Smear campaign: "His judgment cometh and that right soon"

Sceencap from a scene in the movie "The Shawshank Redemption"
Sceencap from a scene in the movie “The Shawshank Redemption”

The title is a quote from the framed embroidery over the Warden’s wall safe in the movie The Shawshank Redemption, which is a story about one man fighting the corruption of the penal system at the hands of the warden, who was using his position to profit, bully, and murder. Since the quote turned out to be wildly ironic, I thought it was appropriate for what’s happening to Dr. Willie Soon at the hand of green activists and the compliant media. I often think of the warden as a figurehead for people like Dr. Lawrence Torricello, who once called for the death of climate skeptics.

While the Bob Ward style smear campaign rages against Dr. Willie Soon, much like we saw against Dr. Richard Tol, such as this article on Soon which is in my opinion libelous and actionable, the media ignores the fact that green and climate science is a huge money machine, for which there is only one scientific opinion: “climate change/global warming is bad.”

Source: Jo Nova

Yet, how many times have we had a “consensus” of opinion only later to find that consensus overturned? Well there’s plate tectonics, phlogiston, Eugenics, Earth centric universe, stress caused ulcers, and now cholesterol. That’s enough times where the scientific herd mentality failed, and makes one think that consensus isn’t all it is cracked up to be.

And how is it, that magically, the billions collectively going into climate research, and the millions going to individual researchers, (such as 1.8 million dollars received by Dr. Michael Mann on a topic for which he is not an expert) which tends to have only one scientific outcome, is somehow pure, while research funding looking into linkage between climate change and the sun done by Dr. Soon, is somehow evil? They think it is evil because supposedly the outcome is paid for. That’s about as ridiculous as saying that because the Phil Jones Climate Research Unit (CRU) at the center of Climategate, somehow made specific outcomes in their climate research because CRU took money from “Big Oil” in the past.

From American Thinker:

Amid the thousands of files apparently lifted from Britain’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) last week sit two documents on the subject of the unit’s funding. One is a spreadsheet (pdj_grant_since1990.xls) logging the various grants CRU chief P.D. Jones has received since 1990. It lists 55 such endowments from agencies ranging from the U.S. Department of Energy to NATO, worth a total of £13,718,547, or approximately $22.6 million. I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit, particularly for an oft-quoted and highly exalted U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chief climatologist.

But it’s actually the second document (potential-funding.doc) that tells the more compelling tale. In addition to four government sources of potential CRU funding, it lists an equal number of “energy agencies” they might put the bite on. Three — the Carbon Trust, the Northern Energy Initiative, and the Energy Saving Trust — are U.K.-based consultancy and funding specialists promoting “new energy” technologies with the goal of reducing carbon dioxide emissions. The fourth — Renewables North West — is an American company promoting the expansion of solar, wind, and geothermal energy in the Pacific Northwest.

Needless to say, all four of these CRU “potential funding sources” have an undeniably intrinsic financial interest in the promotion of the carbochondriacal reports CRU is ready, willing, and able to dish out ostensibly on demand. And equally obvious, Jones is all too aware that a renewable energy-funded CRU will remain the world’s premiere authority on the subject of anthropogenic global warming (AGW) despite any appearance of conflict.

And yet, no such latitude has ever been extended to scientists in the skeptical camp.

Read more:

Climate action proponents would claim that the idea that CRU made specific outcomes in research due to such funding from Shell and others is ludicrous, but somehow Dr. Soon is automatically smeared as being “on the take”.

And it gets worse. David Mulberry writes on the WUWT Facebook page:

It will no doubt astound many readers to learn that there are more than 26,500 American environmental groups. They collected total revenues of more than $81 billion from 2000 to 2012, according to Giving USA Institute, with only a small part of that coming from membership dues and individual contributions.

Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.

That pays for a lot of lobbying at the state and federal level. It pays for a lot of propaganda that the Earth needs saving because of global warming or climate change. Now add in Greenpeace USA at $32,791,149, the Greenpeace Fund at $12,878,777; the National Wildlife Federation at $84,725,518; the National Parks Conservation Association at $25,782,975; and The Wilderness Society at $24,862,909. Al Gore’s Alliance for Climate Protection took in $19,150,215. That’s a lot of money to protect something that cannot be “protected”, but small in comparison to other Green organizations.

If you wonder why you have been hearing and reading endless doomsday scenarios about the warming of the Earth, the rise of the seas, and the disappearance of species and forests, for decades, the reason is mind boggling

Follow the money.

More reading, see The Merchants of Smear

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 23, 2015 8:10 am

I think the ethical problem was supposed to be Soon’s failure to declare his funding.
That’s what’s being investigated by his employers, anyway.

oebele bruinsma
Reply to  Gubulgaria
February 23, 2015 8:32 am

The ethical problem, the money trail, has been elucidated quite well, in this case. We live in dangerous times, as intolerant and non-science based believe systems seem to flourish.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
February 23, 2015 9:18 am

The ethical problem, the money trail, has been elucidated quite well, in this case. We live in dangerous times, as intolerant and non-science based believe systems seem to flourish.

So, do you imply – as you apparently have been instructed to by your handlers – that it is the “uninformed” and “less intelligent” (republican, right-wing, conservative, capitalistic, oil-money-paid, religious fundamentalist, illiterate, anti-homosexual stereotypes) party that is intolerant and refuses to review the evidence?
Who has an anti-science attiude? The party that believes the same government that lied about Iraq and 911 and was too incompetent to lead the nation between 2000 and 2008, but is absolutely correct and perfect between 2008 and 2016, the same people who believe it fervently now that Big Government is saying something it wants to believe, despite the evidence against CAGW in all its forms and implications? Despite the harm CAGW policies bring bring real people while rewarding ONLY those in Big Government and Big Finance and Big Science? The same people who don’t believe engineers about steel and concrete and pressure waves and metal strength, now believe actors and politicians who can’t pass divinity school about complex heat transfer equations and intrinsic feedback mechanisms of 3d fluid flow and radiation?
Or the 75 out of 13,500 Big Government-paid self-selected elite priests who refuse to acknowledge the evidence that CO2 is not affecting global average temperatures significantly, and that fossil fuels benefit ALL who live on the planet right now – including the plant life now growing 15 to 27% faster, longer, taller, more fruitfall and more drought-resistant?
And, if $25,000.00 dollars spent 10 years ago buys a skeptic’s opinion, how many Big Government-paid scientists can Big Finance buy for 92 billion dollars spent to justify 1.3 trillion dollars in new taxes to Big Government to support 30 trillion in carbon futures for Big Finance so Big Science can spend its next 92 billion dollars?

george e. smith
Reply to  oebele bruinsma
February 23, 2015 10:42 am

Say RAC,
Why don’t you tell us what you really think, instead of beating about the bush ?
G !

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
February 23, 2015 3:05 pm

@ RACookPE1978
Good comment. I would just add that anyone who thinks government is “on [their] side” is just ignoring all historical [evidence]. Government is like the mobster who breaks your legs and then loans you some crutches so you can go to work.

