Greg Laden, and his 'cowardly unethical asinine foolhardy pig-ignorant act'

greg-ladenThis is a guest post about the execrable Greg Laden, and his calls for firing Dr. Willie Soon without having one iota of proof of his assertions. I’ve had run ins with this fool before, where I point out he’s lied about me, and even considered taking him to court for libel. In this episode, once again, Greg Laden is wronger than wrong, as is the paid political shill Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts, who put together the smear campaign seen in the photo below. As Instapundit says, “hit back twice as hard”. Its the only thing a bully truly understands. – Anthony Watts


willieGuest essay, reposted with permission, by William H. Briggs, statistician, who blogs here

Government Funding Is A Conflict Of Interest: Cowardly Calls For Climate Scientist’s Firing

The Beast

What entity pours by far the most money into scientific research? I’ll give you a hint. It’s the same entity that has been growing without bound, mercilessly muscling aside all competitors who would encroach into its space. It’s an entity which has a keen and abiding interest in the research it funds. An entity with desires. This entity cares results from its funded research turns out this way and not that.

No, not an oil company. Nay, not Apple corporation. Not even a pharmaceutical. It’s Uncle Sam!

Did you not know the scientists who receive Uncle’s lusciously large lasting grants are the same scientists who sit on the committees which award the grants? Conflict? It’s true the various wealthy agencies have a permanent and ever-burgeoning staff (see Parkinson’s Law and this) which shuffles the booty to and fro, but they’re advised by transient academics who today are at their home institutions standing erect with their hands out, and tomorrow are on the Metro to the NIH to sit (erect) in judgment of their peers.

Yes, the same people who award the grants are those that receive them.

Didn’t you know this? It’s true a man can’t award himself a grant, but he can give one to his pal and neighbor, and when its his pal and neighbor’s turn to sit on the review committee, he can and does return the favor.

But aren’t grants anonymous? Sure, some of them are. In the same way you think your online presence is anonymous. It takes almost a full minute of scrutiny in most cases to discover the name of the pleader. And many times there is no pretense of anonymity. This makes it easy to punish your enemies and boost your buddies.

What about the nature of the grants?

If the EPA solicits applications for the grant “Find something wrong with this power plant” do you think their pleadings will go in vain? No, sir, they will not. Dozens upon dozens of imploring missives will arrive at headquarters, all promising to finger the culprit. And do you think the investigations of the winner (and now richer researcher) will disappoint? No, sir, these investigations will not. Besides the ordinary willingness to please found in cooperative well-fed persons, there is also the promise of future monies for a job well done.

Not only will the researcher gladly suck at the government teat, strengthening his own bank account, but the researcher’s boss will benefit, too. For in each government gift is attached the miracle of overhead. This amounts to an additional 50% (more or less) of the grant’s value, a sum which goes to the researcher’s boss to spend as he pleases.

As he pleases, I say.

Overhead can be, and has been, spent on all nature of things. New offices and furnishings. Wintertime junkets to sunny uplands. Hiring of nephews and nieces. This overhead is very pleasing to the researcher’s Dean and the Dean’s guard of deanlettes. The Dean encourages grants for this reason, making sure to hire just those folks who are likely to bring in more government overhead.

The system feeds on itself.

For these and for many more similar reasons, the biggest conflict of interest in scientific research is government grants. It is an open scandal of monstrous proportions that scientists who receive government money do not declare that they might have been influenced, that they never admit their interest (beyond saying, “This grant was funded by grant xxx-yyy”).

Climate chaos

And so we come to one of the most cowardly unethical asinine foolhardy pig-ignorant acts we have witnessed in the thing we used to call Science.

You can see the picture above. It’s being passed around by the juvenile simpleton—this is an provable accusation, not meaningless abuse—named Greg Laden. He would like to see Willie Soon fired from his job, because why? Because, and I quote the ass,

Apparently, his research is paid by the fossil fuel industry.

The research in question is the paper “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” written by Lord Monckton, Wille Soon, David Legates, and Yours Truly. See Climate Paper Causes Chaos, Angst, Anger, Apoplexy! (Hacking?) for more details.

Not one penny, not one iota of consideration of any kind, was received from any source for the writing of this paper. It was a labor of love, done on personal time (of which, for my heresies, I have mountains). We wrote and re-wrote, and re-wrote some more, then decided which journal might enjoy seeing the paper. We knew (see Climategate) our names alone would cause its rejection from the usual “Consensus” sources. So we went where we were not known, figuring the work would be judged on its merits and not its politics. It was.

We submitted. Then we endured a grueling peer-review process (your proctologist was not as thorough). Our paper was accepted. And that’s it.

That makes Laden’s insinuation a lie. No fossil fuel industry funding was received. And even if it was, the details I gave you about the true source of tainting money in research also proves that there is nothing special about oil money. Indeed, oil money is less influential because (1) there’s much, much less of it, and (2) there is not the habit of the same people who receive the grants also awarding them.

The believers in science-is-politics who have organized the petition have attracted “21,263 signers so far“. This is a crowd that wouldn’t be able to define convection. This is a crowd that knows nothing about global warming, but they sure as heck believe in its solution.



UPDATE: (By Anthony)

I wonder if Greg Laden and Brad Johnson, campaign manager of Forecast the Facts, will be putting together a smear campaign to get every member of the American Geophysical Union fired? After all, in 2013, they funded their annual meeting heavily with fossil fuel interest$, and again in 2014.




257 thoughts on “Greg Laden, and his 'cowardly unethical asinine foolhardy pig-ignorant act'

    • Rather than a petition to fire Greg Laden, I’m kinda thinkin’, given the picture of the guy, topside in the the post, that it might be a better use of everyone’s time to take a survey about ol’ Greg. You know, like:
      -Considering Greg Laden’s sour-puss photo–I mean just look at that sucker!–would you estimate there’s a finite possibility that Greg is a tragic victim of “NLP (Nasty Little Prick) Syndrome? Y/N
      -Considering Greg Laden’s beady-eyed menacing-dork photo, above, does he come across, to you, through no fault of his own, as the sort of person you’d want to thoroughly investigate if you were doing a study on the impact of “climate disruption” on dumb-ass creep-outs? Y/N
      -Considering Greg Laden’s kick-butt stare-booger photo, above, do you think Greg practiced his scary-dude look in his bathroom mirror, before he posed for his selfie? Y/N
      -Considering Greg Laden’s alpha-hombre hive-challenger photo, above, do you just want to exclaim, as a matter of mere, idiomatic-English, interjection-reflex, with no belligerent intent, whatsoever, of course, “Hey Greg!–“YO MOMMA!!!” Y/N
      I mean, like, I’d say it’s ’bout time us lovers of freedom and ethical-science started competin’ with the hive-tools in the “survey” department. Petitions, on the other hand, are for little-phony, eco-weenie, tough-guy wannabes, I’d say.

    • Obviously, you’ve never experienced the expense of consulting an attorney. Unless there is a campaign to raise funds for the litigant, most of us in the real world can’t afford such.

      • That is why you seek punitive damages as well as the cost of your own lawsuit. There are also lots of lawyers who would take it on contingency.

      • markstoval
        January 31, 2015 at 9:32 am
        Don, you don’t think that many who read here would donate to a legal fund for Mr. Watts to go after this low life person?

        It was once considered on WUWT but the consensus advised Watts not to for many reasons such as wasting his time – which they would love as it would keep him busy in court and away from blogging.

      • Joey
        If you truly believe that, please go out and find one (or pony up the money yourself)…
        As much as I hope you’re right, few lawyers are willing to invest hundreds of thousands (millions?) of dollars in a long-term less-than-sure-thing. Most contingency cases are true publicity stunts or vanilla slam dunks,

    • The article was written by William Briggs, not Anthony Watts.
      [Please note this. Also, Mr. Laden is welcom to submit a rebuttal if he wishes. ~mod.]

    • It certainly sounds libelous. It’s an attempt to discredit him, professionally. That needs to be defended.

    • Don’t you think it is about time you consulted an attorney about a lawsuit?

      The Law does not deliver justice. It was never designed or intended that it would. The purpose of the Law is to resolve disputes so that people do not take matters into their own hands.
      The standard means by which the Law resolves disputes is to exhaust the opponents. Wear them down so they have no strength left to fight each other.
      As years of your life go by, along with hundreds of thousands of dollars of your hard earned money; year of stress, where your family suffers along with you, you will come to the realization that there are things much, much worse than having someone tarnish your good name.
      Yes, some do prevail in the courts. Some people also win the lottery. It is more the luck of the draw that skill or being right. Judges are human. They make mistakes. They can be misled by skillful lies. Perhaps lawyer and liar should similar for a reason; a lawyer’s job is to skillfully lie on the clients behalf. This applies equally to saint and sinner.
      Thus, there is no guarantee you will win, simply because you are in the right. The only guarantee is that the court process is not something you will wish to repeat.

