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.
Nick Stokes is trying to get everyone to miss the forest for a tree or two.
It’s time for a serious effort be put forth in the U.S. to end Greenpeace’s non-profit status. Time to take that green mask off.
https://www.activistfacts.com/organizations/131-greenpeace/
Is Greenpeace tax-exempt?
Yes — Kip
Where can I find a copy of Gillis’s resume/CV? He claims he took courses in climate change, etc., at MIT, but how many, and in what supporting fields (i.e., heat transfer, fluid mechanics, physics, chemistry, etc.)? At this point in time why should I believe anything he and his coauthors write?
Why do I ask? Has anyone really considered that maybe Soon and colleagues produced a simplified climate model on their own time? I’ve been down that same road before, and those experiences were anything but pleasant.
Can someone point to a thorough takedown of Soon’s paper? The NYT hit piece states:
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Those are very specific charges coming from “many experts” but the ad hominem NYT piece fails to cite. It does provide a blurb from GISS’ Schmidt about Soon’s science being “almost pointless” but ostensibly only because Schmidt feels strongly that his own science cannot be impugned.
Reply to million ==> I’m sure Gillis and Schwartz can support their statement — their experts almost all write for RealClimate.org or other Climate Activist internet outlets.
It concerns me that the word “astrpphysical” appears repeatedly in the signed documents.
Apologies if this has been noted before this posting. At the moment I’d have to read 296 comments to check if this has been mentioned before.
Ian M
Reply to Ian M ==> Congratulations! You are first to notice this typo in the signature section of the Southern/Smithsonian agreements.
Ian, try Ctrl-F and “astrpp”
I am amazed at the discussion here – I joined it late and, in wading through the hundreds of comments, the thing that stands out is the ability of one or two trolls to completely divert and obfuscate an entire thread. From the style, frequency and responsiveness of Mr NS in particular, I would guess that ‘he’ is actually a consortium, which is likely extremely well funded to put in the intensity of effort required. It reminds me of a famous ‘rebuttal unit’ of one of the main UK parties which could notoriously think two or three moves ahead of its chosen opposition. I imagine the answer to such gaming of discussions has, in the end, to be a technical one. No amount of reasoned argument will deal with it. I imagine the interventions here were planned in coordination with the original smear itself, and designed simply to draw fire, direct a narrative for a while, then withdraw when some critical time-window had expired.
Stuart B
Your point cannot be proven. But – after had read some 650,000 comments here the past years, YES – Your observation is correct. The volume tone and answers/replies from the large number of new posters here all uniformly attacking Dr Soon about these old, old charges “just magically dragged up” by the NYTimes and its ABCNNBCBS press corpse partners in the Obola administration in the weeks before their Paris CAGW conference are proof themselves in their “magical” uniform unanimous, anonymous presence.
Will I get audited because of it? Likely. It’s been done many times before. After all, to the Obola administration, CAGW – destroying the world’s carbon-based capitalist economies (while carefully preserving its communist competitors overseas!) means they must destroy the NUMBER ONE threat to “United States” security. While they negotiate to get intercontinental rockets to North Korea, nuclear bombs to Iran, and unrestrained access to the world for Islamic terrorists. While their democrat party predecessors worked to improve communist Chine intercontinental rocket re-entry and stage separation technology, and all the money they can find to other foes overseas commercially and by foreign aid.
“CAGW – destroying the world’s carbon-based capitalist economies (while carefully preserving its communist competitors overseas!)”
China has the world’s largest install base of wind power (almost as much as the entire EU and 2X that of the US). China has the 2nd largest install base of solar power behind Germany (and will soon pass Germany as their annual installation rate is 3X that of Germany). China has already piloted a carbon tax in 7 cities, and is now rolling it out nationwide: http://www.reedsmith.com/China-Outlines-Plans-for-its-Carbon-Trading-Markets-02-20-2015/?utm_source=Mondaq&utm_medium=syndication&utm_campaign=View-Original
So how exactly is the AGW movement destroying capitalism while not impacting the economy of China, who is by far the world’s largest communist economy?
Chris,
Very true. It’s too bad that a large part of academia has become infested with people who want to ‘funadamentally transform America’. People don’t decide to transform something they love. Truth be told, they hate America.
You’re right about the ‘carbon’ scare destroying capitalism. Everyone will be poorer as a result. Well, everyone who isn’t living off the hard-bitten taxpayers.
Chris:
They also have a population >the EU and USA combined and something like 16X that of Germany. Are your numbers per capita?
If you search on Nick Stokes name, can you can easily find a blog he writes. It’s clear he spends a lot of time on his own blog and contents (including analysis) as well as making comments on other sites. Antony Watts presumably puts as much if not more time into WUWT. The idea of a well funded consortium choosing to post under a single fictitious name seems like a pretty far fetched idea.