Reply to  oebele bruinsma
February 23, 2015 3:51 pm

dont you mean “belief” systems?
and i agree…the money trail that links groups like greenpeace to big oil is obvious and in the public domain…hundreds of millions of dollars received and accepted from big oil certainly taints greenpeace’s perspective, no?

Reply to  Gubulgaria
February 23, 2015 8:38 am

The latest paper he did with Monckton et al was on their own time! What is so hard to understand? They got NO money from anyone.

Nick Stokes
Reply to  Gonzo
February 23, 2015 1:00 pm

“The latest paper he did with Monckton et al was on their own time!”
It’s not clear that that paper was one of the 8 papers described in the report cited.
The NY Times has the list of contracts made with Southern Company Services via the Smithsonian and the “deliverables” here. A long PDF collection is here. On p 36 is a Final Report, listing a number of papers as “deliverables”.
Here is one of those papers. It has a long list of acknowledgements (mainly people), but not including SCS.

Robert B
Reply to  Gonzo
February 23, 2015 3:18 pm

Its not clear when it should have been. A pretty obvious smear.

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Gonzo
February 23, 2015 6:03 pm

Nick Stokes, you’ve published many posts here, yet you’ve never acknowledged your past revenue sources. Any conflict there?

Paul Courtney
Reply to  Gonzo
February 23, 2015 6:06 pm

Nick Stokes, you have published many posts here, I have yet to see you acknowledge past or present revenue sources. Any conflict there?

Reply to  Gonzo
February 24, 2015 6:15 am

Much has been made of the use of the term “deliverables” including your comment above.
Should we also be concerned that Dr. Hume at CRU received money from WWF UK to produce pamphlets that were described as “deliverables?”
“This document sets out the work plan and deliverables for a contract
between UEA/CRU and WWF UK for the preparation and publication of a series
of 15 (?) national/regional climate change scenario brochures, together
with a global overview leaflet, by 11 October 1999, i.e., one week before
Further, having accepted funding from environmental activists would Dr. Hulme and any other scientists involved in this project be obliged to disclose in peer reviewed literature their ongoing conflict of interest?

Reply to  Gubulgaria
February 23, 2015 10:18 am

As I asked weeks ago – funding for what ? This paper or other work ? Which should be reported and when ?

george e. smith
Reply to  Gubulgaria
February 23, 2015 11:06 am

If I’m not mistaken, Dr Wei Hok Soon’s “employers” are the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
So far as I know, those were his employers when he wrote his book: ” The Maunder Minimum and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.” Which I have read several times, and I can’t recall seeing the word “oil” in there anywhere.
I’m sure that whatever funding he has received, was based on the fact that he was working at such a prestigious Institution, and it is essentially that body that has been the recipient of the beneficence of Soon’s grantors.
I had the pleasure of exchanging several conversations with Dr. Soon, in relation to his Maunder Minimum studies, some years ago. Back then he was an occasional visitor to a web site with a name something like “Tech Central Station.” That site was where I first engaged myself in getting informed about the global climate and weather system, and its components.
Yes I believe that Tech Central Station also had Energy company connections. Never ever received any solicitations from any energy or other natural resource based entity, seeking any support from me of their positions; well they never ever even stated their positions on resource based industries that I was ever aware of.
As for Dr. Soon, I found him to be a very communicative chap with a genuine passion for his studies, and he didn’t just brush me off with any “thanks for commenting” one liners.
If the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics does not know the origins of research funds which come their way, without asking Willie Soon, then they are the ones who should be more aware.
The trouble with Willie Soon, and also Dr Sally Baliunas, who used to work in the same arena, is that perhaps they have been too successful, in separating the fact from the fiction, in this saga, and in exposing the charlatans, who feed at the public slush trough, rather than get a real job, using their skills. And I have no doubt that most of them do in fact have marketable skills.

george e. smith
Reply to  george e. smith
February 24, 2015 2:08 pm

In the Interest of full and complete disclosure: The above research was funded in part from the proceeds of a grant from the Government of New Zealand. That grant facilitated four years of research into the necessities of a useful education of mathematics and physics to meet the needs of industry. That early portion of the study encompassed the years of 1954 through 1958 incl.

Paul mackey
Reply to  Gubulgaria
February 24, 2015 2:17 am

$81 billion and still most people see through them….

Neil Jordan
February 23, 2015 8:29 am

Add these two scientific truths to the “consensus” of opinions that were later overturned: Bathybius haecklii and Polywater. The former was alleged to be lurking in the ocean depths like today’s missing heat. The latter was sure to escape the laboratory and turn all the world’s water into jello, destroying life as we know it.

Reply to  Neil Jordan
February 23, 2015 2:18 pm

Arguably, the biggest “consensus” overturned in the modern era is the “inevitable” advent of state socialism in the early 20th century. It is worth remembering that state socialism was explicitly atheistic, “rational”, and “scientific”. All of the best, enlightened, up to date people were on board back in the 1920s and 1930s: Orwell, Hemingway, and a very long list of economists, academics, and deep thinkers generally.
I see contemporary environmentalism as this century’s version of 20th century state socialism. State socialism was history’s greatest mass killer with 100 million victims and billions enslaved. If one had to bet on the great mass killer in this century it is surely environmentalism:
The No Pressure Ad

Quote by Club of Rome: “The Earth has cancer and the cancer is Man.”
Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: “Human beings, as a species, have no more value than slugs.”
Quote by Paul Ehrlich, professor, Stanford University: “A cancer is an uncontrolled multiplication of cells; the population explosion is an uncontrolled multiplication of people. We must shift our efforts from the treatment of the symptoms to the cutting out of the cancer.”
Quote by John Holdren, President Obama’s science czar: “There exists ample authority under which population growth could be regulated…It has been concluded that compulsory population-control laws, even including laws requiring compulsory abortion, could be sustained under the existing Constitution if the population crisis became sufficiently severe to endanger the society.” 
Quote by Christopher Manes, a writer for Earth First! journal: “The extinction of the human species may not only be inevitable but a good thing.”
Quote by Ted Turner, billionaire, founder of CNN and major UN donor, and large CO2 producer: “A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Quote by Jacques Cousteau, mega-celebrity French scientist: “In order to stabilize world population, we must eliminate 350,000 per day.”
Quote by John Davis, editor of Earth First! journal: “I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. It played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
Quote by Ingrid Newkirk, a former PETA President: “The extinction of Homo Sapiens would mean survival for millions, if not billions, of Earth-dwelling species. Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth – social and environmental.”

Reply to  TYoke
February 24, 2015 12:30 am

‘Nice’ quotes and after writing a comment mentioning der Leiter des Dritten Reichs I came to a milder conclusion: most of these people are extreme-left in a certain sense, which means they are idealistic, with self-hatred related to their white-western group. They also expect that intelligentsia they belong to should be touting for a brute need of reduction of population.
What they failed to understand is that the population growth is already much based of better health care, fertility being very low excluding a small portion of countries. Also they don’t understand that the countries with high fertility are the countries they in other circumstances want to protect from ‘the western oppressors’.

