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:
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Steve Mosher, mind Your manners.
Or would that be manners?
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.
“”””””……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 ?
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.
@Bob Turner –
Uh, Michael Mann has no scientific colleagues, only fellow political activists . . .
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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…
izen says:
August 5, 2013 at 7:17 am
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 ….
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
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
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.
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.
“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
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
Measuring sea level is problematic.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
milodonharlani says at August 5, 2013 at 11:12 am
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.
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:
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]”
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 .
Oops
Frankie *shouldn’t* the tides
Lawrence13: It’s more accurate than not. Please read this study.
http://curryja.files.wordpress.com/2011/07/document.pdf
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.
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.