799

    which says in total

    You are trying to tell me that Pauchari and the others you mentioned are paid by the energy to do research. Ha now that is ridiculous! Let’s see the proof! And even if that were true, how could it be a conflict if there research supports AGW. Please explain.

    “Energy industries do NOT provide significant funds to AGW-sceptics ”

    lol Ridiculous! I just posted that Soon received over half of his funding from the energy industry since 2001. If you bother to look, there are NUMEROUS reports and articles on the massive amount of money poured into funding skeptics by the energy industry. You are either blind to this or willfully ignorant..

    It is a conflict of interest because – as my post proved – they are paid to find and report support for AGW instead of conducting honest and impartial science.

    And your unfounded assertions of massive funding of sceptics by anybody are risible. The energy companies fund Greenpeace (as ‘protection money’ to avoid another Brent Spar) and not sceptics.

    Even wicki – despite the censorship by Connolly – admits the Hadley Center was set-up with oil money

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

    and Climategate revealed that maintaining continuation of such oil-money remains a significant activity of the Climate Research Unit.

    I don’t have the time or the inclination to collate all the evidence (notably Climategate emails) to refute your untrue assertions, so I will merely link you to this analysis of the disparity between the funding of warmunist pseudoscientists and the funding of scientists who conduct real research of climate change (i.e. AGW sceptics)

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    Richard

  92. You didn’t answer my question DO SCIENTISTS WHO WORK WITH THE IPCC GET PAID FOR THEIR RESEARCH BY THE IPCC OR BY THE INSTITUTIONS THEY WORK FOR(I thought they were volunteers)? If they aren’t paid by the IPCC, how can you say they paid by the IPCC to support global warming?

    “And your unfounded assertions of massive funding of sceptics by anybody are risible.”

    Google “energy industry fund skeptics climate change” and you will fund hundreds of examples.

    ” The energy companies fund Greenpeace (as ‘protection money’ to avoid another Brent Spar) and not sceptics.”

    lol Pure speculative and unsupported nonsense, Wow!

    “Even wicki – despite the censorship by Connolly – admits the Hadley Center was set-up with oil money”

    So they received their initial funding from energy companies way back in the 70’s. How much do they receive now from the energy industry? And this was what I was referring to in my conflict of interest question. How is it a conflict of interest, if energy companies fund science that supports AGW. AGAIN please explain..

  93. Joseph:

    re your post at August 7, 2013 at 6:30 pm

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/wilie-soon-on-sea-level-rise-along-with-some-climate-ugliness/#comment-1384074

    It is clear that you do not read my replies to your twaddle but instead you keep prattling falsehoods you have picked up from some propaganda source.

    I answered your question in my first post to you

    http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/05/wilie-soon-on-sea-level-rise-along-with-some-climate-ugliness/#comment-1383689

    where I wrote and bolded

    IPCC scientists are paid by their employers to work for the IPCC. And the IPCC only exists to support AGW.

    Your persistent pretense that I refused to answer your question merely displays that you don’t read what I write (and that is the most generous interpretation of your pretense).

    Yes, I know that the ‘oil funding myth’ has been spread all over the web, but the myth is a falsehood. I again provide you with a link to the fully referenced paper which details the facts of funding

    http://scienceandpublicpolicy.org/images/stories/papers/originals/climate_money.pdf

    I do NOT deal in “speculation” when refuting untrue propaganda such as that which you are peddling.

    I wrote

    Even wicki – despite the censorship by Connolly – admits the Hadley Center was set-up with oil money

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climatic_Research_Unit

    and Climategate revealed that maintaining continuation of such oil-money remains a significant activity of the Climate Research Unit.

    [emphasis added]
    You have replied

    So they received their initial funding from energy companies way back in the 70′s. How much do they receive now from the energy industry?.

    I answer, $millions each year: read the Climategate emails.
    Importantly, READ THE LINK I PROVIDED AND I HAVE AGAIN PROVIDED IN THIS POST.

    And you ask

    How is it a conflict of interest, if energy companies fund science that supports AGW. AGAIN please explain.

    AGAIN, I have answered that. I wrote

    It is a conflict of interest because – as my post proved – they are paid to find and report support for AGW instead of conducting honest and impartial science.

    Trying to be charitable, it is possible that you think oil companies are opposed to AGW so you are really asking why oil companies promote the AGW scare. I will adopt that charitable assumption and address what I have suggested you may be asking.

    Oil companies produce oil and gas. Coal and gas are used for electricity generation. AGW calls for constraint of CO2 emissions. Gas produces less CO2 than coal so constraining CO2 emissions encourages a switch – which is happening – from cheaper coal-fired generation to gas-fired generation (i.e. a switch from coal to their product, gas).

    Joseph, I have answered each and every point you have made and in most cases more than once. I have now also answered a point I think you may have been trying to make.

    Get back to me after – n.b. only AFTER – you have read all the information I have written to you and linked for you.

    Richard

  94. “IPCC scientists are paid by their employers to work for the IPCC. And the IPCC only exists to support AGW.”

    No they volunteer to work for the IPCC. I don’t accept that the IPCC would conclude AGW is real when the science contradicts it.

    “Yes, I know that the ‘oil funding myth’ has been spread all over the web, but the myth is a falsehood. I again provide you with a link to the fully referenced paper which details the facts of funding”

    Your paper only mentions Exxon Mobile. There are a number of other funding sources from the energy industry.