Phasing out the human race will solve every problem on Earth

Yeah, since ‘problem’ is a very human thing.

Harry van Loon
February 23, 2015 8:30 am

Character asassination. That is what it is, and the NYT stands accused of it in its article about Willie Soon. And the reaction of the bloggers? Hoe many of them have ever read one of Soon’s thoughtful articles?

Richard Keen
Reply to  Harry van Loon
February 23, 2015 1:25 pm

Hi Harry! Good to see you here!
You’re absolutely right – it is charcter assassination, pure and simple, and from the same New York Times that gave a pass on Joseph Stalins’s murder by starvation of ten million Ukranians in 1933. Oh, that was 82 years ago, but the Times has never acknowledged its massive wrongdoing and it is still the same organization. I went on this rant about the NYT last month on WUWT, so I’ll repeat here.
From Jan. 4 WUWT ….
“To put it bluntly, the NYT has been a bastard medium since 1933, when their top reporter, Walter Duranty, wrote a series of apologetics denying Stalin’s murder by starvation of millions of Ukrainians. This has to be the greatest example of agenda-driven journalistic malpractice in the history of the printed page, and the NYT has never disowned its role. An interesting take on this is at
The point is that the NYT has a history of conflict of interest, bias, advocacy, and currying favor with mass murderers. The Times lied, millions died, as they say. And they claim the moral authority to complain about someone maybe working for a company that legally provides a necessary service.
As for Greenpeace, they’re just applying Saul Alinsky’s Rules for Radicals number 12: Destroy the Individual “Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it.”
In other words, character assassination from folks who have defended mega-assassins.

February 23, 2015 8:35 am

The federal grants from agency X are awarded to A, who pays B to manage, who then pays C to lobby congressman D, who funds agency X. The tax payer gets the bill.

February 23, 2015 8:38 am

If someone disagrees with Willy’s work let them find fault with the work, if all they can do is find fault with the person, then they probably can’t find fault with the work.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
February 23, 2015 9:31 am

Precisely. I don’t give two hoots who, what, where, why or when funds the work – the evaluation is based on the data.
People often ascribe motives to others when these are their own motives – it is because these people are so used to monkeying around with the data to get a desired result that they assume everyone else does the same.

Reply to  Rob
February 23, 2015 3:14 pm

Yes. PEOPLE OFTEN ASCRIBE motives to others when these are THEIR OWN MOTIVES.
When dealing with anti-scientific critters like AGW alarmists–or when dealing with political trolls or any other trolls, we need to make use of this fact. The howlers’ motive indeed seems to be money. That means they think that they themselves are vulnerable on funding sources and motivation.They are–and we need to step on this much harder than we do.
Another one is the “don’t you believe the scientists” argument. We need to highlight 1000 times more than we do the reality that a main motive of most skeptic activists is a horrified and desperate effort to restore the meaning and respect for actual science after the TRASHING of this precious thing by a Mann whose name is a laughing stock amongst actual scientists because he has no clue about the proper handling of statistics in his own research, another who wants to “redefine” null hypothesis to mean my ideas are true unless you prove them wrong, misleading graphs in Nature magazine, and a National “Science” Foundation that makes it quite clear that it wants Politically Correct results.

Reply to  Tom Trevor
February 24, 2015 6:03 am

Totally correct.
These creeps think that just because they would make up stuff for money anybody else will.

F. Ross
February 23, 2015 8:38 am

The “consensus” is that controlled nuclear fusion is just 10-15 years away… and it has been that way since the mid to late 1950’s. One can only wish it were so.

Ian Schumacher
Reply to  F. Ross
February 23, 2015 9:42 am

Love this one. Just saw another article just two days ago promising fusion just around the corner.

Reply to  Ian Schumacher
February 23, 2015 2:31 pm

They left a sign on the front door:

Reply to  F. Ross
February 23, 2015 10:12 am

It appears there has been for decades, a consensus of authority that we should not switch from Uranium to Thorium. This is detrimental to economical electricity in the future.

Reply to  F. Ross
February 23, 2015 12:32 pm

The “consensus” was that Obama was a uniter and not a divider. Also Obama was going to return science to being an important contributor in decision making.
Well the nation has been the most divided it has been since the Vietnam war and like the previous administration, science is only used if it takes the role of whore to political expediency.
So consensus and a dollar will buy…well just about nothing now a days.

Dodgy Geezer
February 23, 2015 8:39 am

…Well there’s plate tectonics, phlogiston, Eugenics, Earth centric universe, stress caused ulcers, and now cholesterol. …
Actually, many of those are poor examples. It was reasonable to be suspicious of plate tectonics – proposals for the mechanics didn’t exist at the time. Phlogiston was simply the same gas in reverse, as it were. Eugenics is a perfectly science-based concept – we don’t like the idea for ethical rather than scientific reasons….
The best example by far is Piltdown Man. That was a fraud, perpetrated by someone who had close establishment connections, and the fraud fitted establishment thinking at the time perfectly. So all the big guns – the Brit Mus., the Smithsonian, the Royal Society – all accepted it and produced statements saying that it was proven.
The few scientists who uncovered discrepancies and suggested that the science wasn’t sound had their careers broken. The fraud was quite obvious if you looked skeptically at the evidence, but no one did. The match with Climate change is almost exact. Indeed, you will find Climate Change apologists have got to the Piltdown wiki entry and crafted it to try to turn attention away from this close analogy.
It’s worth mentioning this at regular intervals…

Stuart Elliot
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
February 23, 2015 12:21 pm

It’s been said before: Meltdown Mann

Ben Of Houston
Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
February 23, 2015 1:37 pm

I was thinking more comparisons to the Bernie Madoff scandal. “No One Would Listen” is a very powerful book that reminds me a lot about the CAGW scenario. The fact that Madoff’s returns were impossible was easy to see, there were lots of people who should have seen it, and many others who MUST have seen it but were taking advantage of it.
However, no serious action was taken against Madoff until the scheme collapsed by itself.

Robert B
Reply to  Ben Of Houston
February 23, 2015 3:23 pm

I saw a documentary on this. A woman claimed that she brought it up at a dinner and was hounded for being anti-Semitic so she never mentioned it again.

Reply to  Dodgy Geezer
February 23, 2015 3:08 pm

Eugenics is not “science based” in any sense except that of selective breeding for specific qualities. The idea behind it was that there was “perfect” human form, and that we could describe that being and breed for it. That doesn’t even reach the level of good science fiction.
Even within animal breeding, the “ideal” race horse and the “ideal” roping and cutting horse do not have the same physiological. A plough horse is physically different from either. There is no single, ideal form of horse. The same goes for humanity, There is no such thing as an ideal form.
You are absolutely right about mentioning events like Piltdown and the effects of finding or being handed just what you expect.