      • @ferb I ditto that and then some. I filed for a wrongful dismissal case ( with drs proof) for medical reasons, to make a long story short we ( family etc) got buried. never again. The way AW is writing about these hacks is enough for me . Thanks AW and all of you on this site for speaking truth.

      • Reminds me of a lesson about drinking and driving I got from the San Diego (America’s finest city) police. I am not doing that anymore. It was very unpleasant.

      • “The standard means by which the Law resolves disputes is to exhaust the opponents. Wear them down so they have no strength left to fight each other.”
        One of the MANY injustices in this country (which just continue to multiply) and learning about the many is a case where ignorance is truly bliss, especially when the political structure is a major part of the problem as there is then no method of correction.

  1. On an almost daily basis we see more and more the spiteful nature of the warmists. These delusional simpletons consider themselves ‘touchy-feely’ left-of-centre ‘progressives’. They all drink the same toxic Kool-Aid, and it seems to be making them increasingly shrill, dangerously bullying.
    I’ve been reading Dr Tim Ball’s excellent book ‘The Deliberate Corruption of Climate Science’. It’s all in there: how the UN and the EU fund the ravenous, loutish beast that is the unaccountable ‘pal-reveiwed’ IPCC and its phoney ‘science’ and all of its hundreds of useful idiots – all on the public purse, thanks very much.
    I hope the contributing writers of this paper go all-guns-blazing against this latest wretched attack by warmists on the very core tenets of science and scientific freedoms.

    • Phil Ford, I wonder if its the “. . . spiteful nature of the warmists.” or if its simply that the warmists have found the key to the money pit and are keenly aware of the bounty it provides.

  2. Greg Laden said this on his blog.

    I’ve recently written about the Serengeti Strategy, a coin termed by climate scientist Michael Mann to describe the anti-science strategy of personal attacks against individual scientists in an attempt to discredit valid scientific research one might find inconvenient.

    Might Laden and Mann be vampires who can’t see themselves in the mirror? 😎

    • No, Mann was documenting the strategy he and his ilk use…after all, Laden claims that it’s used in an attempt to discredit VALID scientific research and we haven’t yet seen any of that out of Mann.

    • That Mann coined the term Serengeti Strategy is highly apron. Carnivore seek out the weakest and the sick, thus strengthen the gene pool. Dene people of the Arctic would praise the wolf for making the caribou strong. Likewise it skeptics that cull the weak and sick arguments used to support a hypothesis, and either make it stronger or kill it if it fails to stand on its own. If Mann calls that “anti-science” then he is the only one promoting anti-science.

      • Jim Steele “That Mann coined the term Serengeti Strategy is highly apron.”.
        ROTFL Highly apron indeed! If the Mann can’t take the warming he should stay out of the kitchen.

      • Throughout most of science since the 1950s, and in some segments from before WWII, there has been a increasing tendency to consider that any degreed idiot is entitled to be considered seriously, and worse, that any idiot deserves to get a degree. The sad truth is that the west is following the Roman pattern of importing talent rather than doing the work ourselves.

  3. Wow… Not that I disagree but I do not think I could quote some of the article above without being stuck into WP auto moderation. Looking forward towards the comments of this post. Think I am going to get a roll of duct tape, a roll of paper towels and a few of my cargo straps for reading of this thread. O_o -Paul

  4. Idiots, like the Republicans (in fact, they could only be RINO’s) who responded to the NYT survey that “they back ‘climate action’–

  5. Take a page from their playbook:
    Anyone who disparages Willie Soon simply must be an anti-Asian racist; probably a KKK member and not worth listening to for one nanosecond.

      • DonM
        February 1, 2015 at 12:08 am
        “i can be a racist & dislike all things Asian…. I can do both at the same time.”
        Taking a page from their playbook means NOT thinking logically but delivering the broadest smear you can.

      • Mick
        as luck would have it, the US Government’s OMB thinks “asian” is a race:
        “Race/ethnicity (new definition)
        Categories developed in 1997 by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) that are used to describe groups to which individuals belong, identify with, or belong in the eyes of the community. The categories do not denote scientific definitions of anthropological origins. The designations are used to categorize U.S. citizens, resident aliens, and other eligible non-citizens. Individuals are asked to first designate ethnicity as:
        Hispanic or Latino or
        Not Hispanic or Latino
        Second, individuals are asked to indicate one or more races that apply among the following:
        American Indian or Alaska Native
        Black or African American
        Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander

      • >Asian isnt a race
        Who died and made you Bruce Springsteen?
        Oriental is an antiquated term, simply meaning east of Europe.
        Asian is fine.

  6. I think generally speaking, we should leave the lawsuits to the thin skinned, Captain Queeg type bullies like Michael Mann. But if ever there were a clear case of libel, this seems to be it. I say go for it. Demand an apology and a clear retraction. If not forthcoming, sue the creep.

      • Funny that an academic like jdshore would be ok with this. Dan Johnson said my father didn’t have a Phd. This is shown to be false;
        We learned how much money it takes to sue someone. It is hilarious to me that we were being called shills for the oil industry, yet we didn’t have the money to fight the accusations from foundations that WERE being funded by industry. You just can’t make this shit up.
        As an academic, I am sure it would be ok with jdshore if someone (especially someone with an agenda) claimed Shore’s credentials were false.
        I urge everyone to look at jdshore claims and where they come from.
        Never address the science, eh, Shore?
        You do not even see your own self defeating actions, do you, Shore?
        The crumbling edifice of academia, aided by those who dwell in it’s halls. 8^D

      • “Dan Johnson said my father didn’t have a Phd. ”
        This statement of what Johnson said is simply false as can easily be seen by reading exactly what Johnson did say at the link I gave, which quotes Johnson’s letter in full. Why don’t you try telling us exactly what Johnson said that is false, but this time using what he actually said?
        By the way, I am not sure I would characterize myself simply as “an academic”. I spent 13 years working in industry and only 5 thus far working in academia (or 9 if you really want to count postdocs).

      • Just to help you out, here is what Dan Johnson actually said about your father’s academic credentials:
        ” Ball received a PhD in Geography in the UK in 1982, on a topic in historical climatology. Canada already had PhDs in climatology, and it is important to recognize them and their research…”
        Nothing that I can see at your father’s website contradicts anything that Dan Johnson said.

      • “I urge everyone to look closely at Shore’s claims and where they come from.”
        Indeed…They come from direct quotes from that letter to the editor, rather than just making things up about it!

      • Well I’m not sure what the heck is going on here with these comments from joeldshore and David Bell, but I’m dying to read the “…letter in it’s original form from the Calgary Herald…” as requested by David Bell.
        I assume joeldshore is looking it up as you read this…

      • Boy, David…You’re really grasping at straws! Are you claiming that Tim Lambert falsified the contents of the letter in a convenient way just to make your statements here 8 years later appear to be false? Look, even your father’s own Statement of Claim quotes the letter as saying that he got a PhD in geography:
        “Ball received a PhD in geography in 1982 on a topic in historical climatology.” Are you now going to claim that your father’s own statement of claim is not a good source?
        Of course, his extensive quote from the letter looks to be exactly in line with what Tim Lambert posted. If you can find the letter on the Calgary Herald website, then post it. I couldn’t. But your father’s own statement of claim shows the untruthfulness of your statement that “Dan Johnson said my father didn’t have a Phd”.

      • Actually, I just realized that the full copy of the letter appears as “Schedule B” in your father’s Statement of Claim that I linked to above.

      • [snip – rephrase that without casting aspersions on the integrity of the person’s family. – Anthony]

      • David,
        No…It is a YES: As I have noted, I have linked to your father’s Statement of Claim ( ) in which your father has quoted the letter to the editor in full. (And, it looks remarkably identical to what Tim Lambert posted, by the way.)
        Now is the time when you can come clean and just admit that you misspoke when you claimed “Dan Johnson said my father didn’t have a Phd.” Or not…Your choice!

  7. I’ve always said that if you take the government funding out of this charade they call climate science that the so-called problem would disappear overnight.
    If I had the power it would be done immediately across all fields that are even remotely related.

    • Too much funding is getting in the way of honest to goodness science.

      [US] Federal Climate Change Funding from FY2008 to FY2014
      Direct federal funding to address global climate change totaled approximately $77 billion from
      FY2008 through FY2013
      . The large majority—more than 75%—has funded technology
      development and deployment, primarily through the Department of Energy (DOE). More than
      one-third of the identified funding was included in the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
      of 2009 (P.L. 111-5). The President’s request for FY2014 contains $11.6 billion for federal
      expenditures on programs. In the request, 23% would be for science
      , 68% for energy technology
      development and deployment, 8% for international assistance, and 1% for adapting to climate
      change. The Office of Management and Budget (OMB) also reports that energy tax provisions
      that may reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions would reduce tax revenues by $9.8 billion.

