Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher
By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015
Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again.
*****
*****
*****
![clip_image002[1]](http://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2015/02/clip_image00211.png?quality=75 "clip_image002[1]")
*****
*****
*****
*****
# # # # #
Author’s Comment Policy: I am so sickened by this that I really don’t care to discuss it, but others may choose to do so – feel free.
The “documents” consist simply of the contracts between the Smithsonian and Southern Corp and copies of the contractually required progress reports.
Related story: Smear campaign: “His judgment cometh and that right soon”
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
If I didn’t know better, I’d say this is an obvious attempt to distract from the real problems with comput…SQUIRREL!!
😉
P.S. We can only hope against hope the mainstream media will apply the same standards of scrutiny the next time they are about to ‘Ctrl+V’ a scientific press release.
We flush Billions away on cronies, but worry about Dr. Soon’s .000004 parts per billion!
The administrations name and shame game in action. Just like this presidentially sponsored slander!
https://www.barackobama.com/climate-change-deniers/#/
This just illustrates what everyone already knows “The Grey Lady” is effin nuts.
This fashionable bigotry (as it was called on a recent thread) will cause its problems for these vile people. There will be a time soon when it will not be fashionable, but the internet will not forget that they are bigots.
Good thing the Anthropocene Jihadists can’t read English. In that footer of the grant they, could-a should-a would-a read that the Smithsonian itself was created in 1846 (before the Emasculate Conception of “Human [Carbon] Global Warming” that occurred, as legend has it in 1850) by money from a … FOREIGN NATIONAL. How Scandalous!
Well as you say, playing devils advocate, just how would the “Anthropocene Jihadists” if not schooled in English have come to pin such a diatribe in the NYT, or Guardian for that matter, pray tell?
Answer 1: The Anthropocene Jihadists have one hundred “monkey” Anthropocene Jihadists at AGU, AAAS, Penn State U., EPA, GISS, NOAA and NSF (and the “Greens”) to randomly cobble together a document on one hundred vintage IBM Selectric typewriters. Micromanagers are still waiting for the “Hamlet” text to appear. This will provide parameterizing constraints on the IPCC models in use today and centuries to come.
Answer2: The Anthropocene Jihadists use Google Translate for all communications. LOL (y)
Ha ha.
http://pindanpost.com/2015/02/23/global-warming-causes-more-ice-but-the-smithsonian-doesnt-know-why/
Smithsonian science.
What’s that saying again? “Wow, that belongs in the Smithsonian”.
Your time is up on this massively failed conjecture. It belongs in the Smithsonian, Smithsonian.
(Although sadly it hasn’t failed has it ? In loserfraud world, this has been a success story).
you HAVE to acknowledge your funding sources…and Dr Soon did not.”
============
Bull Shirt.
“Why Models Run Hot: Results from An Irreducibly Simple Climate Model.” was not funded by Southern Corp.
Hasn’t Greenpeach has receive millions from BP? As such, maybe Greenpeach is secretly in league with big oil to try and remove the only competitor to oil, which is coal?
And all these new shills that are appearing on WUWT? Are they not, in fact paid by oil to try and get the US off coal, so they can jack up the prices for natural gas? With BIG donations to the campaign of politicians willing to toe the party line.
Why else would the Commander in Chief spend more than $1 billion dollars to get a job that pays $400,000 per year for 4 years?
I think you dropped your tinfoil hat?
Greenpeace received $25,000,000 from Chesapeake Energy Corp. to mount a negative campaign against the coal industry. What’s your snide remark about that fact?
sounds pretty clever to me, a free $25000000?
$25m for advocacy? beats writing papers obviously.
Actually, it was The Sierra Club and not Greenpeace which took the $25 mil. from Chesapeake.
http://science.time.com/2012/02/02/exclusive-how-the-sierra-club-took-millions-from-the-natural-gas-industry-and-why-they-stopped/
Kip Hansen,… If Dr Soon was not a threat to them they would not have pulled out all the stops to attack him.
The Smithsonian gets some funding from the government. With the threat of Senate investigation over temperature data tampering, they may choose to avoid controversy
The greens are use to winning with no one willing to stand up to them. This time may be different. We shall see, we shall see.
michael
“If Dr Soon was not a threat to them they would not have pulled out all the stops to attack him.”
How exactly is Dr. Soon a threat to them? For example, in all likelihood NYT reporters covering the 2000 elections wanted Gore to win. But nobody lost their job when Bush did.
Chris.. By “them” I I am referring to Green peace the group that did the freedom of info act so they could start their witch hunt. The NYT their just “useful tools (fools)” as Stalin would say.. You do know who Stalin is don’t you?
michael
Mike – Yes, I know who Stalin is – he is the one the Koch’s father Fred made his initial millions with when Fred Koch went to Russia and helped Stalin build cracking plants in the 1930s.
