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.
Of course, this is already posted up on wiki in typical con-nully fashion.
The triumph in their voices when they declare “he was paid by INDUSTRY!” never ceases to amaze me.They think that they’ve just shown a royal straight flush, when they’ve only got two cards and they came out of a cereal box.
I am intrigued as to why the Smithsonian has continued to indulge Willie Soon since 1991, even though they don’t seem to like what he says. He doesn’t have tenure.
In my view this particular attack on Willi Soon was undertaken to steal the headlines away from the revelations of Pachauri being investigated for sexual harassment. Let me explain. The news about Pachauri was initially contained but then started to spread world wide.It is obvious that the IPCC’s PR machine (which extends to all its associated climate activist groups) was caught on the hop (ie with its pants down as we say in Australia). In such a case, an old PR strategy is to fog the media with another “sensational” story that fits into the same newspaper space to push the other story out. Media mates are asked to give the new story big headlines. Willi Soon had been targeted previously by the warmist camp so all they needed was to add a new twist which is what was done.(and obviously so given the clumsiness of the story). Overall the Soon story is chicken feed compared to the Pachauri story which comes complete with a background ripe for investigation and endless titivating revelations about his relationships with female staff, business dealings and finances.
Next up: bob Ward is paid by Jeremy Grantham, who is an arch-Malthusian hedge fund billionaire who was heavily invested in oil, being the peak-oiler that he is, and I wonder just how much Jerry just lost in the oil rout.
Also Grantham is PRIVATE SECTOR – discrediting EVERYTHING Bob Ward or Jeremy Grantham ever said – Bob Ward and his master are pure evil – they are PRIVATE SECTOR money.
Also, Greenpeace takes no money from governments, but from PRIVATE PEOPLE, meaning THEY’RE EVIL.
Also the NYT is by now officially state funded. THEY’RE EVIL.
All this distraction from the scientific results of Soon et. al. seems to build upon a number of misunderstandings. The most unfortunate of them being the one where Smithsonian/Soon misunderstood the contractual vocabulary as they in the they year 1 report, refer to the scientific articles as deliverables, whereas according to the agreement the deliverables consist of a yearly report of the progress of the research (not of the research or research publications) and of a non-exclusive license to the data. Without that misunderstanding there would be little to wave hands within the AGW-camp since “evil money” is being handed to both sides of the AGW-debate. The actual story is however the desperation of the AGW-crowd displayed by the need to shoot the messengers when little can be done about the message.
Coincidence ? Not, in my view. This was a timed strategy to get the Pachauri story off the headlines and quickly. Think of the damage it does to have your IPCC Chairman potentially (not proven) reduced to being a harasser of women. Think of all those young women who are committed to saving the planet and believe that they are equals in their quest. And here is your leader accused of sexual harassment. Not nice and not only one staff member but several staff members over different years are making the case. Dare I say it, in many women’s eyes this suggests a “dirty old man” syndrome which, regardless of politics, is an absolute no,no. Not a good signal is it from the IPCC or the UN? And, what’s worse for the IPCC it will cause all sorts of divisions within the organization. Now deal with this and the fact that the planet hasn’t warmed for 15 plus years. The IPCC is in heaps of trouble. Just mere mortals who make mistakes?
Mem, I hope you were not addressing with you reply since otherwise you completely misunderstood my post.
OK, so James Hansen receives $250,000 cash from the Heinz Foundation for his “great work” in 2004. The Heinz Foundation is headed by Democrat Presidential candidate John Kerry’s wife, Teresa Heinz. Al Gore, who establishes Generation Investment Management, focused on carbon trading, carbon credits, etc., in 2004, conveniently tosses $6 million to John Kerry for his run for the presidency.
Let’s see =
James Hansen receives money from Kerry’s wife.
Kerry receives money from Al Gore.
Al Gore stands to make millions, possibly billions, should Kerry win office.
I’m sure NY Times covered all that when it happened. And Hansen has declared all his financial conflicts of interest on his research work ever since.
Don’t forget the Rolex from the WWF.
http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2006/nov/22/climatechange.climatechangeenvironment
Imagine if the Koch brothers gave Soon an award and a Rolex.