      This is why climate scientists are so vicious and attack anyone who questions their Climastrology science.

      • And it’s even worse than that. The DoE numbers include hundreds of millions in payola like Solyndra, Ener1, A123, Tesla and dozens of other boondoggles that somehow always seem to directly support “businessmen” that give scads of cash to Progressive and Democrat causes and candidates.

  8. Greg Laden is a sleazeball. I’ve known that since the first time I ran across his blog. Anybody who finds it necessary to put “HARVARD” in neon is somebody who is fundamentally insecure.
    The people I know who have connections to Harvard barely mention the fact. They are embarrassed by jerks who find it necessary to broadcast the name.

  9. Oil funding for me but not for thee. LOL. These people are just toooooo easy to expose. The hypocrisy has hit a new tipping point.

    Climate Institute – Found 1 October 2013
    [Washington, DC]
    American Gas Foundation, BP, PG&E Corporation [gas & electricity], Shell
    Foundation, The Rockefeller Foundation
    Center for Climate and Energy Solutions – Found 1 October 2013
    [Arlington, VA]
    Strategic Partners: Entergy, Shell
    Major Contributors: Duke Energy, Rockefeller Brothers Fund
    Green Energy Futures – Found 1 October 2013
    “Green Energy Futures is a project and a journey that seeks to share the stories of green energy pioneers who are doing incredible things just below the radar of the conventional media.” Gold Sponsors: TD, Shell
    World Resouces Institutue – Found 1 October 2013
    2012 DONOR LISTINGS (Sept.1, 2012–May 1, 2013)
    America’s WETLAND Foundation – Found 1 October 2013
    “The America’s WETLAND Foundation is supported by a variety of organizations, foundations and corporations that want to elevate issues facing the Gulf Coast…We would like to especially thank our lead “World Sponsor,” Shell, for their early and generous support of the Foundation….”
    Sustainability Sponsors: Chevron – ConocoPhillips Company [crude oil & natural gas]
    National Sponsors: American Petroleum Institutue
    Purdue Solar – April 15, 2013
    Navitas Takes 1st at SEMA 2013
    “Last week, Purdue Solar Racing took home first place in the Battery Electric division at the 2013 Shell Eco-marathon. The winning run reached an efficiency of 78.1 m/kWh (a miles per gallon equivalency of approximate 2,630MPGe)….”
    Science Museum – Atmosphere – Found 1 October 2013
    “We believe that working together with such a wide range of sectors is something that we’ll all need to be able to do in our climate-changing world.
    The following organisations and individuals have helped to fund the atmosphere …exploring climate science gallery and the Climate Changing… programme: Principal Sponsors” Shell….
    EcoLiving – Found 1 October 2013
    “Your sustainable lifestyle begins here!”
    2012 Sponsors:….Shell FuellingChange….
    Climate Research Unit (CRU)
    “From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice….we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders….British Petroleum,…Shell,…Sultanate of Oman…”
    Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
    Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”
    Source: New York Times – 21 November 2002
    Sierra Club
    “TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
    Source: Time – 2 February 2012
    Nature Conservancy
    “…The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years. “Oh, wow,” De Leon said when told of the depth of the relationship between the nonprofit group she loves and the company she hates. “That’s kind of disturbing.”……Conservation International has accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years…”
    Source: Washington Post – 25 May 2010
    Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
    In 2003 and 2004 Rajendra Pachauri’s annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit was sponsored, among others, by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. In 2005 Shell gave money and in 2006 and 2007 BP gave money. The Rockefeller Foundation gave donations in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
    Source: [See their About Us – Archives]
    UC Berkeley’s Climate Action Partnership
    “The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley….”
    UC Berkeley – 1 February 2007
    BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois…”
    Source: UK Berkely News

    Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
    Financial Support – Berkeley Earth is now an independent non profit. Berkeley Earth received a total of $623,087 in financial support for the first phase of work,…..First Phase
    …….Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)……”

    Al Gore – 30 January 2013
    “Al Gore brushes off critics of his sale of Current TV to oil-backed Al Jazeera by saying he ‘understands the criticism but disagrees with it'”

    • Jimbo, I’ll take this opportunity to say thanks for all the illuminating references over the years. It’s a sure bet that the CAGW Industrial Complex has, and does, receive vastly superior funds from energy companies than those engaged in exposing the deception and deceit…

      • I’m simply doing some of the work that the lame stream media should be doing. They do like to expose things and get at the truth. Maybe the truth hurts.

      • That’s why it’s refreshing to see crude oil drop in the $43-$48/bbl range–they’ll have to be more careful about frivolous expenditures now.

  10. I assume that Greg Laden will shortly be calling for the firing of Phil Jones, on the basis that the CRU has received funding from British Petroleum and Shell, as is freely acknowledged here :
    Or will we be forced to add hypocrisy to the already long list of Greg Laden’s personality flaws?

  11. On a serious note
    it is very hard to open the minds of people who have been fed the warming propoganda as the most successful part of their propaganda is that anything posted in a site like this or written by a scientist going against “consensus” is paid off with oil money. I didn’t put a “sarc” tag on my first comment because a) it should be obvious that I was being sarcastic and b) because that is the actual response I get!!

  12. I’ll bookmark this for the next time one of the true believers tries to claim that nobody ever tried to get anyone fired for their skeptical views. David Appell?

  13. The bullying will not stop until the bullies pay a price for such.
    Crowdsource funding and take them to court!

  14. Oh the horror of $1 million funding over 10 YEARS!!!
    Greg Laden’s source for PAST oil ‘funding’ comes from desmogblog. Desmogblog then goes on to use David Suzuki as a source for the oil ‘funding’ claim. David Suzuki then goes on to reference Greenpeace. Is this a circle jerk?

    “Apparently, his research is paid by the fossil fuel industry.”

    which leads to………

    According to David Suzuki:
    “U.S. oil and coal companies, including ExxonMobil, the American Petroleum Institute, Koch Industries, and the world’s largest coal-burning utility, Southern Company, have contributed more than $1 million over the past decade to his research. According to Greenpeace, every grant Dr. Soon has received since 2002 has been from oil or coal interests.” [3]

    The link for the Suzuki quote now says “page not found”. I found it in the archives of the Wayback Machine.

  15. Hardball politics Chicago style, suggesting mostly that the paper is having an impact.
    As posted in the comments to the paper’s thread, I think it would have been even stronger if there had been less zeal to show negative net feedback from grey earth SB.
    (1) the 1/(1-f) net feedback equation is stable and valid to the inflection at about 0.75, as shown in figure 5. Even the IPCC’s overstated WV and cloud feedbacks are only f~0.65. Lindzen uses the Bode model Lindzen and Choi 2011 and it is not ‘bolted onto’ GCMs.
    (2) Reestimating transience r from the TCR/ECS ratio gives 0.76 not 0.82. Reestimating Bode f 0.25 by halving WV from 0.5 to 0.25 (for which there is empirical evidence in the missing tropical troposphere hotspot and CMIP5 underestimate of precipitation by half) and cutting cloud feedback from 0.15 to 0 (for which again there is much empirical evidence, laid out in essay Cloudy Clouds). That gives feedback sum ft ~ 1.5. Plugging those quick restimates into the equation using the other parameters deduced in the paper (lamda~0.31, k=5.35, q~0.83 gives an ECS ~1.75. That is remarkbly close to Lewis and Curry 2014, Loehle 2014, even Callendar 1938. In other words, foots. That is powerful. Even if a lukewarm conclusion, still near half of the IPCC alarm, at the low end of their plausible range, and suggesting no need to do much by their own criteria.

    • Oh, forgot to mention that either Laden is too stupid to run the equation, or more likely he did as just posted again, and realizes how this unravels the whole CAGW thing on a pocket calculator. Another falsification of provably bad GCM models. CMIP5 ECS ~3.2, energy budget ECS ~1.7, simple model ECS ~1.7 using IPCC estimates for all but ft. IPCC main can be shown empirically wrong (humidity and clouds). See several essays in Blowing Smoke.

  16. The greatest weakness of a free society is that there is little control over lies.
    That’s not to say I have an answer for that problem, or that non-free societies have less weaknesses, they have more, and worse ones. But this one is bad enough to make a real mess.
    There is no universally trusted source, because when you think you might have one (academia, science community, journalism) they get froggy and lie their tushes off.

  17. Why hasn’t Mr Monckton, who appears to threaten a lawsuit against just about anyone whom he dislikes, weighing in on this one?