In what alternate universe is Willie Soon a threat to Greenpeace? If anything, his work can be used by them to galvanize support and further donations.
Since government funding is via congressional action, the political leanings of said congressional decision makers should be announced. Over the years we simply say “tax dollars”. Yet a simple high school course in political leanings of various congressional bodies demonstrates a clear bias towards the political faction in power.
It is overwhelmingly hypocritical to call out the name of anyone whom you think stinketh when your own backdoor is an abundant source of odor.
Mr. Hansen, it is incorrect to say “the documents consist simply of the contracts between the Smithsonian and Southern Corp.” This cedes too much credence to the claims of the warmist press.
As is usual in this kind of research funding, the documents are clearly labelled “Agreement” for funding research, and it is clear that it is a grant, not a contract. The distinction is important and relevant to the falsity of the charges against Dr. Soon.
A contract is used when a funding entity, private or government, provides funds for research and the funding entity expects deliverable of some specific work product. If such deliverables are not produced meeting the contract requirements, the fundee is legally subject to demands to return the funds on the part of the funder. The document agreed to between the funder and fundee is then a contract in the legally binding sense. It can be terminated at any time by the funder if the production of the agreed upon product is not progressing on schedule.
On the other hand, a grant is literally giving money away to someone in the general expectation that they will pursue useful research in some area, but by definition it cannot require a specific deliverable product. If the researcher fritters away time collecting string instead of working on topic, the funder cannot get the money back, they can only not renew the grant the next time it is up. There is no default mechanism because there is no mutually agreed work product. In general the only “deliverable” required in grants is a progress report, the details of which are entirely up to the researcher. Documents establishing these relationships are called “Agreements” precisely because they are not enforceable contracts. One party agrees to give the money and the other agrees to take it. That is the entirety of the agreement between the parties. These points may seem arcane, but anyone who has been involved in the funder/fundee process knows how important these distinctions are.
In particular Mr. Stokes is incorrect in claiming that the Agreement sections shown here list any set of papers or other matter that Dr. Soon or others are required by the agreement to produce. Dr. Soon is only required to produce a progress report, which is typically required internally and for IRS and SEC purposes by funders to document that the money they granted was in fact utilized by the grantee institution and was not “laundered” in some way for some other purpose. Inclusion of activities, papers published, or any other specific item in a progress report as cut and pasted here is entirely the discretion of the grantee and in no way is individually required as a deliverable of the grant. Dr. Soon could have fulfilled his end of the agreement with a general discussion of his results and no specific list of publications. This grant is typical for current research grant practice and is not evidence of financial interest in the results of research.
Nor is there any evidence in the documents that the grant was open when the work was done on the specific paper that has caused such anger. The latest date in the documents posted was a no-cost extension of period of performance into 2013, some months after Dr. Soon submitted his final report on the grant. That appears to be well before work on the paper under consideration was begun. Even if it had been a contract, if it was not in force when the work was done, without expectation of future compensation based on the results, there is absolutely no basis for a charge of conflict of interest.
Just a minimal listing of some of the grantees of the Southern Company is too extensive to list here. There are overviews and lists of the grantees, ranging from wildlife federations to universities, at http://www.southerncompany.com/what-doing/corporate-responsibility/economic-stewardship/home.cshtml
Reply to FAH ==> I concede that the documents are labelled Agreement. I am not a lawyer [why does that sound like a joke??] But I suspect that the document is of a type that lawyers consider a contract under the law.
Any contract law experts reading tonight?
Contracts are a sub-set of agreements. Unlike other agreements, contracts are legally enforceable, while mere agreements are not.
Don’t want to claim myself as a “contract law expert”, but the Smithsonian’s “agreement” sure looks like it has the form of a contract–an offer, an acceptance, and an exchange of value. So assuming that the Smithsonian contracting officer was not a minor or drunk on his butt, just why isn’t the Smithsonian/SCS agreement a contract (a legally enforceable agreement), again? Please spell all this out FAH.
Further, FAH notes that “a grant…by definition… cannot require a specific deliverable product” However, para 5 of the “agreement” “entitles” SCS to a no-cost license, as a specific deliverable product, in “consideration” for its funding. Seems like that aspect of the “agreement”, “definitionally” deprives the “deal” of any claim that it is a mere, legally unenforceable “agreement” and, rather, establishes the whole business as a contract. Unless, of course, FAH maintains that SCS has no “breach of contract” recourse if the Smithsonian fails to provide the specified no-cost license. Be curious to see FAH’s legal reasoning here.