Your comment pretty much sums up the rotten state of ‘climate science’.
Sceptics are outfunded by alarmists by several thousands to one, and have to fight against the machinations of the Green Blob in the left wing media, plus the smears of dodgy unscrupulous politicians. Yet the alarmists are losing the argument, as nature refuses to confirm the supposed catastrophe caused by predicted runaway global warming.
The politicians who support green policies are usually tainted by their personal, or spouse’s, investment policies. Add to that, the likes of Greenpeace and Friends of the Earth, whose understanding of science makes Michael Mann appear honourable and honest.
Sometimes I think it is a miracle we sceptics have managed to survive.
There are big monies in renewable energy. The big oil, like Shell, simply supports the catastrophic AGW scare because they know they can provide renewables and make profit with them, and the world will be in any case using a lot of oil to the foreseeable future.
There is no such thing as corporate money in dubious climate change research. There is a lot of money in dubious ‘renewable’ schemes.
Bevan:
Dr. Soon worked for the Smithsonian and did not acknowledge his funding in those papers.
___________________________________
What a cr@p argument.
I have written reports for a corporation. Do you think I add a ‘funding disclosure’ to the report? I am an employee – where the money comes from is the corporation’s business. The report is the corporation’s property: they bought it, they organised it, they own it, and they did something – somewhere – to earn the money to do so.
If you are doing freelance work, that is different. Your responsibility. But it is clear here that Smithsonian arranged and signed the contract with Southern, and so it is their responsibility. And since they would have ‘signed off’ the resulting paper as being fit for publication, it is doubly their responsibility. So for the Smithsonian to turn around and say it is Soon’s problem, and they are investigating, is the height of disreputable dealing. If there is a University Lecturers’ union in the US, they should be investigating the Smithsonian.
But they will not, of course, because if they are like NAFTHE, the UK’s university lecturer’s union, they will be uber-supporters of Greenpeace. In fact, NAFTHE has its own brigade of student and unemployed ‘brownshirts’ called the ‘UAF’, who are paid to go and beat up anyone that liberals and Greenpeace disagree with. (Yes, the UAF stormtroopers are run from the NAFTHE offices in London.)
These, I am afraid, are the levels to which the modern education establishment have sunk to. Academia is no longer a matter of enlightened debate in hallowed halls, it is all about the deployment of ‘brownshirts’ to shout down the opposition, or put the literal boot in during violent demonstrations. And many of these riots have been violent enough to turn into kristallnachts. Strangely, if you talk to them, these ‘enforcers’ think they are being liberal and enlightened, when they are actually emulating the very worst politics that the modern world has known.
R
Who’d want to be an iconoclast in this game? Ah, but that is why they are doing this to Dr Soon
Sadly has a smear job its working , that fact it lies and BS , does not mean a thing .
But then this is climate ‘science ‘ where lies and BS have far more value than reality and honest data .
I would be proud to be associated with any fossil fuel company or Utility at the moment. Without Coal and Gas millions of people in North America would be dead by now from the cold. Industry would have ground to a halt. The miners and the drillers produce it and the Utilities convert it to useful energy and people stay warm, get fed, get medical treatment in warm hospitals while the temperatures drop to minus 20.
Now tell me, Mr Gillis and Mr schwartz what exactly have you done to help keep people alive and working this winter. Tell me what Greenpeace and WWF have done to keep people alive and warm…..No article on that. What a surprise!
In the interests of full disclosure I worked in the oil and chemical industry all my life and now have the illnesses to prove it, but I am thouroughly proud of my working life and would start again in the same industry if I left college tomorrow. So F.U. Greenpeace and your toadies.
+1 Yes, we have been remiss in allowing the left and the enviro-whackos to demonize the ‘fossil-fuel’ companies. They are the life-blood of our civilization and the source of our prosperity. They should be celebrated, not vilified. /Mr Lynn
This attack should work very effectively.
You can’t do research without money. And this attack will have a chilling effect on bodies accepting money – they will soon only be able to accept funding from ‘acceptable’ sources. And therefore will only be able to make ‘acceptable’ ‘scientific’ findings’…
@Pethefin
“…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….”