      • Always amuses me how such a simple issue is confused by people wishing to cause mischief and harm to The Right Honourable the Viscount Monckton of Brenchley Sovereign Military Hospitaller Order of Saint John of Jerusalem of Rhodes and of Malta.
        Lord Monckton is a hereditary peer of the realm and that can never and is never in dispute. He came into his peerage after the dea5th of his father however this was also after the reform leading to the House of Lords Act 1999 that essentially said no more could hereditary peers take a seat in the Upper house as had previously been the case.
        Lord Monckton argued that this was unconstitutional but the law remains as it is written and Christopher can not sit in the House of Lords. Regardless of his own wishes to be part of the political process when many of his peers did little more than take their afternoon naps there only waking to block a (Labour) govt bill on behalf of the Tories, he has no right to sit in the upper house of Parliament. And that’s it, nothing more.
        His title can never be in dispute and to suggest otherwise is disingenuous, although I understand that Americans have difficulty comprehending the British peerage and also are confused by the House of Lords. The simplest way to describe it is to say it’s the equivalent of the US senate as in it performs a similar job. The reforms meant that anyone sitting now has to be elected whereas previously to that the title gave right to sit. It was very antiquated and bloated in a country which has become a republic in all but name.
        Lord Monkton could still find a place in the Lords and has attempted to previously, by contesting the seats of the hereditary peers whose seats were already safe before the reform. He just has to wait for them to die then join the political circus again. However I’d personally believe it to be impossible for him as despite him being academically brilliant his political and social views are out of step with modern Britain.

      • Craig (@zootcadillac) January 31, 2015 at 11:36 pm
        “The reforms meant that anyone sitting now has to be elected”
        Since when? There are no elections to the House of Lords, peerages are now given away as Party favours and unelected prats get to become Government Ministers.

      • @rogerknights and Craig. Glad to have the information, but anything warrenlb says here is irrelevant and not worth a reply. He is just another troll, probably accepting money from big oil so he can support his efforts. Maybe he is even in the pay of the Koch Brothers, who are not the Holy Grail of conservative funding despite what leftist whackjobs have to say.

      • Dennisambler: Elections in the HoL: What Zoot was referring to was that there are 92 hereditary peers in the House (out of 700-odd(!!) Lords) and when one of the 92 leaves (dies, whatever) another hereditary is elected to take the place.

      • @dennisambler. My apologies I didn’t word that correctly at all and did notice as soon as i had posted it. lack of edit and the fact that my comments appear to be going straight to moderation ( or at least the two I made this morning did ) meant I just could not be bothered following up with a correction.
        My thanks to Harry Passfield who has the right of it. I was referring to the seats of the current sitting hereditary peers and the process by which those members are replaced after death. The whole thing is a minefield that i barely comprehend myself but it always irks me when this comes up. I find many things about Lord Monkton’s politics and vies that I could never agree with and some even distasteful but many would like to paint him as some kind of charlatan pretending to be aristocracy and that is most definitely not the case.
        Sometimes this is because it is a difficult thing for people overseas to understand without some research and effort but often, as above it’s just willful mischief intended to mislead. my OCD can’t let that sort of thing stand 🙂

    • agreed. I followed the trolling of Lord Monckton the other night and was disgusted, though you and he were admirable.
      BTW – thanks for the link there to your Wind Turbine work from 2006. I need to use it here in Vermont. Getting nasty. Imagine: wind towers backed-up by natural gas! Wonder where they stole that idea?

      • Tom in Florida
        I don’t care who you are because I know what you are; i.e. another anonymous troll attempting to disrupt a WUWT thread.
        I asked why you are trolling this thread with an irrelevant question. And my request was clearly understandable because Bubba Cow understood it. However, your post I am replying claims you are too thick to understand my question so I will ‘spell it out’.
        Why are you “weighing in on this one” with a query about somebody not mentioned in the above article?

      • Richard,
        I asked the question of why Mr Monckton had not weighed in on a lawsuit against Greg Laden because he is listed as a co-author of the paper in question.
        From the article:
        “The research in question is the paper “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” written by Lord Monckton, Wille Soon, David Legates, and Yours Truly. See Climate Paper Causes Chaos, Angst, Anger, Apoplexy! (Hacking?) for more details.”
        Comments were then taken in the direction of asking about why no one was suing Greg Laden for libel, per Mark Stoval:
        markstoval January 31, 2015 at 8:41 am
        (Don’t you think it is about time you consulted an attorney about a lawsuit?)
        To which Don Perry replied:
        Don Perry January 31, 2015 at 9:26 am
        (Obviously, you’ve never experienced the expense of consulting an attorney. Unless there is a campaign to raise funds for the litigant, most of us in the real world can’t afford such.”)
        To which Joey , among others replied;
        Joey January 31, 2015 at 9:54 am
        (That is why you seek punitive damages as well as the cost of your own lawsuit. There are also lots of lawyers who would take it on contingency.)
        So it was not I that started the legal issue commentary. I was not trolling this thread but asking a legitimate question. I was wondering why Mr Monckton, as a co-author of a paper being erroneously questioned about funding, and as a person with obvious resources to do so, had not already started down this path. If this has already been addressed some other place than simply direct me there so I may read more.
        So, when you asked me an irrelevant question, I replied with an irrelevant answer.
        And thank you, u.k. (us)

      • Tom in Florida: I often wonder why it is that people like you have so much difficulty with using the common courtesy of referring to someone by their deserved title but use the childish device of trying to belittle them. Do you take this further and refer to Dr Soon or Dr Mann as Mr Soon and Mr Mann?
        And you wonder why others think you a Troll.

      • re:Harry Passfield
        February 1, 2015 at 9:50 am
        ‘Tom in Florida: I often wonder why it is that people like you have so much difficulty with using the common courtesy of referring to someone by their deserved title but use the childish device of trying to belittle them. Do you take this further and refer to Dr Soon or Dr Mann as Mr Soon and Mr Mann?
        And you wonder why others think you a Troll.’
        CM once referred to Dr Leif Svalgaard as “Mr” completely and purposely ignoring his earned designation as PhD in an effort, as he insinuated later in his post, that Dr Svalgaard was no longer a valid scientist. Dr Svalgaard, in response to my objection, said he didn’t care and often referred to others with a title as “Mr”. Conclusion: people secure in their earned titles do not care what they are called by others. I am sure CM doesn’t care how I refer to him on a blog.
        Besides, America has no Lords…. America needs no Lords.

    • richardscourtenay
      I see you have the flair (especially in the French sense) for troll-hunting.
      I cannot claim the same for myself, though I did see a very odd Norwegian movie about trolls a few years ago.
      However, I have a notion that you missed your quarry by one paragraph;
      There are no trolls in Florida but, hard on Tom’s heels, came a comment redolent of creeping irony and my instinct tells me that warrenlb’s allusion to The House of Lords is less reverential than it appears.
      warrenlb, if I malign you, then a thousand apologies!
      For now, I believe it was warrenlb in the library with blunt sarcasm.

  18. I must be very naive, but I thought science was about discovering the truth, not about feathering your own nest or lying to reach a conclusion that suits your own personal agenda. It should not matter a jot who funds a research project, the results should be independent of the wishes of the sponsor.
    This whole corrupt mess needs to be cleaned up.
    “Laden” — it must be something to do with the name!!

    • Right. There is no such thing as a conflict of interest in science. A published paper is either correct or not. If not, other scientists can refute it. If correct, it makes no difference who funded it.
      It has been a big error to accept the premise that the energy industry may not properly fund climate science. The industry should righteously stand up for its prerogative to do so. But the industry, like most industries, doesn’t publicly stand up for itself — morally, I mean — at all. Everyone who works in it, from top to bottom, ought to read Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, memorize it, and publicly spread the truth about their work and products at every opportunity and in every forum open to them. All of us whose life depends on energy would benefit incalculably.

      • The industry should righteously stand up for its prerogative to do so.

        Absolutely. Heaven help us if government becomes the only source of information, because no one else will come to our rescue from tyranny.

      • Worth repeating.

        It has been a big error to accept the premise that the energy industry may not properly fund climate science. The industry should righteously stand up for its prerogative to do so. But the industry, like most industries, doesn’t publicly stand up for itself — morally, I mean — at all. Everyone who works in it, from top to bottom, ought to read Alex Epstein’s The Moral Case for Fossil Fuels, memorize it, and publicly spread the truth about their work and products at every opportunity and in every forum open to them. All of us whose life depends on energy would benefit incalculably.

        Thank you. Book purchased.

      • “Right. There is no such thing as a conflict of interest in science.”
        Real science is the individual repeating the work for themselves. Completely impractical so faith and belief is necessary in modern science. I agree, though, that were the argument can be followed easily and refuted by a keyboard warrior at home that the funding of the work has little relevance.

