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:
Bob Turner says:
August 5, 2013 at 3:31 am
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.
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.
And Dr. Craig is full of praise for David Suzuki, the man who is trying to terrify children into donating cash. http://www.wherewillsantalive.ca/
Isn’t that called extortion and a criminal offence?
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.
Anyone who is interested in the sea level “data” debate, needs to watch Dr. Soon’s presentation here.
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.
“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?
[snip . . you had your verdict and that’s it. . . mod]
People on the right side of a scientific debate encourage open discussion. Those on the wrong side, stifle it.
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.
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
Referencing Dr.David Suzuki as the paragon of AGW science acumen unfortunately critically illustrates the ignorance of the psychotically narcissistic psychologist.
I think we should work the word monger into that term.
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.
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.
What does a psychologist know about sea-level rise? Oh, wait, the sea can only rise if it really wants to.
“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.
“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.
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.
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.
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?
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?
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
“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.
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.