Er… no. Pro-AGW scientists are allowed to accept money from ANY source – including ISIS, North Korea, and the Association of Child Murderers and Tax Dodgers. Because they are GOOD.
Climate skeptics, on the other hand, are not even allowed to spend their OWN money on independent research. Because they are BAD.,…
@Dodgy Geezer
In the short run yes, but it is our task to make sure that in the long run, the AGW-cult will not be able to fool the majority of the rest of the people all the time. Once this childish game of good vs. evil is revealed, the public will loose their respect for the AGW-crowd, although it might take few more years of “the pause” before people start asking questions…
Reply to Pethefin from mem
No, it was not a specific reply to you.
If it was a diversionary tactic to help Pachauri, it clearly hasn’t worked
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/world-asia-india-31601122
No chairman, no warming. I’d say we’re in for another vanishing polar bear moment!
Great news about the holy leader. The house of cards is wavering in a cold wind.
1. Has ANY paper refuted Dr. Soon’s paper?
2. Pierre L. Gosselin at notrickszone has compiled the following referential list. One doesn’t have to read very far to see some interesting connections.
http://notrickszone.com/2015/02/09/long-list-of-warmist-organizations-scientists-haul-in-huge-money-from-big-oil-and-heavy-industry/#sthash.37UfnLFX.eobAk8Tn.dpbs
Personally I don’t ever give a flying stuff who pays for any research. All this hysteria shows both sides really just want to be able to appeal to authority.
The indentity of the paymaster matters only when the science stops and the advocacy starts. You can tell them apart because only one discloses its data and its code.
I haven’t taken the trouble to find out if Soon et al have disclosed but if this issue bothers you that’s where to start.
So if Dr. Soon was sort of ‘bus hopping’ would you then throw him: (0) Under the bus, (1) Over the bus, (2) In front of the Bus, (3) Behind the bus, (4) Next to the bus, (5) There is no such thing as the bus, (6) Dr. Soon is the bus, (7) Dr. Soon drives the bus, (8) Dr. Soon rides the bus or (9) Dr. Soon owns the bus?
Question for ICU ==> What is “bus hopping”? and what is “sort of ‘bus hopping’? Thanks.
Pachauri
ICU:
Are you blind? Pachauri threw himself under the bus.
No one made him chase skirts, and it certainly isn’t anyone else’s fault.
In attacking Dr. Soon, green journalists display a quite stunning world view. Behind their writings you can see their logic:
Climate scientists are paid to publish results supporting Global Warming.
Dr. Soon’s results don’t support Global Warming.
QED Dr. Soon is paid by those against Global Warming.
Seeing all the fame and fortune going to true believers, they can not imagine a scientist motivated by his own integrity. After all, in their view, all published results are bought and paid for.
Green journalists attacking Dr. Soon reveal their operating assumption: Climate science is totally corrupt. . .well, 97% corrupt.
[snip . . put up some evidence instead of a drive by shot . . mod]
So I guess the papers are so tainted by who paid for them they have been refuted and retracted?
No thought not.
Just a smear then.
Interesting, so it’s fine to talk about corrupt government funding before even knowing the results of the research – that’s apparently not a smear from the comments I read here. But for publications or the Smithsonian to require disclosure of funding sources by all researchers (not just Soon) IS a smear. Do I have that correctly?
As I pointed out above, there is a separate document that you supply when you send a paper in to get published, which is the Conflict of Interest statement.
The purpose of supplying the sponsor’s name was to protect the IP of the sponsor (you don’t always “own” the IP of work done for a sponsor).
It is also, in the modern day of large corporate donors, to adequately warn readers of the vested interest in a sponsor (e.g., a pharmaceutical company) in the outcome of the research. That is a relatively new ethical requirement, and postdates most of Soon’s publications.
Reply to Carrick ==> What gets reported in Conflict of Interest statement are, well, conflicts of interest — which are well defined by various governmental oversight bodies and in the link at Elsevier (given half a dozen times in comments). What doesn’t get reported in Conflict of Interest statements is “any and all funding ever received by any of the authors from any source for anything and everything.”