Let me add to my above comment, that I don’t see where classifying the agreement between Smithsonian/SCS as a contract or not is of pertinence to the issue of any alleged wrongdoing by Professor Soon. Elsewhere on this thread, I think a very cogent case has been made that Prof. Soon’s funding was from the Smithsonian and that he, an employee of the same institution, acknowledged that funding. In contrast, SCS, as an indirect funder, was not the source of research funding, as Prof Soon received the funding, and therefore was not required to be reported as such.
Some commenters, however, seem to maintain that Prof Soon was obligated to cite SCS as a source of funds because even though the company’s funding of Prof Soon’s research was indirect. In that regard, Eli Rabett, in a 23 February 2015, 5:27 AM post appearing at his “Rabett Run” blog, advises (if I understand “the bunny’s” write-up) that the Smithsonian, in at least one case, sought a funder’s permission to reclassify a gift (treated as a grant) to an “unrestricted donation”. That reclassification then allowed the fund to be placed in a DDF (Director’s Discretionary Fund) and used as “bridge funding” for other research projects. Consequently, it appears, to moi, that the same logic that would require Prof Soon to cite SCS as a funding source would also require researchers receiving “bridge funding” from the DDF fund to also also cite as sources of funding any contributor to the DDF fund. Is such a thing really done? Or is the rule on citing indirect funding sources one that only applies to Prof. Soon?
Reply to FAH ==> Thank you for the very insightful explanation of the legal documents between the Smithsonian and Southern released by Greenpeace. If you are willing to write this topic up with a few examples and maybe include definitions of Conflict of Interest arising from this type of agreement, it would help many to read it here as a Guest Essay. You may write to me at my first name at i4 decimal net.
And thanks for the link to Southern’s other research grants snd efforts — I looked for it but couldn’t find it this afternoon.
I don’t suppose any privately funded research ever works, including how oil companies find and develop oil and gas fields; they never find anything, and shareholders never get any dividend.
Strange how the whole world seems to like the idea of a free market though, as they keep giving money to them.
And with big government returning trillions of dividends to the tax payers each year, I fail to see why everyone doesn’t want to invest more in it. (/sarc)
Meanwhile nothing to see here, move along…
http://www.climatedepot.com/2015/02/22/why-was-media-silent-flashback-nasa-james-hansen-received-250000-from-partisan-heinz-foundation-endorsed-dem-john-kerry-for-pres-in-2004/
Mann grants, 1996 – 2009:
Development of a Northern Hemisphere Gridded Precipitation Dataset Spanning the Past Half Millennium for Analyzing Interannual and Longer-Term Variability in the Monsoons, $250,000
Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, $1,884,991
Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, $541,184
A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, $330,000
AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship, $23,000
Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, $759,928
Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, $459,000
Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, $68,065
Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), $100,000
Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, $102,000
Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, $315,000
Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, $133,000
Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, $14,400
Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, $20,775
Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, $214,700
Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, $20,775
Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, $381,647
The changing seasons: Detecting and understanding climatic change, $266,235
Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, $270,000
Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium, $78,000
[May be a few duplicates]:
2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991 [This needs investigated. Why was Mann given this very large grant? It pays for a study of mosquito vectors. Should it not be given to a biologist, or an epidemiologist? Or was it just payola? There is no record of any paper being produced from this grant.
2009-2012 Toward Improved Projections of the Climate Response to Anthropogenic Forcing: Combining Paleoclimate Proxy and Instrumental Observations with an Earth System Model, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann; Co-Investigators: K. Keller (Penn State Univ.), A. Timmermann (Univ. of Hawaii)] $541,184
2008-2011 A Framework for Probabilistic Projections of Energy-Relevant Streamflow Indices, DOE [Principal Investigator: T. Wagener; Co-Investigators: M. Mann, R. Crane, K. Freeman (Penn State Univ.)] $330,000
2008-2009 AMS Industry/Government Graduate Fellowship (Anthony Sabbatelli), American Meteorological Society [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $23,000
2006-2009 Climate Change Collective Learning and Observatory Network in Ghana, USAID [Principal Investigator: P. Tschakert; Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, W. Easterling (Penn State Univ.)] $759,928
2006-2009 Analysis and testing of proxy-based climate reconstructions, NSF-ATM [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.)] $459,000