D.J. Hawkins
Reply to  Duster
February 23, 2015 3:32 pm

I recall that the biggest motivator was not so much breeding in “good” qualities as breeding out “bad” ones. Feeble-mindedness, sloth, tendency to drunkenness, and bad moral character were presumed as determinable as hemophilia, Tay-Sachs, or color blindness. The future did not contain a single perfect model, but more a description of what the model was not.
For that part of the human condition determined by genetics, I think there is little doubt that eugenics could be effectively deployed. I for one do not wish to live in the sort of world it would take to make it effective.

February 23, 2015 8:41 am

There’s something a bit odd about one of the linked articles:
The whole web site appears to be written by children. For example, on another page I found this:

A panel of researchers from Harvard just studied the relation that exists between the infinite black hole and the galaxies from which they belong.


Reply to  steveta_uk
February 23, 2015 11:36 am

From the same source, this headline:
“Washington Governor Scot Walker (R) also join (sic) in the bandwagon of former New York City Governor Rudy Giuliani`s comments.”
The first sentence is:
“According to Washington City Governor Scott Walker (R) he is not sure if US President Barack Obama love (sic) America.”
Not only appears to be written by children, but children from a foreign country, who not only don’t have a working knowledge of the English language, but don’t know the difference between Washington and Wisconsin, then refers to Wisconsin State as Washington City.
Indeed … WTF??

Old Man of the Forest
Reply to  steveta_uk
February 24, 2015 8:39 am

Wow, that is a direct accusation of falsification. Popcorn.

Tom Crozier
February 23, 2015 8:53 am

Was he required to declare any funding for any reason from sources which may have appeared to have conflicts of interest or not? That seems like a pretty simple question. Not that it would have affected outcomes, but the rules are the rules.
I’d be interested in seeing a copy of them.

Reply to  Tom Crozier
February 23, 2015 9:15 am

You can read the written policy for yourself. in english. Under imformation for authors, section I. Conflicts that might influence the work (the subject of the paper). Includes research grants, project sponsors, speaking honoraria (a common pharma ploy). Does not seem to require disclosing support/affiliations for projects unrelated to the paper being submitted.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2015 10:07 am

I have just been reading the Cowtan and Way article in Quart J Roy Met Soc(vol 140, 1935, (2014)).
It finishes with this statement:
This work was produced without funding in the authors’ own
time; however, KC is grateful to the University of York for
providing computing facilities and to the organizers of the 2013
EarthTemp network meeting (NERC Grant NE/I030127/1) for
enabling him to benefit from the expertise of the other attendees.
The authors also acknowledge the reviewers for their invaluable
comments, the online community of professional and amateur
climate scientists who have provided advice over the 18 months
of the work and also John Kennedy at the Hadley Centre, who
provided useful feedback on some very rudimentary initial results.”
So how is this different from the position and disclosure of W Soon?
No-one is trying to impeach Cowtan.

Tom Crozier
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2015 10:36 am

Given the highly politicized nature of this whole issue, I’d probably have attached a list of anyone I ever got a dime from just to avoid this kind of thing. But I’m not from the academic world.

Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2015 1:12 pm

It’s rather more specific than Rud’s paraphrase indicates:
“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”

John M
Reply to  Rud Istvan
February 23, 2015 3:17 pm

That’s interesting phil-dot.
Do you suppose his eminence spoke for free here?
How about the books he sold?

Flyover Bob
Reply to  Tom Crozier
February 23, 2015 2:52 pm

Are you saying the SCIENCE is wrong because of the funding? Or, are you admitting the science is good and you just don’t like the science?

February 23, 2015 8:54 am

The source of that embroidered sampler was a fragment of Ecclesiastes 21:5 (KJV).

Reply to  Tucci78
February 23, 2015 11:37 am

That book only has 12 chapters. The twelfth chapter begins with a symbolic description of growing old:
“Remember now your Creator in the days of your youth,
Before the difficult days come,
And the years draw near when you say,
“I have no pleasure in them”:
While the sun and the light,
The moon and the stars,
Are not darkened,
And the clouds do not return after the rain;
In the day when the keepers of the house tremble,
And the strong men bow down;
When the grinders cease because they are few,
And those that look through the windows grow dim….
When one rises up at the sound of a bird,
And all the daughters of music are brought low.”
This is followed by the famous philosophical observation,
“Vanity of vanities, all is vanity.”
It concludes the discussion of the book with:
“And further, my son, be admonished by these. Of making many books there is no end, and much study is wearisome to the flesh.
Let us hear the conclusion of the whole matter:
Fear God and keep His commandments,
For this is man’s all.
For God will bring every work into judgment,
Including every secret thing,
Whether good or evil.”

Bohdan Burban
February 23, 2015 9:03 am

As renowned Australian geologist Prof. Sam Carey once noted: 50 million may believe in a fallacy, but it’s still a fallacy.

Reply to  Bohdan Burban
February 23, 2015 3:05 pm

Reminds me of the punchline of an old joke…. 50 million flies can’t be wrong!

Reply to  Bohdan Burban
February 24, 2015 7:59 am

re: Professor Carey
Read his books. He as a young and middle aged man was one of the successful promoters of “floating continents, plate tectonics” but as an old seasoned geologist believed he erred and argued for an expanding earth hypothesis. He was not afraid to change his mind. He remains an example to me of a dispassionate scientist, seeking truth above all.
Dan Kurt

February 23, 2015 9:04 am

This just gets my blood boiling. To go after a man and his livelyhood is WAY out of bounds on trumped up rhetoric. This is copy of an email I sent to the director of Harvard Smithsonian Charles Alcock.
“So are you going to be complicit in this public scientific lynching of Dr Soon? Because that’s what it is.
As long as I’ve followed the climate debate (since 2007 thanks to Al Gore) the alarmists are have been screeching from the rafters about some of Dr Soon’s funding. It’s not a secret he’s taken money from the energy sector, just as many other non-skeptical researchers have. Furthermore his latest paper was on his and his collaborators own dime for gosh sakes. It would behoove you to not cave to the caterwauling class and be-smirch the reputation of the CFA.”
I would encourage you to send along your own thoughts to the director and your DC representative.

Mike McMillan
February 23, 2015 9:08 am

Shell is one of the big green supporters, and why not? Good brownie points.
They know we can’t live without oil, no matter what the govt does.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 23, 2015 9:14 am

Yep, big oil gives to big green, who lobbies big government to act against big coal, to convert to big natural gas so big oil wins.

JJM Gommers
Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 23, 2015 2:36 pm

I am not so sure about Shell, I think it’s more extortion. What happened with the platform(Shell-Gazprom) in Russia and the jailing of the crew, I think this was welcomed by Shell

Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 23, 2015 3:19 pm

Big Oil gives to warmists to keep the scam going, usually because they have lots of natural gas reserves (as well as oil), and if they can get coal replaced by natural gas then they will make billions.