    • Yes you are naive if that is your belief. The history of science is rife with fraud, major scandals, and battles both physical and ideological. People have been killed and jailed in the name of science. Reputations have been totally destroyed in the name of science with no regard to the innocence of the victim. Scientists have been known to defend to their deathbeds their positions long after they proven totally wrong. Kind of sounds like the situation right now, doesn’t it.

    • andrewmharding
      Well, science may be about discovering the truth, but flawed humans certainly are about “…feathering [their] own nest or lying to reach a conclusion that suits [their] own personal agenda…”.
      Be kinda nice if people who continually or strongly exhibited these traits were drummed out of the business…or at least starved of taxpayer support.

  19. From Briggs blog:
    “Absolutely nowhere in this fictional “controversy” are any questions of science asked, addressed, or even hinted at.”
    Don’t pretend critics like Laden understand that no one cares about their ad homs? Pathetic rants from childish minds. Sad. Unfortunate that people like Soon have to endure this.

  20. Sigh! – Yet another example of arrogance and ignorance being synonymous with advocacy not Science. When are people like Laden going to realise that when the ordinary person sees their actions – the result is disquiet, leading to questioning of the dogma and then disgust at the antics of Laden et al.

  21. Laden is very careful to attempt smear and say:

    Apparently, his research is paid by the fossil fuel industry…..
    This pertains to Soon’s failure to disclose his sources of research funding when disclosure would be appropriate……

    He does not say that the recent paper “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” is fossil fuel funded. Yet he said he signed the petition “reluctantly” in the above link.
    Even if the paper was funded by big oil, so what? Find fault with the work and not the man.

  22. It is always worth bringing to mind the forgotten part of Eisenhower’s farewell address. Everybody remembers ‘military-industrial complex’. Forgotten in the shuffle is Ike’s warning about the bad effects of government funded science.

    • [Thanks, Ric.]
      Old Crusader,
      You are correct. Ike said:
      The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
      Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.

      But it’s even worse than he imagined! Not only has public policy become a captive of the climate alarmist clique; the clique itself is thoroughly corrupt. So instead of being merely self-serving like Eisenhower feared, it has become self-serving and corrupt: the worst of all possible worlds.
      If they made just one simple change — abiding by the Scientific Method — the climate scare would have passed into history long ago. But now it’s all about the Narrative: frightening the public. Then, the government rides in on it’s white horse to save the day… and all it will cost is an immense rise in ‘carbon’ taxes and curtailing personal freedom. But the planet will go on doing what she does. Nothing will change.
      So the Scientific Method and all it’s corollaries [Occam’s Razor, the Null Hypothesis, etc.] are defenestrated, and the crooks have control. This POS Laden is just a symptom of that, not the cause. But he’s a nasty symptom.

    • About Laden
      The pot calling the kettle ……. ( fill in whatever you want I have a few choice ones). @ douguk and others btw, some of your links are being 404’d

  23. As has been pointed out, none of the authors of the paper were paid to write it. This wasn’t true about any of them?
    So why did the signers of this petition pick out the only one who isn’t white?

    • Because they see Dr. Soon as the most dangerous by way of his present associations? I have a lot of regard for the other authors of the paper, but Dr. Soon has the most prestigious association, and as we can all see, prestigious association means all to the Greg Ladens of the world– not how one argues, or the correctness of one’s thinking, but only one’s associations.

      • You are charitable.
        Me, I fear they may be aware of people’s prejudices.
        Spoken and unspoken.
        And worse, I fear they may also be willing to use that knowledge..

    • Because he is the most dangerous among those names. Having had the privilege of listening to his presentation of a paper I can tell you that he is not the most audacious presenter out there. But his quiet manner let me hear the logic and truth of the paper he presented. His personality absolutely does not get in the way. Fraudulent men fear this kind of person.
      Lord Moncton is a force of nature and is an easy target to shoot at. It is harder to get at the personality of one who is not known to the public and has the respect of his colleagues because of his devotion to his science.. So now, they can only go after his job.

  24. Laden got kicked out of PZ Myers/Ed Brayton’s FreeThoughtBlogs site on account of his ruthless harassment of combat vet Justin Griffiths. After Laden’s actions came to light I thought he’d slink off somewhere and be too embarassed to put his head above the parapet again. Boy was I wrong. To get kicked off FTB for nastiness – now that takes some doing!
    I’d certainly contribute a little to support suing this creature.

  25. I have no idea what motivates the Greg Ladens of the world, but they illustrate a constant and ugly part of the human condition. Often the best response to their provocations is to ignore them. I had to endure a lot of this sort of behavior when I served as an elected official and in that case ignoring it was always the best strategy.
    However, if the victims of this idiocy feel a need for some response, then the first step might be to locate his sources of funding, and those of his sidekick, and send to them a reasoned and factual letter making this folly clear. Most sources of money are only dimly aware of what their money accomplishes. Only a few of the most rabid foundations would feel fine about sponsoring scurrilous attacks on honorable people.

  26. The climatocracy are in a position similar to that of newly elected inquiistion enforcers: fearless, ruthless and fanatically confident.

      • Ernest Bush
        Yup…only took the collateral damage of 60,000,000-80,000,000 dead human beings over 8 years.
        Gotta be a more responsible way.

  27. Here is my comment to Greg.
    Greg, I have read the Boston Globe piece and I can’t see the conflict of interest regarding the paper.
    IF you can show fossil fuel funding for the paper then yes I agree. But if you can’t then why bring up his PAST oil / coal funding as a conflict of interest? Where is his interest in writing the paper? PS the work was NOT funded at all by the way. Maybe it is a conflict of no interest.
    I hope you realise that CRU has in the past received oil money from BP and Shell. Do authors declare a conflict of interest since they have HELPED BP via contracts for oil exploration.

    From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice concerning their exploration operations in the Arctic marginal seas. Working closely with BP’s Cold Regions Group, CRU staff developed a set of detailed sea-ice atlases,…

    conflict of interest
    n. a situation in which a person has a duty to more than one person or organization, but cannot do justice to the actual or potentially adverse interests of both parties.

    Could it be people simply don’t like the conclusions of the paper?

      • Greg just cannot locate funding for Soon’s recent paper. I asked him to provide evidence and he points me to newspaper articles. None of the articles asserts that the paper received ANY FUNDING AT ALL let alone fossil fuel funding. The articles talk about past funding only. They are very careful not to step over the line and assert what is false.

    • My last comment made to Greg Laden has been deleted. Here it is.
      “I have read the references you pointed me to and none of them assert that the paper under question was funded by any fossil fuel company.
      What I did read in the Boston Globe was a strong denial by one of the authors that the paper received ANY FUNDING AT ALL. They claim ZERO FUNDING. Briggs also denies any funding at all.
      Greg, did the paper “Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model” receive funding from any fossil fuel company? Did Soon receive any fossil fuel funding to write the aforementioned paper? If yes then please provide evidence. None of the references you gave says they did.
      Failure to provide answers to my simple 2 questions means this conversation has reached a dead end.”

  28. Full disclosure, I do work for the oil sands in Alberta, Canada. Yes, I am the enemy of these people. Apparently everyone writing articles on WUWT are also facing the scorn, rage, and personal attacks more appropriate to folks in my industry. Those of us in my industry are used to these types of attacks – it goes with the territory. To the writer of this article – you can and will defeat these cowards as long as you stand up for yourself and your work. Remember, the vast majority of us here in the real world are on your side. We merely want the truth. And you and your mates have mighty weapons at your disposal – your minds. They can NEVER take that away. That is where you and your fellow researchers hit them like a bolt of lightening – you hurt them where it counts, with the truth.

    • And isn’t it weird how all these scornful people benefit from oil in a thousand different ways and are completely oblivious of it?
      It’s astounding how stupid they are.

    • Greg Laden also says on his blog post:

      The petition is here, in case you want to sign it. I signed it, but reluctantly. On one hand I don’t thing firing someone is what one would normally do for violating grant-related ethics. Usually other sorts of actions are taken.

      So he does not think Soon should be fired, but signs a petition for Soon to be fired. He needs to see a shrink.

    • Is Laden saying the Fossil Fuel industry doesn’t employ scientists? Is it impossible to be a scientist and be associated with that industry?
      Or is he saying the Fossil Fuel industry will only employ scientists who believe and perpetrate global warming bunkum?
      Laden is a propagandist–and a poor one at that.

  29. Can I ask a question – and no this is not trolling.
    Does the funding requirements relate to the funding for the paper itself (which is what Matt seems to be saying) or funding of those involved generally ?
    Again I have no axe to grid here, and no opinion either for or against Dr Soo, this cuts both ways – how much “climate science” is funded by Tyndall for example, or Greenpeace or WWF.