2006-2009 Constraining the Tropical Pacific’s Role in Low-Frequency Climate Change of the Last Millennium, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: K. Cobb (Georgia Tech Univ.), N. Graham (Hydro. Res. Center), M.E. Mann (Penn State Univ.), Hoerling (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center), Alexander (NOAA Clim. Dyn. Center)] PSU award (M.E. Mann): $68,065
2006- Acquisition of high-performance computing cluster for the Penn State Earth System Science Center (ESSC), NSF-EAR [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: R. Alley, M. Arthur, J. Evans, D. Pollard (Penn State Univ.)] $100,000
2003- Decadal Variability in the Tropical Indo-Pacific: Integrating Paleo & Coupled Model Results, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U.Va), J. Cole (U. Arizona), V. Mehta (CRCES)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $102,000
2002- Reconstruction and Analysis of Patterns of Climate Variability Over the Last One to Two Millennia, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann, Co-Investigators: S. Rutherford, R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $315,000
2002- Remote Observations of Ice Sheet Surface Temperature: Toward Multi-Proxy Reconstruction of Antarctic Climate Variability, NSF-Office of Polar Programs, Antarctic Oceans and Climate System [Principal Investigators: M.E. Mann (U. Va), E. Steig (U. Wash.), D. Weinbrenner (U. Wash)] U.Va award (M.E. Mann): $133,000
2002-2003 Paleoclimatic Reconstructions of the Arctic Oscillation, NOAA-Cooperative Institute for Arctic Research (CIFAR) Program [Principal Investigators: Rosanne D’Arrigo, Ed Cook (Lamont/Columbia); Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $14,400
2002-2003 Global Multidecadal-to-Century-Scale Oscillations During the Last 1000 years, NOAA-Climate Change Data & Detection (CCDD) Program [Principal Investigator: Malcolm Hughes (Univ. of Arizona); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann; J. Park (Yale University)] U.Va subcontract (M.E. Mann): $20,775
2001-2003 Resolving the Scale-wise Sensitivities in the Dynamical Coupling Between Climate and the Biosphere, University of Virginia-Fund for Excellence in Science and Technology (FEST) [Principal Investigator: J.D. Albertson; Co-Investigators: H. Epstein, M.E. Mann] U.Va internal award: $214,700
2001-2002 Advancing predictive models of marine sediment transport, Office of Naval Research [Principal Investigator: P. Wiberg (U.Va), Co-Investigator: M.E. Mann] $20,775
1999-2002 Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction: Extension in Space and Time, and Model/Data Intercomparison, NOAA-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: M.E. Mann (U.Va), Co-Investigators: R.S. Bradley, M.K. Hughes] $381,647
1998-2000 Validation of Decadal-to-Multi-century climate predictions, DOE [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: H.F. Diaz, M.E. Mann] $388,000
1998-2000 The changing seasons? Detecting and understanding climatic change, NSF-Hydrological Science [Principal Investigator U. Lall (U. Utah); Co-investigators: M.E. Mann, B. Rajagopalan, M. Cane] $266,235
1996-1999 Patterns of Organized Climatic Variability: Spatio-Temporal Analysis of Globally
Distributed Climate Proxy Records and Long-term Model Integrations, NSF-Earth Systems History [Principal Investigator: R.S. Bradley (U. Mass); Co-Investigators: M.E. Mann, M.K. Hughes] $270,000
1996-1998 Investigation of Patterns of Organized Large-Scale Climatic Variability During the Last Millennium, DOE, Alexander Hollaender Postdoctoral Fellowship [M.E. Mann] $78,000
For those keeping score, that’s more than $6 million in grants for various predictions, models and reconstructions over the last 13 years by Mann and his cohorts.
Shall we look into Mann’s
payolagrants? Or does the Willie Soon witch hunt take precedence?Of course.
Yes but more importantly – Did M. Mann ever get a cheeseburger voucher from BP? Now that would surely make him a ‘paid shill’ of evil polluters and invalidate all his ‘work’.
Dr. Mann worked with investigators from the CRU East Anglia (Dr. Phil Jones et al) and they indeed do list oil companies as sponsors. It’s on their acknowledgement of funding page. Nothing unusual there. Many universities and research groups take oil industry funding.
So, if it’s dirty to take oil company funding then a significant portion of the climate research I am aware of should be rejected…
Only a moron would equate government funding with funding from the fossil fuel industry.
But that’s what this is really about itsn’t it- you just don’t like paying taxes because you’ve failed at life…
Um… I think I’ve been a much better than average success at life. Maybe that’s just projection on your part, dog.
And if you noticed, most of those Mann ‘grants’ are not from government agencies.
You are right Husky. You can’t compare the two funding sources. One demands results and the other only demands validation. Where do you think the saying “Good enough for government work” comes from?
The dog gives new meaning to the term, “out in the cold.”
Ouch…some kind of truth there.
Au contrare, my pet doggy. I like paying my taxes, but I don’t like what current governments spend it on.
Spending $50 billion a year on trying to destroy Western industry, technology, standards of living and culture, is not very good value in my book. And I shall continue to resist paying those taxes, and donate them to WUWT instead, for as long as this nonsense continues.
R
dbstealey February 23, 2015 at 8:23 pm
And if you noticed, most of those Mann ‘grants’ are not from government agencies.