Reply to  Mike McMillan
February 23, 2015 3:42 pm

I am old enough to remember the Oil Embargo of the early 1970’s and the gas rate hikes (5o cents a gallon–shockingly high!).
The oil companies became concerned for their survival in a future without oil. So they all invested in alternatives such as wind and solar. AGW alarmism could make them a bundle–which is why oil company funding was a part of the climategate scandal. They are primed to make a bundle from alternative fuels. They also love activists who make fossils rarer or more expensive in any way–because that increases their return on investment.

February 23, 2015 9:12 am

We have an unserious media. They would rather destroy reputations of those who are not of the favored political philosophy than to “commit journalism”. Real journalism, that is. To discuss the merits of an item rather than the person who is quoted.

Reply to  Jim Brock
February 23, 2015 9:51 am

The media today is not about news, it’s about liberal cheerleading, promoting the Progressive cause and blindly attacking anything which is not compatible with the chaotic distopia promised land their Progressive oligarchy will be. Truth need not be mentioned.

February 23, 2015 9:15 am

The unsigned article you linked to in the MicrocapObserver website (which I had never heard of) is an amateurish crib from the longer NY Times piece by Justin Gillis and John Schwartz, with whole phrases quoted verbatim:
One sentence that appears to be original is this one:

Even though Soon has not answered anything regarding the falsified papers, he claims that Corporate funds has [sic] not biased his scientific discoveries.

I suspect that the accusation that any of Dr. Soon’s papers were “falsified” is the part you think might be actionable. Though my guess is that the intern who wrote it had no idea what he was saying, a letter from Dr. Soon’s lawyer might at least garner an apology.
/Mr Lynn

Dave Ward
February 23, 2015 9:24 am

I thought much the same about the Microcap Observer site (which I have also never heard of). Their “About” page doesn’t give much information, and certainly no names or specific contacts.
I felt that the article linked above might have been written by a non native English speaker, but a bunch of children also fits the bill!

Reply to  Dave Ward
February 23, 2015 10:04 am

Such as the following:
Scientists from the United China States and are saying they have found new insight on what really exists at the core of our planet suggesting that there could be another distinctive region in there. According to the journal Nature Geoscience, the reason behind this is that the pattern of the iron crystals in is not […]
Truly “…one of the most respected independent news organizations on the east coast…”

Reply to  Dave Ward
February 23, 2015 2:54 pm

I did a Who Is of MicroCapObserver dot com and the owner info is protected. But I googled the address on their About page (1400 Eye St. NW, Ste. 1115
Washington, DC 20005) and it *only* comes up as CapstoneDC? says, “Capstone is a Washington, DC-based policy analysis and regulatory due diligence research firm that provides expert advice to companies and long-term investors. Developments in Washington and other centers of government are more crucial to investment strategies than ever before. Legislation, regulatory reforms, and new federal oversight are affecting industries in evolving ways, with both near- and long-term impacts on business models.
Capstone was founded in 2010 amidst unprecedented change in the regulatory landscape for the financial services, energy and health care industries. Our professionals analyze policy to uncover unique business and investment strategies for our clients. We pride ourselves on the ability to see over the horizon and to identify long-term policy trends that present both risks and opportunities for our clients.”
So are they the same, or do they only share an address in DC? Looking into Capstone I get:
Raw Registrar Data
Registrar URL:
Registrant Name: David Barrosse
Registrant Organization: The Orion Group
DNSSEC: unsigned
For complete domain details go to:
Information Updated: Mon, 23 Feb 2015 22:19:21 UTC
Googling David Barrosse gives me: “Managing Partner of Capstone LLC. Former investment banker and former political consultant.” From his twitter account. Lots of links for him though.
Is this nothing, or something? I’m so confused.

February 23, 2015 9:33 am

Oil companies love to fund greens.
Why you may ask? Because it makes them look “concerned” of course, but it also helps to hype the price of its product. Study how De Beers created a market price for diamonds by repeating the theme that diamonds are precious and rare. Commodities demand only commodity prices.
BTW, ask Putin and some of the middle east potentates how they feel about the new oil price ceiling imposed by fracking. This will be a very high priority for them going forward. Expect an extreme campaign against such methods of increasing oil reserves. Watch where the money comes from and goes to. Expect players to include the EPA, IPCC and other worldwide governmental agencies in concert with the green NGOs, new “science” graduates on the prowl for grants, and a sycophantic press corps.

February 23, 2015 9:38 am

To date despite all the insults thrown at Soon , no one seems to have been able to say what is wrong with the paper , which is odd for if its was poor has claimed that should be easy .
Meanwhile the ‘magical process ‘ that changes dirty ‘fossil fuel funding money , into pure has the driven snow money , so that money from the same organisation which is unacceptable for research which challenges ‘the cause , becomes fully acceptable for ‘research’ which supports ‘the cause and never mind if its awful , has yet to be named . Perhaps the same approach that changes ordinary water into holy water , a quick wave of the hand and few words ?

Mike in Chile
February 23, 2015 9:52 am

This is from the sidebar on the same webpage. Seems this ‘consensus’ is now incorrect as well:

February 23, 2015 9:59 am

Unfortunately, for us in the UK, firearms are illegal, so when the forces of justice cometh; the likes of Bob Ward wont have the luxury of ending it all with a one shot blast of gory. We, the TaX payer, will still be subsiding his existence.

Reply to  Anoneumouse
February 23, 2015 11:58 am

[snip – wildly off topic -mod]

Old Man of the Forest
Reply to  Anoneumouse
February 24, 2015 8:48 am

Except for the two million legally held firearms in the UK I guess you mean.

February 23, 2015 10:06 am

I am not sure of the differences between the government report below versus that stated in the article, but this 2014 FY government report indicates that the federal climate change budget/expenditures are in the order of $ 20 + billion dollars. See below:
Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Report to Congress
Table 1
Summary of Federal Climate Change Expenditures
Summary of Climate
Expenditures in $ Millions
FY 2012 19,781
Enacted Budget
FY 2013 22,598
Enacted Budget
FY 2013 22,195
Current Budget
FY 2014 21,408
Sorry the table does not cut and paste well.
Where am I wrong?

Reply to  Catcracking
February 23, 2015 10:16 am

Well, conventionally, 92 billion dollars are credited with the total spending by the US government on “Climate Change” by Big Government to Big Science for research and papers and computers and institutions to produce results favorable to Big Government and Big Finance about Climate Change.
Your figures indicate right at 60 billion dollars for the last three years alone, so the accepted value of 92 billion paid to the priests of the CAGW religion for their results is probably much too low.

Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 23, 2015 12:33 pm

R A Cook
Thanks for your affirmation of the $60 Billion for 3 years which is from the referenced government website.
Why is the expenditure much less in the article?
Where does that number come from?
During the 2012 election Romney quoted a value of $100 billion which is more in line with the expenditures from the website I quoted.

Reply to  Catcracking
February 23, 2015 12:53 pm

It might be an error. Those happen, you know.
For example, Big Finance might have 55 trillion (not 30 trillion) in carbon futures at stake for loss if CAGW is proved wrong! Big Government might have 1.5 trillion (not 1.3 trillion) in new taxes they have “lost” if CAGW is proven false.

