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.
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..
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?
Joseph:
At August 7, 2013 at 9:53 am you made two assertions when you wrote
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 –
And my reply also correctly said
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
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
richardscourtney says:
August 7, 2013 at 1:49 pm
Welcome back!
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..
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
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
[emphasis added]
You have replied
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
AGAIN, I have answered that. I wrote
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
“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?
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.
Joseph:
OK. Now you have raised my ire.
I wrote saying to 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
“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?
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 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.
“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.
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.