Actually stealey they are almost all from government agencies according to your list: NSF, DOE, USIAD, NOAA, ONR,
The ones from gov’t agencies are even worse. That money should be returned to the Treasury:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Michael_Mann_Money_011410.html
Husky
Because we all know the government is our friend and is out to help us.
Let me ask you something when the communist killed 50 million is Russia or 90 million in China or when the Fascists in Germany and Japan tried to take over the world and exterminate everyone they thought was inferior was your biggest worry about who was cornering the market on oil?
Both industry and government are out of control but if you think they are on opposite sides you are crazy. The difference is, industry is trying to control a market, government is trying to control you. Neither cares a wit about you or me.
That is incredible db! I had no idea that kind of money could be garnered by a few people writing papers. What Dr. Soon collected for the Smithsonian was a pittance by comparison. It underscores the complete utter hypocrisy of the warmists.
Chris
You rightly say
Soon clearly stated that he worked for the Smithsonian and he made full disclosure of his research sources of funding.
I am at a loss to understand your point.
Richard
The question is the disclosure of funding sources for research, not whether someone received funding for their research.
No, the question is of whose business it is that there is a disclosure of funding sources…
“No, the question is of whose business it is that there is a disclosure of funding sources…”
Are you saying a journal or employer of association should not have that right?
The last time I checked, no one forced Soon to work for the Smithsonian, which has these requirements clearly stated. No one forced him to publish in journals that require disclosure research sources of funding.
He could work on his own, and self publish or publish through a journal or site that does not place these restrictions.
A call for Michael Mann to return grant loot to the Treasury:
http://www.nationalcenter.org/PR-Michael_Mann_Money_011410.html
dbstealey February 23, 2015 at 7:06 pm
2009-2013 Quantifying the influence of environmental temperature on transmission of vector-borne diseases, NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991 [This needs investigated. Why was Mann given this very large grant? It pays for a study of mosquito vectors. Should it not be given to a biologist, or an epidemiologist? Or was it just payola? There is no record of any paper being produced from this grant.
More of stealey’s usual blind copying and pasting without any understanding of the subject, and associated innuendo and misinformation!
The PI for this grant was an expert on the subject: Matt Thomas, Ph.D., Professor and Huck Scholar in Ecological Entomology. One of his specialties is Malaria: http://www.thethomaslab.net/climate-change
Lists about 12 recent papers on the subject (out of 29 listed at NSF as arising from the award), here’s one with Mann as co-author, note the acknowledgement section:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/PaaijmansEtAlCCOnline14.pdf
“Acknowledgments This work was supported by the NSF-EID program (grant no. EF-0914384).”
Awaiting with bated breath for stealey’s retraction of this slur.
LOLOL!!!
The truth hurts, eh, “Phil.”?
What’s comparison for the goose is comparison for the gander. You give Mann a totally free pass. But not Dr. Soon? Didn’t think so. I still don’t see a Mann paper in return for that 1.8 mil.
Being a Mann apologist doesn’t surprise me at all. How about that Hokey Stick, eh, “Phil.”?
dbstealey February 24, 2015 at 6:13 am
The truth hurts, eh, “Phil.”?
Apparently it does stealey, you got caught out not telling the truth and now you try to evade responsibility for it.
I still don’t see a Mann paper in return for that 1.8 mil.
That’s your problem, perhaps you should try reading, as cited above:
‘Downscaling reveals diverse effects of anthropogenic climate warming on the potential for local environments to support malaria transmission’,
Krijn P. Paaijmans & Justine I. Blanford & Robert G. Crane & Michael E. Mann & Liang Ning & Kathleen V. Schreiber & Matthew B. Thomas
Matthew B Thomas is the recipient of the ‘1.8 mil’ and the PI of the grant Robert G Crane is another of the collaborators on the proposal, NSF list 29 papers arising from the award.
You give Mann a totally free pass. But not Dr. Soon?
Mann acknowledged his source in his paper, apparently Soon has not, there’s no equivalency.
Being a Mann apologist doesn’t surprise me at all.
Not an apologist, just pointing out your untruths and misinformation, your being a Soon apologist doesn’t surprise me at all, par for the course, trying to defect criticism by posting false information.
I imagine that if $1,800,000 were on offer in return for a paper, there would be a line of applicants from Miami to L.A. That amount is so much higher than the average grant that only the most naive and credulous would believe that it’s all just due to an interest in mosquitoes.
Also, “Phil.”, I’ve never told lies or knowingly posted misinformation. That’s your psychological Projection speaking.
dbstealey February 24, 2015 at 9:55 am
I imagine that if $1,800,000 were on offer in return for a paper, there would be a line of applicants from Miami to L.A. That amount is so much higher than the average grant that only the most naive and credulous would believe that it’s all just due to an interest in mosquitoes.