February 23, 2015 10:21 am

Back in 2011 it was alleged that James Hansen accepted $1.4 million in “prizes” from activist groups and groups who benefit from climate legislation. It was also alleged that Hansen failed to report that income pursuant to federal law. American Traditions Institute filed a lawsuit and shortly thereafter, Hansen retired and the story seemed to drop off the face of the earth. It looked to me like some kind of settlement was reached and that the parties agreed to keep the settlement confidential.
If the greens want to talk about money and corruption, then lets understand what happened to Hansen.

Don Perry
February 23, 2015 10:25 am

If you read an article at Microcap Observer, the writer(s) seem to be near illiterate. The English syntax and grammar are atrocious.

February 23, 2015 10:25 am

I am skeptical about the timeline / storyline of the ‘investigation’ of whether Dr. Willie Soon’s 2014 paper did a proper disclosure of conflict of interest.
I openly ask for MSM to aid in getting a disclosure of whether the idea to investigate Harvard associated climate change critic Dr Willie Soon was inspired by and/or aided in any way by the relatively recently* hired Harvard faculty member Naomi Oreskes (who is publically well known as a fundamental believer in ‘big fossil con$piracies wrt climate’ as shown in her book ‘Merchants of Doubt’). It needs to be investigated whether there is a potential conflict of interest by Oreskes.
* hired by Harvard approximately summer/fall 2013

February 23, 2015 10:26 am

Soon’s attackers cannot fault his science, so they’ve resorted to attacking the man.

David Ball
Reply to  Pointman
February 23, 2015 7:12 pm

Just wondering if anyone knows the name of the current science advisor to the POTUS?

Reply to  David Ball
February 23, 2015 7:42 pm

Happy Gilmour

February 23, 2015 10:31 am

In case anyone is wondering why Dr. Soon is the target here, the answer is this:
Soon and Balunias published a peer-reviewed paper confirming the existence of the Medieval Warm Period [MWP].
That paper was published in 2003. Ever since, Dr. Soon has been attacked. The alarmist crowd cannot tolerate the fact that a Harvard researcher has confirmed that the MWP existed, and that it was warmer than now. Because that destroys their claim that the late 20th-Century global warming was the hottest EVAH!!
The whole thing is stupid, because natural warming episodes prior to the MWP were even warmer. The current global warming is no different. It appears to be entirely natural. But as with the statisticians who produced the Wegman Report debunking Michael Mann’s ‘Hockey Stick’, anyone stepping off the rteservation must be attacked mercilessly, no matter how flimsy and trumped-up the accusations.

Reply to  dbstealey
February 23, 2015 4:32 pm

Thanks for an important link in this chain.

February 23, 2015 10:34 am

I went to a lecture presented by Dr. Soon at USC. It was well done and covered by local (University) TV. After the lecture I turned to talk to some of the Professors that were present. I asked them why they did not speakout on the subject of AGW. While they agreed with Dr. Soon they would not speak because of the funding in their departments. They were afraid of the financial consequences of speaking the truth. They did not want to be seen on camera saying that AGW was at best a scam. After hearing one particular professor from a former soviet bloc country recount his fears about the government coming for him I realized the depth to which this political movement had infiltrated science. I am not sure that even with the reach of Anthony and Dr. Soon that this cancer of AGW upon science can be overcome.

February 23, 2015 11:18 am

A forensic accountant acquaintance once told me that the proliferation of “green charities” and their often bewildering multiple links to each other, etc. are reminiscent of shell companies hiding ill-gotten gains off-shore.
Not saying there is anything illegal going on, of course. But the lack of transparency between these groups could make an honest man say “hmmmmm”.

Reply to  CaligulaJones
February 23, 2015 11:53 am


A forensic accountant acquaintance once told me that the proliferation of “green charities” and their often bewildering multiple links to each other, etc. are reminiscent of shell companies hiding ill-gotten gains off-shore.
Not saying there is anything illegal going on, of course. But the lack of transparency between these groups could make an honest man say “hmmmmm”.

That is a common mechanism among left-wing/democrat-supporting organizations and propagandist/political-influential groups. I understand, for example, that there have been as many as 14 different “organizations” and for-profit and not-for-profit and “charitable” groups and “corporations” at one building on one street used for democrat party work (er, voter outreach and public support) in one city: ALL using one or more common nouns within a single group: (Rainbow/PUSH/Forward/Coalition/People/Rights/Voter/Civil) names were in some combination of the names.
Thus any given check coming into the building (they all had the same address!) could be re-routed anywhere into any fund it could be conveniently used. Either hidden, public, tax-free, taxed, or non-profit. ALL of the money all went to the same people at the same address.
The democrat party in 2012 election ran ads overseas asking for money – hundreds of millions of money. But it had to go to on-line donations, had to be less than “recordable” (less than 5000.00 dollars) so the democrat party did not need to tell anybody who gave what amounts of money, and was being sent by (anonymous credit card “donations”) that could be computer processed with no personal input: No address verification, no zip code verification, no card security code verification, no names, no verification (by visual feedback) of any person at all. Just a card number. And every donation (from overseas, and most from the US) was 5.00 dollars under the maximum limit for every donation. Times a few million donations.
Nah. No fraud there.

Reply to  CaligulaJones
February 23, 2015 12:46 pm

An honest man would not throw out the term “ill gotten gains” for profits that were legally earned by companies that risked their capital and invested overseas, probably because the US government prevented investment on US territories because of ill advised environmental policies. The energy policies come to mind but there are others.
Companies need to compete internationally to stay in business and why should the government criticize US business efforts to compete in the world economy legally. The left proposals to double tax overseas earnings are suicidal for US business and will encourage even more to move overseas.

Ann Banisher
February 23, 2015 11:25 am

“I guess cooking climate data can be an expensive habit”
That sounds like a good premise for an AMC series.
Poor, under appreciated, under paid science professor realizes that he can make big money by cooking up some awesome climate data, they call it ‘green math’. His Green Math is a hit with the users & dealers. He suddenly realizes that he enjoys the money & power, and if there a few character assassinations along the way, so be it.
I’ll call it “Barking Mad”.
Now all we need is a bald guy with a goatee as a lead character. Any ideas?

Reply to  Ann Banisher
February 23, 2015 12:22 pm


Reply to  Ann Banisher
February 23, 2015 2:09 pm

Barking Mad — an AMC original series:
Gary Busey as the scientist (he can shave his head)
Lindsey Lohan as his research assistant
Bruce Jenner as Busey’s wife
Kiefer Sutherland as the skeptic that is slandered
Charlie Sheen as the journalist
Christopher Walken as the defense attorney
Mel Gibson as the prosecutor
Instant classic that would spawn three movies and two spin offs.

February 23, 2015 11:34 am

The Microcap Observer is, ah, factually challenged. I am told that Scot (sic) Walker is the Governor of Washington.