    • My take is that the funding is for the research from which the paper is derived. As long as the funding, from any source, is disclosed, all is well. The reason is that with full disclosure, the reader can consider the source of the funding, and make their own determination as to whether the funding source tainted the results. Previous funding for prior efforts is considered irrelevant, and so off the table, strictly speaking.
      It is only hidden money which could influence the paper which would be the issue in a conflict case.
      And of course, there is no such issue here with Dr. Soon.

    • If a researcher is true to the science and his/her research reflects the truth (or lack of) their work has discovered empirically… it shouldn’t make any difference at all as to where the money came from. Sadly the folks on the CAGW side only seem to fund semi or pseudo science with a known outcome. Can you imagine Greenpeace, WWF, the IPCC or Obama’s DoE actually allowing research they funded to be published if it didn’t advance their cause? Considering the “research” presented at the last AGU meeting, Exxon, BP and Chevron certainly didn’t play the censor. I’m not saying they’re saints, but they’re far, far more realistic and ethical than any one of the eco loon and Climateer groups I’ve seen. Remember, the vast majority of “skeptical” science has to be done for free by volunteers because, in this case, the truth about human’s non influence on climate doesn’t pay. Big government types, Progressives and the oligarchical need the CAGW meme to assert more control and take more of our money, their interests are not based in truth.

    • Here is Scibull’s Disclosure statement:
      “i. Disclosure of potential Conflict of interests
      Authors must disclose all relationships or interests that could influence or bias the work. Examples of potential conflicts of interests that are directly or indirectly related to the research may include but not limited to the following:
      • Research grants from funding agencies (please give the research funder and the grant number)
      • Honoraria for speaking at symposia
      • Financial support for attending symposia
      • Financial support for educational programs
      • Employment or consultation
      • Support from a project sponsor
      • Position on advisory board or board of directors or other type of management relationships
      • Multiple affiliations
      • Financial relationships, for example equity ownership or investment interest
      • Intellectual property rights (e.g. patents, copyrights and royalties from such rights)
      • Holdings of spouse and/or children that may have financial interest in the work
      In addition, interests that go beyond financial interests and compensation (non-financial interests) that may be important to readers should be disclosed. These may include but are not limited to personal relationships or competing interests directly or indirectly tied to this research, or professional interests or personal beliefs that may influence your research.
      The corresponding author will include a summary statement in the text of the manuscript in a separate section before the reference list. An examples of disclosures is shown below:
      Conflict of interest: Author A has received research grants from Company A. Author B has received a speaker honorarium from Company X and owns stock in Company Y. Author C is a member of committee Z.
      If no conflict exists, the authors should state:
      Conflict of interest: The authors declare that they have no conflict of interest.”
      Surprisingly there were no entries from the authors in this case.

      • All AGU papers presented last fall should have declared a conflict of interest. The meetings were partly funded by oil companies. CRU should also present their BP and Shell conflict of interest.
        What I see Warmists doing is to muddy the waters. They are hinting at fossil fuel funding for the paper, but there was no funding whatsoever according to Monkton and Briggs. There is no evidence that Soon received fossil fuel funding to write the paper. Whether there was a conflict of interest is for the journal to decide, and not a petition.
        Warmists now need to find fault with the published paper, and we can move forward from there.

  30. Morph
    I leave it to others to answer your specific questions but write to give assurance that your post does not imply trolling.
    Trolls attempt to deflect from the subject under discussion often by use of ad hom.. Your post is directed at clarification of the issues under discussion.
    The sadness is that trolls have had success in giving you and perhaps others some trepidation in asking a relevant question.

  31. I wonder why Greg Laden fears Willie Soon so much. That’s my take on all this. I read WUWT daily, and if you had mentioned Greg Laden just in passing, I would have to say: “I never heard of him”.

  32. This Greg guy sounds like he is still stuck in the backseat of his childhood having an “I want candy!” temper-tantrum cuz Mom is beginning to say “no candy” at the checkout stand! Tell the man to get his big boy panties on and send a rebuttal letter to the journal.
    We will get more of this as these science toddlers get a dose of reality as their funds dry up and they don’t get to have desert before dinner any more.

  33. Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:

    First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Socialist.
    Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
    Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
    Because I was not a Jew.
    Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
    Martin Niemöller

  34. I had not heard of this man before so I Googled him . Notwithstanding Google’s statements that some references to him had been removed , there was sufficient there to indicate that this is one seriously disturbed individual .
    He even boasts about how dangerous he is .
    And yet this person (who , Warren please note, has no degree in physics so by your criterion has no place in the climate debate ) is apparently a champion and cheerleader of the AGW movement .
    I consider this man to be such a public menace that it would be sensible to petition the UK Home Office to prevent his entering the UK , as has been done recently with other US citizens of somewhat extreme opinions . It may be helpful that my MP is the chair of the influential 1922 committee in the House of Commons.
    We have seen in recent years in the UK how easy it is for extremists to incite mainly young people to acts of considerable violence over issues such as hunting , the badger cull, fracking, the St Pauls occupation and sabotage of power stations and GM crops . There is a obvious need to exclude this man , and if the ban can be extended to the EU it would prevent him from causing trouble in Paris this Autumn. I am sure that the French police would approve , if not the French Govt.

    • Yeah, Mike, quashing freedom of speech is the ticket and it is all the rage these days! I’m appalled that such a law exists in the country that that took out the first patents on freedom and justice. Sacrificing freedom of speech is well advanced in Europe. There are even Europeans who have fled to the US to escape prosecution for saying things about immigration and the death of European culture. Soon, they won’t be safe in the US, the last bastion, as law makers scramble to “catch up” with Europe. Look Mike, it isn’t yet against the law to be an A$$ol or a crumb or a miserable bastard, but the trend isn’t promising. Ridding ourselves of nuisances using the law unfortunately comes down eventually with a ministry of truth deciding who the nuisances are. I’m reading a novel called “Children of the Arbat”, a Stalin era work by Rubakov that was banned for half a century that illustrates the the theme and the evil lower bureaucrat snots that categorize such people. I’m sure the book isn’t far from becoming a different genre than intended as we move into that shadow.

  35. Sigh. What an extremely naive (or intentionally misleading) view of how the federal grant review process works, and even what types of research are funded. There are no programs funding something so specific as, “what’s wrong with this power plant.” If there are, please show them to me.

  36. First, don’t sue anyone. That is costly and time consuming. Do make sure this jerk’s actions are widely known.
    For those not familiar with how government goes about getting research done, the process is handled with a “request for proposals” that describe what someone (who?) thinks needs doing. Here is a link:
    Requests for Proposals (RFPs)
    A day ago on Jo Nova’s site I made a reply, part of which says: “ However, through the process of “Request for Proposals” (RFPs) there is too often a mis-allocation of funds into ideological driven and wasteful activities. The USA’s Senator Proxmire initiated a “Golden Fleece Award” to highlight such waste. For example – from 1975: “The Federal Aviation Administration was named for spending $57,800 on a study of the physical measurements of 432 airline stewardesses, paying special attention to the “length of the buttocks” and how their knees were arranged when they were seated.
    Briggsy mentions the problems with “overhead.” The concept is that a university has to pay for electricity, janitorial service, and many other things. Thus, the reasoning goes, that the funded research is an extra load on the budget and should be paid for by the grant. So, an audit (or several audits) of university budgets are completed to determine (across different types of research) what this extra cost might be. The result has been a percentage of the total salary on the budget line.
    This amounts to an additional 50% (more or less) of the grant’s value,
    I haven’t seen any of these things in years, so maybe others could say what they have seen recently. If so, state the type of research. Thanks.

    • John, the time for playing by gentlemanly rules is long over … if you want to defeat ‘terrorism’ you deploy their tactics against them. Ever wondered why ‘terrorism’ is such a successful pursuit nowadays?

    • It’s a growing problem in almost all fields of serearch and not only in the US. A researcher who does’nt pull in grants is ipso facto a bad researcher. As a friend of mine (at a Swedish University) said recently, today Einstein would not have a chance to get tenure since he did his research by just thinking. No research teams, no projects, no grants, no equipment, no overhead…..

  37. Laden isn’t finding any support on his blog, and he’s certainly doing lots of back-peddling. Now he’s claiming that he simply posted a link to a survey about whether or not Soon should be fired and saying that he thinks Soon should be investigated for ethical issues that don’t deserve a firing.