That grant was for four years work, that’s not exceptional, I’ve had bigger ones than that myself.
As pointed out the NSF credits the award as leading to 29 papers, not one. The Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation has recently committed $168million to malaria research.
Also, “Phil.”, I’ve never told lies or knowingly posted misinformation.
Get real stealey, you’ve done so multiple times in this thread alone.
You posted this:
“NSF-EF [Principal Investigator: M. Thomas; Co-Investigators: R.G. Crane, M.E. Mann, A. Read, T. Scott (Penn State Univ.)] $1,884,991 [This needs investigated. Why was Mann given this very large grant? It pays for a study of mosquito vectors. Should it not be given to a biologist, or an epidemiologist?
and this “There is no record of any paper being produced from this grant.” when in fact there are records of multiple papers being produced from it .
In reply to this: “here’s one with Mann as co-author, note the acknowledgement section:
http://www.meteo.psu.edu/holocene/public_html/Mann/articles/articles/PaaijmansEtAlCCOnline14.pdf
Acknowledgments This work was supported by the NSF-EID program (grant no. EF-0914384).”
You posted: “I still don’t see a Mann paper in return for that 1.8 mil.”
Sticking your fingers in your ears and saying ‘I can’t hear you’, doesn’t cut it.
“Phil.” lowers himself to name-calling because that’s the only real argument he has. I’ve got news for the anonymous “Phil”: I don’t lie. If I have ever posted incorrect information, that’s the problem of those who produced it. I’m the messenger, see, name-caller? I never post anything that I know is wrong. But every time “Phil.” comments, it is dishonest. Why? Because he is on the wrong side of the debate, and he knows it: global warming stopped close to twenty years ago. Any skeptical scientist [the ONLY honest kind of scientists] would look at that fact and admit that he was on the wrong track.
I will admit that “Phil.” is the the resident expert here: his expertise consists of doing internet searches, so he can sound intelligent. But the fact is, “Phil.” is just a chameleon; a wannabe smart guy. In reality, “Phil.” is quite stupid on his own. He’s a know-nothing. Take away his internet, and he’s a mouth-breather.
Hey, prove me wrong, “Phil.”. Instead of being an internet coward, post your name. If you don’t have the balls to do that, then you’re nothing.
Dbstealey…..you are way out of line attacking Phil. like that.
@Reed Bukhart:
When someone labels me a ‘liar’, the gloves are off.
What would you do? Turn the other cheek?
I’m ‘awaiting with bated breath for “Phil’s” retraction of that slur’.
dbstealey February 24, 2015 at 1:08 pm
“Phil.” lowers himself to name-calling because that’s the only real argument he has. I’ve got news for the anonymous “Phil”: I don’t lie. If I have ever posted incorrect information, that’s the problem of those who produced it.
Really? Stealey, you produced this statement:
dbstealey February 23, 2015 at 8:23 pm
And if you noticed, most of those Mann ‘grants’ are not from government agencies.
Actually stealey they are almost all from government agencies according to your list: NSF-7, DOE-3, USAID-1, NOAA-5, ONR-1, for a total of 17 government grants vs. 2 non-governmental. So who are you going to blame for producing that incorrect information? How could you not know that your statement was untrue?
And yet according to: ” I never post anything that I know is wrong.”
take a look into Nick Stokes.
fredberple:
Or anyone else. William Briggs (one of the co-authors) says it was written on the authors’ own time. The hit men from the NYT and Greenpissers are just dredging up old accusations against Dr. Soon. The hit men don’t mention “Why Models Run Hot,” so my guess is that Greenpissers thought they hit pay dirt with a FOIA request from the Smithsonian, and then whispered to the Times guys, “Hey, you want to slime the d•niers? Here’s an easy target.” Of course, they didn’t notice that the contracts were between Southern and Smithsonian, not with Dr. Soon.
Of course, the New York Slimes (as Mark Levin calls them) are nothing less than Pravda for the Obama administration. Unfortunately whatever they publish gets picked up by every third- and fourth-rate publication in the country as the gospel truth. So as usual, the lies run around the world while the truth is just getting its boots on (Mark Twain).
/Mr Lynn
[Snip. Calling people denialists gets you snipped. See? ~mod.]
Siberian_Husky No one here uses such language in reference to you. I think you owe an apology. Decide what type of human being you are.
One who engages in honest civil debate over the facts, or no.
michael
ps I await your reply
I often read the article and then the posts so as to get better insight. The posts on this article are not up to standard for this site with the personal attacks and acrimony. I enjoy the point counterpoint but the name calling is childish and weakens your arguments. Please stop.
