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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 😉
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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 ).
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.
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.
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?
This subject seems perfect for another reference page. Dr. Soon’s charts would be a great contrast to the official, adjusted charts.
“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.
Joseph:
At August 7, 2013 at 9:53 am you write
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
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
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