Reply to  jpatrick
February 23, 2015 11:42 am

In my wildest dreams. (:

John Parsons
February 23, 2015 12:34 pm

There’s nothing wrong with accepting money from Big Oil. But it IS wrong not to disclose it to the journals who publish it. And Dr. Soon knew that.
You can obfuscate all you want, about whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that he failed to meet those ethical requirements. Period. JP

Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 12:47 pm

remind us again of the number of alarmist papers have made it clear where their funding comes from ?
Meanwhile outside of a smear , care to tell us what was wrong with the paper , after all it is supposed to be judge on its scientific contents.

Stuart Elliot
Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 12:48 pm

So it’s settled then. Just like the science.
Thanks for stopping by.

Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 12:51 pm

John Parsons

You can obfuscate all you want, about whatever you want, but it doesn’t change the fact that he failed to meet those ethical requirements. Period. JP

Gee. And Al Gore did not reveal his family made its money and influence by supporting democrat racists in the 60’s and 70’s, by Big Tobacco and Big Oil (overseas) and by Big Pollution (in South America) did he? Did Hansen reveal yet how many millions he received from anonymous political donors for his official decisions and actions as head of NASA-GISS?
How much is Big Green receiving from Soros? From overseas oil and political powers that will benefit from US oil failures and excess prices?

Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 23, 2015 3:45 pm

How about who is picking up the tab for Mann legal fees for the many court cases he has started, now there is good question .

John Parsons
Reply to  RACookPE1978
February 23, 2015 5:38 pm

This is about Dr. Soon’s misconduct. You can try to divert attention to Al Gore or anyone else you like, but that doesn’t change the facts: Dr. Soon failed to meet his ethical obligations. Period. JP

Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 5:52 pm

John Parsons

Dr. Soon failed to meet his ethical obligations. Period. JP

Oh. Who pays your salary to make such “inconvenient” attacks at such inconvenient times for such “inconvenient” targets right when the administration needs them? Who prompted your participation here at such “inconvenient” times for Dr Soon? What are your ethical obligations to your masters of your budgets? Any of that 60 billion in recent Big Government funding in your pocket you need to protect from Big Finance’s part of their 30 trillion in carbon future trading? There are no donations in my account. No Big Government money coming my direction telling me what to write.

Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 12:57 pm

The article claims that he falsified research.
Do you have any evidence to back up the claim?
If the he did not falsify research it is a smear campaign based on lies and is subject to liable.
Why change the subject?

John Parsons
Reply to  Catcracking
February 23, 2015 5:39 pm

Are you asking me if I have evidence to back a claim I did not make? JP

Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 3:15 pm

You have to disclose to a journal money used FOR THAT PAPER. You do not have to disclose everything you have ever received from anyone. That’s a bait and switch argument and you know it.
Soon did this paper on his own time with his own money. There is nothing to disclose.
In your words, “Period”.

Reply to  benofhouston
February 23, 2015 4:50 pm

The journal in question requires the following:
“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”
It’s not just for that paper.

John M
Reply to  benofhouston
February 23, 2015 4:59 pm
John Parsons
Reply to  benofhouston
February 23, 2015 5:45 pm

You are wrong. Look at the documents. Dr. Soon failed to disclose relevant remuneration in 8 of 11 papers. Of course it was “his money”. He just failed to disclose who gave it to him. JP

John M
Reply to  benofhouston
February 23, 2015 5:48 pm

Are you saying that Soon received funding from Southern for the “Models run Hot” paper? That’s what benofhouston was referring to.

Reply to  benofhouston
February 23, 2015 8:15 pm

JohnM your question is as irrelevant the second time as it was the first.
The journal requires the information on Conflict of Interest, which I listed, from its authors. Willie Soon declared that he had no conflict, that’s what’s being discussed.

John M
Reply to  benofhouston
February 24, 2015 2:04 pm
Are you saying that no climate scientists who have received honoraria from renewable energy interests and/or NGOs publish in those journals? Or are you saying that climate scientists who have received such awards always disclose them when they publish in those journals?
This is directly relevant, since it deals with the list of remunerations you provided and these journals.

Reply to  benofhouston
February 25, 2015 7:45 am

John M February 24, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Are you saying that no climate scientists who have received honoraria from renewable energy interests and/or NGOs publish in those journals? Or are you saying that climate scientists who have received such awards always disclose them when they publish in those journals?

I have said neither of those things. If one publishes in a journal that requires a conflict of interest statement it should be completed honestly.
This is directly relevant, since it deals with the list of remunerations you provided and these journals.
Since I provided no such list I don’t know what you’re talking about.

Kevin Kilty
February 23, 2015 12:50 pm

David Appell, who is some sort of science writer somewhere, laid into Briggs, Monckton and Soon on Briggs site early Sunday morning. I pointed out that his accusations were very vague, especially the one about not adequately citing previous work. Appell, I must say, was good enough to point me civilly toward the blog of Jan Perlwitz. There I read, and squinted hard to see even the tiny stuff, but found this seems like a tempest in a teapot. I found that the failure to cite adequately is based on not citing a couple of rather old papers, and one relatively recent, regarding the prior art of energy balance in climate studies. My gawd, energy balance is as old as dirt in engineering, and no one would worry about citing previous work using energy balance at all.
Another of Appell and Perlwitz’ complaints against Monckton, et al, is that the work is just terribly wrong. But if error is what has them so exorcised, then why don’t they calm down, ignore the paper, and the errors will bloom in the light of day on their own?
No, I’m afraid the real sin is that Monckton et al are seen as having no right to publish anything as they are not members of the esteemed club, and failed to ask permission to play in this neighborhood anyway.

Mike the Morlock
February 23, 2015 12:51 pm

This maybe part of what prompted the NYT to run the story.
Dr. Soon would be one of the people asked to testify. They need to discredit him before any hearings. Also expect rabid attacks on any Skeptical witness.
He greens also have problem in regards to say sexual harassment
If hearing occur, the heads of NASA and NOAA could find themselves in very hot water. (pun intended.)

Steve Lohr
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 23, 2015 1:25 pm

Mike, you have it. The onslaught from the new Republican dominated Congress and Senate is going to be painful for them. This is a preemptive attempt to discredit the players before they are on the field. All stops are out. University of Colorado researchers are already feeding articles to the local paper and there will be more as the inquiry begins. Watch for articles from LA times to be picked up locally as they are part of the “information” lead-and-feed drivers. As they say: “let the battle be joined”. I think a reminder of the air conditioning trick should be brought forward and reframed as the deception it was.

February 23, 2015 12:57 pm

As pointed out above required disclosures solely pertain to any funding for the specific research topic that is published. It’s not a “have you now or ever in the past…” sort of mandatory requirement.
So accusations against Dr Soon are only valid if he was funded to research and publish on a topic and failed to notify readers. So far no specifics have been published to support that accusation.

February 23, 2015 1:05 pm

Reblogged this on the WeatherAction News Blog and commented:
The reason the greens scream so much and point at everyone else is simply to create a distraction. Vile.