In other circumstances I would agree with you, but do you really think Justin Gillis and John Schwartz deserve any respect for their transparent attempt to ruin the career of a distinguished scientist and to further the agenda of the Warmist ideologues?
/Mr Lynn
Well – not that bad. But it might be advisable for anyone posting under a screen-name to ask himself/herself if he/she would press the submit button if the real name were showing. If one must use a fake name, that is understandable in some cases, – – but you unavoidably lose points, especially as one spews invective!
Reply to John Towers ==> The inability of some to engage in meaningful civil discourse is regrettable. Remember, this is the internet, where children mix in posing as adults (and, unfortunately, in other places, adults mix in pretending to be children). That there are Junior Deputy Climate Defenders (from both sides of the divide) here who can not discuss but only call names is the price we pay for an open and free internet. I generally ignore comments from those not using their full real names (but sometimes I have allowance for those using their initials, such as Dr. Brown at Duke University who uses “rgbatduke”). It is very hard for commenting Moderators to maintain and enforce free discourse and to cut out the badmouthing kids at the same time. Even I get angry and over-react at times, to my own regret.
To read here and else where on the ‘Net, one must have an active and serviceable reading filter — to skip over the childish nonsense.
The only one of these “journalist” I have found with even a science degree is Monbiot of the Guardian and his is Zoology which still means he is far less qualified than the average sceptic to speak about this dispute between scientific equals.
They don’t have the scientific credibility and by the look of it, they just copy and paste the carbage from the foreign government funded greenblob.
This is why they are no longer the mainstream on climate and WUWT is the mainstream.
Wow it’s amazing how a coordinated personal attack of no substance can take so much traction in the media. Which shows more what a bunch of easily manipulated idiots make up the media than any failings of Dr Soon.
Meanwhile women coming forward with complaints of sexual harassment by the chairman of the IPCC has little traction except in India. Apparently Indian media is more concerned with men in position of power sexually harassing women than American media does, well unless the accused is a comedian, then it is front page news for months. While they are not at it, would be nice if someone looked into the relationship Pachauris public role as chairman affected his private company and his personal wealth. Let’s see the decisions made at the IPCC have a direct relationship to the bottom line of the companies he owns. Talk about a conflict of interest.
What does sexual harassment have to do with the “science”? Well nothing. What does Soon being funded by SCS have to do with the science. Nothing. Except if you are not a bobble head in the AGW crowd, then it means some ambiguous everything.
It is interesting what a bunch of cowards are running the Smithsonian. They are acting like trailer trash who claim ignorance when confronted with the obligations they have due to the contracts they put their signature on. The Smithsonian cowards felt the need to explain they did not agree with Dr. Soon, why not provide a list of all the scientists they do not agree with? In the same spasm of fear they then gave a mealy mouthed position on AGW; “human activities are “a” cause of global warming.” Yes “a’ cause among many other causes affecting climate temperature. I believe Dr. Soon believes the same, you dumb-arses at the Smithsonian. Thanks to the executives running the Smithsonian for sullying its reputation.
Can’t wait to see what else Climate Science can stain on its narcissistic parade to imagined relevancy.
It’s the Green Inquisition. I hope they don’t blaspheme themselves by driving cars or flying airplanes.
Wow!
The Republicans have suggested they will call witnesses to question adjustment of temperature records. Dr. Soon was thought to be on the witness list.
Why are they discrediting Dr. Soon? I’m sure you can work it out.
With their triple-chins purple with the Borsch-stain of Russian funding, Greenpeace are unashamed to add racism to hypocrisy in their bullying of Willie Soon. This makes Greenpeace’s money trail to Putin’s thugs even more unmistakable.
I am somewhat confused by many of the comments attached to this particular article. I, like I suspect many that read here, have read hundreds and hundreds of papers across a number of fields of research and I have yet to see any that list their funding sources. It appears to be the default expectation of some commentators that any funding source will automatically taint a paper but the same argument could be made that the biggest source of influence are the personal ones of the researchers themselves, regardless of any funding sources. One notable exception are government funded departments required to produce government directed results.
Reply to J Hein ==> You are correct. Those attacking Soon confuse general research grants with Conflict of Interest. A general research grant does not create a conflict of interest. Nothing produced by Soon would result in his financial gain….Southern Corp’s grants to Soon are not predicated on his various findings. Southern is an electric utility whose fortunes do not depend on Soon’s findings about the relationship between the Sun and the Climate or on his personal opinions on Climate Change and its causes.
Exactly. A very convenient confusion by the AGW-crowd. And in any case, what is the function of the disclosure of conflict of interest? Not a full disclosure of all funding resources, but of potentially conflicting interests. What is supposed to be the conflicting interest of an electrical company providing such a general research grant for research in the variability of the sun in terms of the earth’s climate? Not a very smart move by the AGW-camp, since all this hand waving will most likely bite the AGW-cult back as they are setting the bar really high also for the AGW-scientists.