The papers in question, and the question of a general research grant to Soon from Southern Services Company, revolve around the difference between “sponsored research” — in which some person or entity pay a researcher or group of researchers to so a specific piece of work on behalf of the sponsor — and a unfettered general research grant, which is what Soon received from Southern. Southern did not sponsor any of Soon’s paper.
Even if they had paid him $ X.xx to produce “Some Climate Paper” — in which case there would have been a reporting requirement — it would not be judged an improper conflict — Southern Services Company, an electric utility conglomerate, had no influence over what findings he published. Further, it is absurd to say that Soon would financially benefit from Southern based on his findings.
Kip Hansen:
One caveat here. You certainly don’t need to list “any and all funding ever received by any of the authors from any source for anything and everything”. The Conflict of Interest form is to allow third party to screen for the existence of de facto conflicts of interest. In order to do that, you do need to list all funding sources that were provided non-trivial assistance towards the completion of this research.
Yes, I agree with this.
Without a vested financial interest in the outcome of the study, there is no de facto conflict of interest.
To be clear to people who don’t have to deal with this sort of thing, the existence of conflicts of interest is itself not an issue. When you have conflicts of interest, they need to be properly managed, but usually it is not necessary to avoid them. With pharmaceutical companies, it is a good thing they have the funds to provide the research to study the efficacy of drugs that they have developed.
It goes without saying that when a researcher takes money from a pharm company, he has created a conflict of interest. He has done nothing wrong by doing so. Hiding that conflict of interest is a problem. Reporting that the pharm company funded the research is one way to help manage that conflict of interest.
In the case of electric companies, they will sell electricity regardless of whether it is CO2 neutral or CO2 intensive to produce. It matters neither way to them whether there is e.g. a new accord on CO2 control. It matters to the consumer how much they will pay, but not to the electric company.
The electric company has no financial stake in the outcome, and for organizations that is chiefly what matters here. In addition, the company may decide they want to not be listed as a donor because of the possibility of negative publicity in the funding of controversial research. That is totally within their rights.
Why not listing these fundings sources is making Greenpeace bleed out of their eyes is frankly that it robs them of the ability to easily target organizations that fund heretical research. It has nothing to do with actual conflicts of interest and they (and their defenders) know it, and more to do with their ability to act in a hypocritical manner towards dissent of views that they hold dearly.
[snip – policy violation, racist rant -mod]
[snip – policy violation – hateful, racist laden rant -mod]
Thank you.
There is no potential conflict of interest of relevance for the following general situation:
A researcher is paid money ‘$M’ by funder ‘X’ to conduct research ‘A’. When the research ‘A’ is done the researcher has put in his bank money ‘$P’ which is the part of the money ‘$M ‘that funder ‘X’ paid for the researcher’s time during the research ‘A’. Then, long after research ‘A’ is done, to conduct other separate research ‘B’ which is self-funded, the researcher uses some of the money ‘$P’ in his bank account to pay for his living and costs while doing research ‘B’. There is no relevant potential conflict of interest to be raised by the researcher using the money ‘$P’ for research ‘B’.
If the any MSM news outlets are arguing that kind situation is unethical or lacking integrity, then they lack meaningful intellectual basis for their argument. If they are arguing that then they are smearing a researcher which means some of the MSM have ethical / integrity issues.
John
Even more damning are, I think, Greenpeace’s efforts to get the IRS to go after Willy Soon, alleging that he is in violation of the law if he is invited to and speaks at a political hearing.
The letter, which is concerned with funding for ~4 months work at two instances, is addressed directly to IRS commissioner John Koskinen (whose name they didn’t get right).
No, Greenpeace is no friend of humans, nor of civilization. And neither of nature or environment. They are no friends of the earth. They are strident players/soldiers in an ongoing culture war, which they however not want to be obvious to the broader population …
The attack on Dr. Soon is coordinated by a complicit Administration taking its guidance from Greenpeace and similar groups, and working with the mainstream media, the Smithsonian, the IRS, etc., to tar and feather anyone who publicly says things they don’t want the public to hear.