  38. Yesterday (31 January), Nobel Prize winner Charles Townes died at the age of 99. He invented the laser and discovered the black hole at the centre of the galaxy, and spent many decades on the vanguard of scientific inquiry. In a 2005 interview with National Public Radio, he said:
    “Consider what religion is. Religion is an attempt to understand the purpose and meaning of our universe. What is science? It’s an attempt to understand how our universe works. Well, if there’s a purpose and meaning, that must have something to do with how it works, so those two must be related.”
    Read more:

    • Our American Broadcasting Corporation’s world news had to talk about measles , football and a big snow storm. Just not enough time for a great man and his valuable work. I’m sure they will somehow find several hours for Algore someday in the future unless he freezes in an SUV stuck in a snow bank.

      • Townes invented the MASER, yes.
        He also invented the optical light LASER.
        Infra-red LASERs were developed just before.

      • Ted Maiman produced the first laser in 1960, a ruby laser, in the visible. Townes was trying to get an IR laser to work at that time but wasn’t successful. The first gas laser (He-Ne) was produced at Bell labs in the same year, it was the first continuous laser.

    • There’s considerable confusion in that quote. How something works is often fairly clear (well, considering climate, maybe not). Purpose is an entirely different kettle worms. Consider the screwdriver, what is it’s “purpose.” It seems implicit in the name, but actually the name is just a description of the form. When you open a can of motor oil, what do you open with? Well there are a lot of possible tools, but my dad’s preferred tool was a screwdriver. Open a can of paint? Well, again there are specialized tools, but even many professional painters I known just carry a screwdriver for the job. Then, turn to the “meaning” of a screwdriver. Right.

  39. For sociopaths like Laden there is nothing you can say to him that would faze him, he is amoral, not immoral or moral just incapable of having any consideration of morality. His thrill is in manipulation. What can you do about the Ladens of the world, not much, they have their personality disorder and that’s about it.
    The people he easily manipulates are lost causes as well, tell those folks someone or something to hate and they’ll line up. The best that can be done is to expose Lards ignorance and neanderthal approach to debate (bloody your opponents with a bat to the point they are unable to debate) and hope reasonable people are listening.
    And now for gratuitous ad-hominem; Laden literally looks like he could make a good Dr. Evil, figuratively he has an amazing resemblance to a pus filled infected boil.

    • No need to hold back, Alx. Tell us what you really think ;o)
      I pretty much share your opinion except for the last sentence. I don’t think gratuitous flattery is appropriate on this thread.

  40. Is Greg Laden’s middle name ‘bin’? His diatribes have about as much truth as other defamatory rants we have seen in recent decades.

  41. William H. Briggs’ logic in his blog article ‘Government Funding Is A Conflict Of Interest: Cowardly Calls For Climate Scientist’s Firing’ is simple; eloquently so.
    Following is my assessment of Briggs’ generic logic in his blog article. Research funding sources should always be questioned and investigated, thusly, requiring that research paper bias should always be a fundamental critical issue to analyze for in all research papers.
    On a separate thought. By Laden’s own explicitly stated position on funding disclosure, Laden needs to reveal all indirect, incidental and direct funding for his smearing articles and activities on Dr Soon. Laden should include disclosure of any agreements (verbal or written) with other parties that outline any form of compensation or future considerations favoring himself in return for his smearing articles and activities on Dr. Soon.

  42. the Shirky Principle, named after a statement by Clay Shirky that:
    “Institutions will try to preserve the problem to which they are the solution.”
    In some ways that’s a corollary to Upton Sinclair’s famous quote:
    “It is difficult to get a man to understand something, when his salary depends upon his not understanding it!”

  43. They say you can’t judge a book by its cover but judging from that photo of Greg Laden I’ve come to the conclusion that that saying is untrue. Either that, or there’s an exception to every rule. Perhaps such a potent visage as portrayed (hard to look at, eh?) provides the exception: a truly graphic representation of a human being I’d rather not know.

    • Actually I was a little surprised when I looked at the Alexa numbers (ranking closer to #1 is better):
      US or (UK) Rank Worldwide rank
      WUWT 12,244 21,583
      Scienceblogs 37,745 114,635
      Hotwhopper 73,479 419,141
      I’m unsure what ranking begins to define the shallow end of the gene pool, but I was expecting Hotwhopper and Scienceblogs to be in the same neighborhood. Scienceblogs may inadvertently get traffic from the more legitimate “” site.

  44. Laden’s post has caught the attention of Bradley Keyes
    Here’s Mr. Keyes at ATTP

    Brad Keyes says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:05 am
    “they will complain about the scientific consensus on climate change as not being evidence,”
    Because it’s not. Opinion is not evidence. Of anything in science. Ever.
    “but then approvingly cite the scientific consensus on vaccines, evolution, HIV/AIDS and loads of other scientific ‘dogma’s’ as evidence”
    Really? I’ve never heard “them” do this. If you’re suggesting such a manoeuvre would be inconsistent to the point of hypocrisy, I’d be the first to agree. It certainly would be. But I’ve never heard anyone do this. And I certainly wouldn’t do it. After all, the efficacy of vaccines is a question of evidence (of which there is copious). The association between HIV infection and the AIDS syndrome is a question of evidence (of which there is copious). There has never been the slightest need to measure, let alone cite, a “consensus” in either of those questions. I’d be very surprised if any figures existed to support the idea of a vaccine or HIV “consensus”—medical science simply doesn’t have its Oreskeses, Dorans or Zimmermen. They’d be laughed out of town as sub-scientists


    Brad Keyes says:
    October 30, 2013 at 7:20 am
    “Honestly, I’ve pretty much settled on “crank.” ”
    Then you’re of no use to Wotts in her quest for civil discussion. But since that may not be a goal you endorse anyway, perhaps you don’t particularly care.
    But you’re also being lexically infelicitous, I think. Maybe it’s just me but doesn’t “crank” suggest someone with crackpot theories? Whereas most of us “deniers” cannot possibly be accused of such, because we have no theory about climate change. We don’t need one. There are no interesting observations (as far as we know) to be explained. No phenomenon to account for. Unless, perhaps, you think the recent run of abnormally benign global weather stands in need of an explanation?

  45. I think the take away message from the posts so far is, nobody ever heard of this guy Laden until now.
    We do know Dr. Soon however, and he is a very fine Scientist. I would judge his work (if only I was qualified) by it’s content, not by the signature on his pay cheque. I have yet to hear a Sceptic criticise an alarmist work, for anything other than the content. The arguments are distinctly different in this regard which is why they don’t want open debate.

  46. I wish I could remember who came up with this wonderful observation about lawsuits:
    “If you want to get screwed, go to a courthouse. If you want justice, go to a whorehouse.”

    • Every time the man is mentioned here this little Ad Hom pops up. I have no love for the man, he’s a vile and nasty piece of work who maliciously maligns many in his activism. However the persistent jibes about his name being similar to Usama Bin Laden. it’s puerile and does nobody any favours. Indeed having brought this up before the moderators have agreed and given warnings to be civil and rise above that sort of thing.
      I have a friend named Bin Laden ( Binladin depending on who is reporting his name ) and that’s simply because he is a part of that Saudi family. Should he be mocked and abused because of an accident of birth, familiar ties to a man that was disowned decades ago?
      There are still many European families using the surname Hitler. And why should they not given that it’s been around since the 1700’s. Would you castigate these people for sharing a name with a man history demonises?
      Whilst an obvious way to attack Greg Laden it’s low hanging fruit and disappoints me every time I see it. And I see it every time his name comes up on this blog.

  47. Furthermore…
    Willie Soon is an animated and entertaining personality, whereas Laden is a plodding, soporific poser.
    Willie’s a winner and Laden is a looooooooooooooser.
    Come to think of it; are there any warmers with a funnybone? Not counting Ray Pierrehumbert, I mean.

  48. But this Greg Baby is another wonderful poster boy for the Cult of Calamitous Climate.
    Just like the Mann few of us could have created such an odious character to mock these chicken littles with.
    Yet for free and for real they leap into print, rush to control the narrative, causing most normal persons to stop, gag and question.
    I just could not have created believable fictional characters so stupid and appalling as the Alarmed Ones keep puking forth.

  49. Has anyone archived Laden’s article + (now reduced by 25) comments? If anyone has the ability, they should do it now. Laden has already changed the title of the article from; Willie Soon, fire him Soon to Willie Soon, will he soon be fired?. I would strongly suggest an archived version before any of the main context also gets altered, which Laden is known to do on a regular basis.

    • Greg Laden has been known to alter comments on his site so that they appeared to be criminal death threats. Archive any dealings with him with an independent third party. can create copies on request.