“I, like I suspect many that read here, have read hundreds and hundreds of papers across a number of fields of research and I have yet to see any that list their funding sources.”
You don’t read very carefully. The last two posts at WUWT, and the one that follows, are about papers. Each has a statement of funding source, which is repeated in the press release.
Past funding over their entire career?
Says a paid Troll
Nick –James Hein and you are talking about two different things – and you knew that, or should have.
He is talking about “hundreds” of papers within his own experience. You said “The last two posts at WUWT, and the one that follows, are about papers. Each has a statement of funding source, which is repeated in the press release”. Really! What “posts” are you talking about! So you, in contrast, apparently, seem to have SPECIFIC papers by Soon in mind. Is that so? You don’t specifically say. And – very few papers are accompanied by press releases!
True, Hein is most certainly wrong, viewed globally, about a total lack of notices of funding acknowledgment. Such acknowledgments are common, although far from universal, are frequently pro forma and easy to overlook – especially as they may be tucked in at the end following acknowledgments of intellectual contributions that ARE interesting. Even that said, MANY papers do NOT have such notices because funding was non-existent, or too remote in time, place, or topic.
As I mentioned above, we need to be careful about insisting on literalist interpretations on what amounts to guidelines for publications. What is allowed eventually is determined by what the editors allow and not by what is written on paper.
The usual reason for disclosing sponsors is to protect the IP rights of the sponsor. With “for profit” research (e.g., new drug protocols), the reason for disclosure is because an actual conflict of interest exists… the “for profit” sponsor has a financial stake in the outcome. It would be unethical to publish research with favorable outcomes to the funding entity, that the funding entity can then earn a profit on.
You get into a bit of a boggy swamp though if you try and start insisting that all funding sources that contributed to research be disclosed. For example, some of us have “anonymous donor” funding.
Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures has received $500,000 in anonymous funds in the past two years that they have reported.
By Nick’s logic, apparently not disclosing the name of the anonymous funders would amount to an ethics violation.
Obviously I don’t buy any of this tribally motived nonsense.
There is already a mechanism in place, which I suspect Nick is fully aware, which is the Conflicts of Interest Statement (I’ve linked Elsevier’s). This disclosure is made typically between the author and the publisher (for some journals a sign off by the author’s institute is required).
The other thing to look at is when Elsevier created these supposedly written in stone rules versus when Soon published. Most of the papers listed above almost certainly were published before the new guidelines, which themselves came out of an abuse of peer review by people who were publishing artificially inflated results on the behest of pharmacy companies.
I’ve little regard for Soon’s work, but this is yet another witch hunt directed by true believers. That bothers me far more than what is probably sloppy academic behavior on Soon’s part.
Carrick,
“Berkeley Earth Surface Temperatures has received $500,000 in anonymous funds in the past two years that they have reported.”
Yes. And here is one of their acknowledgements:
“This work was done as part of the Berkeley Earth project, organized under the auspices of the Novim Group (www.Novim.org). We thank many organizations for their support, including the Lee and Juliet Folger Fund, the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, the William K. Bowes Jr. Foundation, the Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates), the Ann and Gordon Getty Foundation, the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and three private individuals (M.D., N.G. and M.D.). More information on the Berkeley Earth project can be found at http://www.BerkeleyEarth.org.”
I noted above this quote from a letter Dr Soon wrote to the Guardian:
“The rules of the leading journals in which my research is published are clear: the sources of funding must be openly declared in the paper”
Things are going to get more fraught as Paris approaches.
It’s not Dr Soon’s fault that the planet hasn’t warmed for over 18 years.
For some reason I don’t understand, the fact that armageddon seems to have been cancelled has the alarmists taking out their frustration and disappointment on the sceptics.
I personally will never forgive Putin for releasing Greenpeace !!
And why did he ? Putin is not a kind hearted or forgiving man and he has more absolute power than anyone since Stalin.
Was a deal made? Release of activists in exchange for Greenpeace using its formidable propaganda resources for Putin?
One cannot but wonder.
no such thing as a free lunch
I don’t wonder that – but then, I’m not a conspiracy theorist.
Context & Perspective
The court of NYT & Grist have just sentenced Dr Willie Soon to 5 years in jail for not having lights on his bicycle.
– when I challenged the severity
They replied “Well, he was lucky ……….. If it had been dark, we would have given him 10 years” ..
(….. On the same day a truck being drunk driven by Naomi Oreskes & Michael Mann ploughed thru a crowd of schoolchildren …. But they were let off with a caution and the right to award themselves a Nobel Prize )