    “Oil companies produce oil and gas. Coal and gas are used for electricity generation. AGW calls for constraint of CO2 emissions. Gas produces less CO2 than coal so constraining CO2 emissions encourages a switch – which is happening – from cheaper coal-fired generation to gas-fired generation (i.e. a switch from coal to their product, gas).”

    No that makes absolutely no sense unless you are saying that ONLY gas interests are supporting pro-AGW scientists such as CRU. Do you have that proof?

  95. Joseph says: August 7, 2013 at 1:00 pm ” …. I just posted that Soon received over half of his funding from the energy industry since 2001. …”

    Again, please indulge us – specifically show evidence proving that any amount of funding (in whatever manner you care to qualify it) ever received by any skeptic climate scientist came with specific instructions to fabricate false climate assessments, reports, papers, or viewpoints. Take your time, we’ll wait. Surely understand how your insinuation implodes without that proof.

    Don’t feel bad if you cannot come up with a single shred of evidence to back up your guilt-by-association accusation. Al Gore can’t either, nor can legions of people regurgitating the accusation. Sidestep my point about your double standard as it applies to the IPCC Vice Chair if it makes you feel better, but it becomes the 800lb gorilla-in-the-room when you do that. You can’t have it both ways; if the slightest of associations taint one side, they taint the other side as well.

  96. Joseph:

    OK. Now you have raised my ire.

    I wrote saying to you

    Get back to me after – n.b. only AFTER – you have read all the information I have written to you and linked for you.

    And you have come back yet again repeating your falsehoods that I have repeatedly refuted with clear referenced evidence which you again ignore.

    I showed you using quotation of and link to the IPCC’s own words that the IPCC only exists to promote AGW. And you even say you “don’t accept that”.

    And your claim that oil companies don’t promote their products is daft. It is only YOU that “makes no sense”. Read your own posts above: they each only contain untrue nonsense.

    I cannot be bothered with your silly, superstitious nonsense any more.
    I WILL IGNORE ALL FURTHER POSTS FROM YOU UNLESS AND UNTIL THEY ADDRESS THE INFORMATION WHICH I HAVE TAKEN THE TROUBLE TO PROVIDE TO YOU.

    Richard

  97. “Again, please indulge us – specifically show evidence proving that any amount of funding (in whatever manner you care to qualify it) ever received by any skeptic climate scientist came with specific instructions to fabricate false climate assessments, reports, papers, or viewpoints. ”

    Please explain to me why the energy industry is funding skeptics. Do you really think it is to find the truth or is it to discredit AGW at any cost. Did the tobacco industry fund science to get to the truth or to discredit any claims that tobacco causes cancer? Please explain to me why I should trust skeptics funded by the energy industry?

  98. Joseph says:
    August 9, 2013 at 10:22 am

    (While trying desperately to NOT respond to the earlier question and simultaneously distracting the reader)

    “Again, please indulge us – specifically show evidence proving that any amount of funding (in whatever manner you care to qualify it) ever received by any skeptic climate scientist came with specific instructions to fabricate false climate assessments, reports, papers, or viewpoints. ”

    Please explain to me why the energy industry is funding skeptics. Do you really think it is to find the truth or is it to discredit AGW at any cost. Did the tobacco industry fund science to get to the truth or to discredit any claims that tobacco causes cancer? Please explain to me why I should trust skeptics funded by the energy industry?

    Please explain to me why the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries ARE funding the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries. Do you really think it is to find the truth or is it to fund the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries at any cost? … Please explain to me why I should trust the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries when they are funded by the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries specifically to generate additional funds (1.3 trilllion in annual tax revenues!) to be used for the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries selectively paid to do the research ?

    Again: Specifically and credibly tell me of ANY skeptic who has altered his or her testimony about CAGW or fraudulently generated research that claims CAGW does not exist as a serious problem for the world. There are dozens of falsified CAGW propagandized papers and lectures; and tens of thousands of exaggerated and extrapolated CAGW CLAIMS of serious impacts on literally everything.

    None of those false claims and exaggerations are from so-0called skeptics who you claim are partially funded by the energy industry whose jobs and futures ARE directly and tangibly threatened by the false “research” funded by and for the CAGW industry.

  99. “Please explain to me why the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries ARE funding the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries. Do you really think it is to find the truth or is it to fund the government-university-laboratory-CAGW-Green industries at any cost?

    I believe almost ALL science is funded by the government and what green industry funding of science are you referring to?

    “There are dozens of falsified CAGW propagandized papers and lectures; and tens of thousands of exaggerated and extrapolated CAGW CLAIMS of serious impacts on literally everything.”

    Just because you “claim” they are falsified and or exaggerated doesn’t make it true.

  100. Joseph, why would the oil companies want to end the climate scare? First of all, most oil companies are also natural gas producers who benefit from “green” policies replacing coal with gas. Second, oil in the ground is worth more than oil produced. Yeah, I know it sounds funny. The fact is anything that helps drive down supply drives up prices which benefit the oil companies. I think they discovered about a decade ago that these higher prices are good for their bottom line and therefore climate fears actually help them.

    Sorry to blow you mind with reality. The only fossil fuel industry that arguably could be hurt by climate scares is the coal industry. And, it turns out that China is perfectly happy to burn all the coal they can find carrying the coal industry with them. So, the bottom line is the climate scare has done nothing to hurt these industries and actually helps the oil/gas industry. Only those who cannot think for themselves fall for the propaganda about fossil fuel companies.

Comments are closed.