  50. One wonders if there is an element of ethnic prejudice in Greg Laden’s attack on Willy Soon. Since he won’t bow and confess belief in the apocalyptic end-of-hockey-stick warming gradient, GL thus can only regard him as a troublesome “gradient”.
    Talking of ethnicity, slightly OT but it now seems that climate politics are extending control over US immigration policy also, with would-be immigrants expected to have “correct” views on climate change:

  51. Its always best not to step in the sh** in the first place rather than to try and clean it off your shoes . Although its tempting to react this way , its worth remembering that the AGW faithful have shown themselves time and again to be able to ignore any facts that do not agree with them and accept any lie that does and Greg Laden will probable be nothing but happy that people that are reacting to his BS so strongly , for his looking for ‘martyrdom’ to be see has speaking ‘truth to power’ by the fellow alarmists.
    Point out his lies by all means , ask , him to back up his claims , but don’t waste effort on him .

  52. I think that the most telling comments on this person and his activities are those that did not appear, “the dogs that did not bark”.
    As Sun Spot commented yesterday ” where are the trolls” .
    Those normally passionately opposed to the sceptic position are conspicuous by their absence .
    Laden is finding that even his own side disown him.

  53. This comment seemingly has nothing to do with the essay, but I was thinking of the scumbag in question when I was re-reading a Chiefio post.

    It looks like the only thing with black body radiation is a real black body and that transparent things, like gasses, are not quite the same. In particular, CO2 likes to heat up instead of emit a photon. Now that also means they will tend to hold onto any energy input long enough to whack into one of the other gasses in the air and thermalize any IR they absorbed. Which in turn means that the bulk of the air (Nitrogen, Oxygen, Argon, Water Vapor) will be holding that energy, not the CO2. That, then, means were are back to “hot air rises” and all the convective processes of the troposphere as “what matters” and that “back radiation” just isn’t going to cut it. All the calculation and hand waving based on “black body” and “back radiation” needs a bit of a do-over.

    The paper that Chiefio is talking about is here:
    I am of the opinion that the atmosphere is a giant moderation machine that moves heat from the very hot daytime tropics toward the poles and keeps the night time temperatures from falling very much. The atmosphere both cools and warms. CO2 does not have much of a part to play in the lower atmosphere other than its role as the giver of life by being plant food. If CO2 rose to 2,000 ppm we would see no difference due to the increase.
    Ok — I am ready to be smeared by Greg Laden. (but first, where is my “big oil” check????)

  54. National Geographic owns ScienceBlogs and has editorial control. I am curious if they will find Greg’s behavior acceptable?
    Editorial Inquiries
    Technical Inquiries
    Reality-Based Contact ScienceBlogs, LLC
    33 Flatbush Ave, 4th Floor
    Brooklyn, NY 11217
    Phone: (646) 502-7050
    Fax: (646) 502-7040

    David Braun, vice president of news and editorial service at National Geographic Digital Media, told bloggers on the conference call:
    “I’m looking forward to working with ScienceBloggers – Sciblings, I believe you call yourselves – to complement what National Geographic and ScienceBlogs do. I know that you’re respected in your blogging fields.”
    Braun also discussed freedom of expression at National Geographic, where he said “high value and standards” apply to all content. The company is “sensitive to our worldwide audience’s expectations of our brand,” he added. “So we avoid unjustifiable offense and are sensitive to generally accepted standards.” Later, after Scibling Ed Brayton asked about a recent post called “Dumbass Quote of the Day,” to which Braun replied:
    “I don’t want to sit here and comment on a case-by-case basis but I do want to work with you to work this out. We do stand for freedom of expression. We want to aim for a higher level of debate that is respectful and doesn’t offend in an unjustifiable way.

    I believe it is time to start contacting Mr. Braun and see if he feels Greg’s behavior of trying to get a scientist who disagrees with him fired is what Mr. Braun wants representing National Geographic.
    Twitter: @DavidMaxBraun

    • With Mr Braun’s posting without comment links to the polarbear penis story and ‘Floods of 2013 prompt Brits to accept reality of climate change, BBC reports’ in his timeline, I wouldn’t expect much to come of commenting to him.

  55. Balding, overweight, pasty of complexion and with sweaty palms and hairy fingers, this new “species” of climate scientist is unable to challenge competitors via accepted scientific methods. Unattractive to both sexes it hides in darkened rooms fiddling with data and dribbling over discredited computer models for which it solicits ever increasing grants to churn out ever more fanciful scientific porn. (I’m working on a new film script and thought I’d share a bit of the outline with wuwt bloggers. I’m not sure whether it is a comedy or film noire at this stage).PS Willie Soon is my hero in real life together with AW et al.

  56. err, would it not be FAR more effective to email Smithsonian and express our disgust at the pratt above?
    and write in support of Dr Soon.
    direct action as twere:-)

    • Smithsonian banned my accounts on the 7 word stories page over and over, as I didn’t support the orthodoxy that Smithsonian pushes. Attacks on me by regulars there were allowed to stand, my accts pulled numerous times.

  57. Laden: 1. Weighed down with a load; heavy:
    2. Oppressed; burdened:
    They even have a dictionary meaning for him

  58. The simple answer to all this hoo ha is that the work done in return for these grants is NOT SCIENCE rather it is ‘expert’ opinion/evidence in a prosecutorial sense where the ‘scientist’/’expert’ in question is preparing a written submission with some supporting data that has a prosecutorial purpose that is well known and understood at the outset.
    That is fundamentally and quintessentially different from research. To call it research is fraudulent and it is as dodgy and unreliable as the worst excrement done for the tobacco industry, for big oil, for pharmaceutical companies and all manner of industrial intersts.

  59. If Greg Laden and Naomi Oreskes had a child together, it would be the Fugliest thing seen
    since Dutch watched the Predator take off it’s helmet.
    Now, please folks, I’m not being nasty, just Forecasting the Facts

    • Yeah, you are just being nasty. It is legitimate to criticize the opinions and actions of an individual, but not their appearance. I don’t care for Oreskes, or Laden, and I think that their level of debate is pretty low, but it is not good to stoop to their level.

  60. It isn’t the source of the funding that corrupts . . . . it’s corrupt scientists, who tell their sponsors what they want to hear, who are the problem (and they take any kind of funding they can get) . . . . .just as it’s politicians who are corrupt, and not politics. Money is simply a tool of exchange and is morally neutral.
    And, of course, for some sponsors, honest science IS a problem, cf the tobacco industry in the 50s and 60s. The suggestion made on here by some that public money is the problem completely misses the point . . .
    Plus, some facts would be good! Did Willie soon take money from the fossil fuels industry? If so, did he then compromise himself in the conduct of his research and the writing up of its results? And, specifically pertinent to Laden’s allegation, did he try to conceal fossil fuel industry sources of funding – and if so, why?
    Just as we expect our scientists to be honest and as objective as possible, it would be good if sceptics on all sides could strive for the same high standards, regardless of the issue or individual being discussed

      • He is obviously wilfully ignoring the facts and just throwing mud.
        But I still note that he only picks the author of the paper who isn’t white.
        Hogg was the name of the Villain in the Dukes of Hazzard.
        Is it a common name for those of that tradition in the American South?

    • I think what you point out is correct, jim.
      Big Oil has been funding “climate scientists” for decades–why, they even funded the CRU initially!
      And it is these scientists, along with self-serving grant-grabbing scientists from academia and government that have compromised themselves because they’ve corrupted their work.
      And anybody that isn’t brainwashed into thinking otherwise can see it clearly.

    • Jim hogg
      Your statement “…Money is simply a tool of exchange and is morally neutral…” has to rank as one of the top 10 most naive comments in human history.

  61. Greg Laden has a history of offensive behavior:
    – He has directly attacked and smeared Discovery Magazine bloggers over his false assumption of their belief in evolution.
    – He has posted the personal home address of a commentator he disagreed with to his Twitter account.
    – He was been thrown off of the spinoff of ScienceBlogs called Freethoughtblogs for “behavior towards other members of the community has made it impossible to keep them as part of our network.”

  62. Greg Laden is a “Poison Dwarf” like so many of the Climate Mafia.
    The above term applies to their morality rather than their physical stature.

  63. He accused tallbloke of something not nice.

    Greg Laden: Libellous article

    His bad behaviour comes natural.

    Freethought Blogs
    We are parting company with two of our bloggers: Thunderf00t and Greg Laden. We wish them both the best but, unfortunately, their behavior towards other members of the community has made it impossible to keep them as part of our network.

    A wicked slapdown of the man.

    Greg Laden: Man of Mystery

  64. He runs a minimal science blog on Discovery Blogs and I left a comment critical of climate change. Immediate personal attacks resulted, most of my comments are still in moderation, and I quote Laden, who stated:
    “Also, you are an asshole. Not sure if you knew that, but if I did post your comments eceryone else would immediately know. perhaps that is your wish..”
    No science was offered in refutation of my assertions.
    My post on my site with all of the posts.

Comments are closed.