So….has anyone actually debunked the science behind Dr Soons research?
real american
No, they cannot address the science. They can only distract with their news media’s reports about the (false) hype over the charges against the man.
untrue, the science behinds Soon (2005) has been challenged (http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2015/02/the-soon-fallacy/) and the conclusions Soon drew from the available data found not to be supported by more recently available, and more credible solar forcing data
http://www.realclimate.org/images/soon_update.jpg
Your “realclimate” blog is not a credible source. A good, reliable source for deadly propaganda tremendously harmful to innocents worldwide, but not truth.
And Tamino’s blog is worse.
Bevan:
This is NOT about science.
If this was about science, then Michael Mann, Kevin Trenberth, Phil Jones, Gavin Schmidt, and many other climate alarmists would be run out of town on a rail.
No, this is about monkey-piling on someone for saying some politically incorrect things; for not adhering to the Narrative.
You don’t understand the difference, so your comments make no sense.
Reply re” “RealClimate” rebuttals ==> Attack essays posted in blogs, particularly ISF (single issue fanatic blogs like RealClimate), are not scientific rebuttals any more than the hack-and-slash attack essays Willis writes here. There are just drive-by attacks intended to discredit without having to be held to any real scientific standard…refuting science is done in well-researched papers in reputable journals, under strict peer-review, in which the original author is invited to respond to the countering paper.
Even RealClimate authors are entitled to their opinions — but their blog posts are just that — no more real science than Andy Revkin’s Dot Earth blogs in the Opinion Section of the NY Times, where he writes columns that are his personal opinions, or quoting the personal opinions of others. Revkin has even published my opinions there…but they are still, even if mine, just opinions.
Such things are not Science — just opinions about science.
Or for that matter, essays of opinions of all types published here at WUWT — it is all “opinions about” — real science requires actually doing all the hard work required to add to or correct the sum of human knowledge about a topic — and that includes honest replication attempts of refuted studies. A critique of a paper dashed off in a couple of hours by The Cause’s duly assigned RapidResponse Team member or a dedicated Anti-Team skeptic at WUWT does not add to our knowledge base — but only acts to obfuscate and confuse.
Obviously Greenpeace and their crony’s in crime do not find the scientific rebuttals to Soon’s work sufficient or credible. They still feel a burning need to not only discredit Soon but to smear and try to destroy him in the most despicable ways.
And Dr. Soon continues to receive funding, continues to have papers accepted for publication AND has those papers pass significant peer review. With the target the zealots have placed on his back do you believe ANY submission his name is attached with does not receive the most severe peer review possible?
You do not go to this extent to smear and try to destroy someone whose work is junk – and meritless.
My Conflict of Interest Declaration: I am the President of :a small charitable organization, a 501(c)3, The Family-to-Family Project Inc. Its purpose is to give micro-enterprise loans to the profoundly poor in the Dominican Republic. This organization once received an unsolicited grant of $20,000.00 from the TIDES FOUNDATION. The grant was a pass-through from an anonymous donor, specifically earmarked for our project. To this day, I have no idea who was the source of this money, but according to the existing Conspiracy Theory of Funding, in which all funding taints the receiver, I have received secret liberal/progressive funding for our politically neutral charity.
In addition, I do now, and have always, driven gasoline-powered automobiles and motorcycles. On my boat, I use electricity generated by solar, wind, and a diesel emergency generator.
My invested retirement funds, which I do not manage personally, are diversified and may or may not include stocks of companies that Greenpeace would not approve of.
Beven, what prevented RealClimate boys,from publishing a dissenting paper against Dr. Soon’s peer reviewed published paper?
Wrestling PIGS IN MUD!
It’s clear that these attacks on Dr. Soon are racially motivated.
When white guys do the same thing (as has been documented above), the racialists who attack Dr. Soon for his supposed transgressions are silent.
I think Dr. Soon’s inquisitors are anti-Asian. They should be silenced.
When white guys do the same thing (as has been documented above), the racialists who attack Dr. Soon for his supposed transgressions are silent.
Who are the ‘white guys’ who failed to acknowledge their source of funding when required to do so?
Citations please.
Dr. Soon accepted no funding; he wrote proposals for funding on behalf of his employer. Contracts for that revenue were executed by his employer, who subsequently paid Dr. Soon a rather small percentage of the funds realized.
I don’t think he’s the only scientist working for that particular employer, and I haven’t heard that the failed to follow the rules stipulated in his employment contract. Thus, it’s safe to conclude that he’s not the only one who proceeded in this entirely legitimate fashion.
But because he’s Asian, the racialists are out to destroy him.
The thing about racialists is that they will always vehemently deny their prejudice and bias because, as we have learned over the past 30 or 40 years, they aren’t even capable of *knowing* that they are racialists — their sick and twisted hatred comes from the very fabric of their being.
So deny away, because we all know what your motivations are and that you probably wear a white hood.
Are all the pillars crumbling, or is this rubbish.
Kirchhoff’s Law of Thermal Emission invalid
http://www.ptep-online.com/index_files/2015/PP-41-04.PDF