Before warrenlb or some other jamoke decides to call that a conspiracy theory, consider this:
ABC News executive producer Ian Cameron is married to Susan Rice, National Security Adviser.
CBS President David Rhodes is the brother of Ben Rhodes, Obama’s Deputy National Security Adviser for Strategic Communications.
ABC News correspondent Claire Shipman is married to former Whitehouse Press Secretary Jay Carney
ABC News and Univision reporter Matthew Jaffe is married to Katie Hogan, Obama’s Deputy Press Secretary
ABC President Ben Sherwood is the brother of Obama’s Special Adviser Elizabeth Sherwood
CNN President Virginia Moseley is married to former Hillary Clinton’s Deputy Secretary Tom Nides.
That is only a sampling. It goes far beyond those players. There are also the lower echelon types who fall all over themselves trying to curry favor by monkey piling on the victim — in this case, Willie Soon.
As Ayn Rand wrote, they can get anyone this way. There are plenty of laws. And it could easily be you or me next. That’s why Dr. Soon need plenty of support.
Interesting theory. People get married or have relatives. It would appear to be the case of the double edged knife, as it cuts both ways.
Who is this Ayn Rant that you speak of?
ICU,
The ‘rant’ is yours:
People get married or have relatives.
But somehow they all seem to end up as unelected jamokes who control policy. What are the odds, eh?
If you can’t see a pattern there, you’re either blind or credulous. Maybe both.
But one thing we know for certain, ‘ICU’: you are an out and out racist.
Yea, but if he had done what was required of him, i.e declared his funding (particularly when you consider who the funding has come from), he would not be in the pile of dung he is, nor would you need to be making excuses for him. Bottom liner is Soon made a monumental cock up and he got called on it. Time to move on.
Except the ‘funding ‘ did not involve the paper being attacked, or are you really calling for all funding for any past research funding to be included on new research, which for some would make a big a boring paper? Meanwhile, before you move on, care to to tell us what is wrong with Soon’s et all work? Or this is just another drive by smear?
I am not interested in whether his work is any good or not and it is not the issue here. There are rules to play by. If you don’t play by them you get a hand smack and more importantly your honesty and integrity get questioned. How many times rightly or wrongly has Mann’s honesty been questioned here? More than one could count.
If Soon wants to be consigned to the “suspect” box, he is going about it the right way. I would suggest it is not a good place to be for a scientist who works in a field where every move is watched and every detail questioned. Both sides of this debate continually nitpick the slightest detail.
Moreover, the funding Soon didn’t declare was from the groups who stand to make the most from his work being successful. 1.2 million is no small amount of money to receive. That smells bad and is why the media love to write about it. He should be and needs to be, smarter than that particularly if he wants his work taken seriously.
Simon
Hansen got more than that. Did you complain? Did you comment? Did your ABCNNBCBS news media report that? Did your NYTimes report the deaths in the Ukraine when they got their prize that year? You, sir, need to answer honestly: Who told you to report here and write your responses? What is your funding and to whom do you report?
Sorry Mr RACookPE1978 …. but I have no idea what you are talking about.
@Simon:
I know exactly what RACook is talking about. I suspect you do, too.
DB….If you are saying Hanson has been negligent in declaring funding sources in the same way Soon has, then no, I don’t know what Mr Cook is talking about. Perhaps you can explain for me?
@Simon:
I know tap-dancing when I see it.
RACook asked you some questions. You feigned ignorance because answering those questions woud be very uncomfortable. So you claimed that you didn’t understand. Got it.
DB, answer my question…. When did Hansen do what Soon has done and fail to declare significant funding for a research paper? And what has the Ukraine got to do with this? No tap dancing from me.
Simon says:
DB, answer my question…
First, you answer RACook’s questions. Everything else is tap-dancing.
DB. I am saying as far as I know Hansen has not ever failed to declare 1.2 million he has received for research. If that is wrong then let me know and I will address it otherwise you are wasting everyone’s time.
Still avoiding answering Cook’s questions, I see.