February 23, 2015 1:39 pm

FFS! I was thinking that Soon is beyond the mentality to give a rats arse what these green zombies claim but now the slander has crept into the MSM, including his home town paper, and a Mass. congressman is even investigating him. It’s gone to the point to where even a mind above such pettiness should push back and start filing the libel suits.
When skeptics vocally attacked Mann it was for obvious reasons and it was always about his “scientific” methods, not his grants. Can anyone find an official rebuttal printed in a reputable scientific journal disagreeing with Soon’s paper in question?
All I found was garbage (Google Scholar is loosing credibility). Warning: the following links are complete propaganda and may induce vomiting.

February 23, 2015 2:29 pm

So, to use the logic of the Greens…
The Cold War funded the Space Race. T
The Apollo programme was really researching ICBMs in order to deliver nuclear warheads.
But they didn’t admit it!
Therefore, the moon landings were faked. The science isn’t correct.
Lewandowsky must be cringing.

February 23, 2015 2:36 pm

I used to like the color green, now it is worse than when red stood for the communist threat during the cold war.
Please quit besmirching the color green, give us back the color green. It used to be such a nice color, not a color for petty enviro-tyrants.

February 23, 2015 2:45 pm

Another example of consensus coming up short. I give you Allan Savoury, scientist, ecologist and environmentalist whose peer-reviewed analysis and report directly led to an horrific slaughter. Surprised the warmists don’t talk about this one.
“His research, validated by a committee of scientists, led to the government culling of 40,000 elephants in following years but he later concluded the culling did not reverse the degradation of the land, calling that decision “the saddest and greatest blunder of my life.”[21][22] This blunder, brought about by interpreting research data to fit the prevailing world-view..” Wikipedia

February 23, 2015 2:54 pm

Mark Steyn quotes Theodore Dalrymple with regard totalitarian regimes thus:
“In my study of communist societies, I came to the conclusion that the purpose of communist propaganda was not to persuade or convince, nor to inform, but to humiliate; and therefore, the less it corresponded to reality the better. When people are forced to remain silent when they are being told the most obvious lies, or even worse when they are forced to repeat the lies themselves, they lose once and for all their sense of probity. To assent to obvious lies is to co-operate with evil, and in some small way to become evil oneself. One’s standing to resist anything is thus eroded, and even destroyed. A society of emasculated liars is easy to control.”

February 23, 2015 3:08 pm

Gentle Readers,
Nowhere is there greater incestuous financing of research to yield a pseudo “consensus” than in monetary dynamics. And worse, the media is completely silent about it.
Furthermore, I would submit to you that this incestuous financing of research in monetary dynamics is the great unseen force animating the debauchery in climate research so well documented by WUWT, as corrupted money corrupts all of society.
Below is an except from an article by Prof. Antal Fekete.
It’s a bit long, but perhaps some of you might find it interesting. It certainly is relevant to this thread and to this site, even if that is not immediately apparent.
At a minimum, it is bizarre that small fry like Soon get fried, yet the whale of a tale goes unmolested.
(Mods, please note that Fekete welcomes the public to repost his work, and has personally given me permission to do so.)
* * * * * *
Gold Standard Manifesto: Dismal Monetary Science
by Antal E. Fekete
A specter haunts executive mansions, chambers of legislatures, and halls of universities: the ghost of the gold standard. Governments and academia have utterly failed in discharging their sacred duty to provide a serene environment for the search for and dissemination of truth regarding economics in general and monetary science in particular.
This failure has to do, first and foremost, with the incestuous financing of research ever since the Federal Reserve System was launched in the United States in 1913. The formula for distributing the profits and undivided surpluses of the Federal Reserve banks has made it possible for the United States Treasury to grab the lion’s share. As a consequence the bond market has been reduced to a gambling casino where the shill, alias Open Market Committee of the Federal Reserve (OMC), whips up gambling frenzy and gamblers, alias multinational banks make obscene gains at the gaming table. Bond speculation has been made virtually risk-free. Multinational banks rush in to pre-empt the OMC in buying government securities first. Losers are the involuntary participants: savers and producers of goods and services.
Under the gold standard government bonds were the instrument to which widows and orphans could safely entrust their savings. Under the regime of irredeemable currency they are the instrument whereby special interest fleeces the rest of society. You don’t have to be a bondholder to be victimized. If you are a saver, your savings account is surreptitiously pilfered as bond speculators drive interest rates up. If you are a producer, your capital account is clandestinely plundered as bond speculators drive interest rates down.
Official Check-Kiting
Unknown to the public, at the end of the day the shill is obliged to hand over her gains to the casino owner, alias the United States Treasury. There is nothing open about what is euphemistically called ‘open market operations’. It is a conspiratorial operation. It has come about through unlawful delegation of power without imposing countervailing responsibilities. It was never authorized by the Federal Reserve Act of 1913. It defies the principle of checks and balances. It is immoral. It is a formula to corrupt and ultimately to destroy the Republic.
Even though later amendments to the Federal Reserve Act authorized it retroactively, the constitutionality of open market operation has never been put to the test. Such an examination would not be permitted by the powers-that-be. Open market operations are tantamount to check-kiting whereby two conspiring parties issue obligations that neither one has the intention or the means to honor but, when they come up for clearing, the phantom obligation of one party is covered with that of the other.
Incest in Financing Research
The junior partner in the conspiracy, the Federal Reserve, can only increase its share of the loot beyond the mandated limit of 6 percent per annum of subscribed capital by increasing its power. To do so it makes grants to anybody pretending to be able to write awe-inspiring, mathematically convoluted, nonetheless vacuous papers on macroeconomics or anything else of which the fraudulence and charlatanism is hard to detect.
As a result a veritable deluge of worthless papers has glutted the technical literature on money which have one common earmark: they all attempt to defend the indefensible, the issuance of irredeemable promises to pay: bonds issued by the Treasury and notes issued by the Federal Reserve banks. Thus, then, the basis for money creation is the flimsy check-kiting scheme whereby the Federal Reserve banks buy the bonds with freshly printed notes, while the Treasury uses these notes to pay the bondholders. Bonds are supposed to have value because they are ‘redeemable’ in the notes which, in turn, are supposed to have value because they are ‘backed’ by bonds. In effect both instruments are irredeemable and neither has backing in the form of any verifiable segregated wealth in existence. At the heart of the money-creating process, however explained, analyzed, or defended, is the stubborn fact that both the Treasury and the Federal Reserve banks are privileged, improperly and unconstitutionally, to issue obligations that they have neither the intention nor the means to honor. Check-kiting by anybody else constitutes a crime dealt with by the Criminal Code.
The grant departments of the Federal Reserve banks have effectively put themselves in charge of deciding what should and what should not be researched on the subject of money. This incest in financing research stands without precedent in the entire history of science, to the eternal shame of this ‘enlightened’ and ‘pluralistic’ age.
Crime of Omission
The hijacking of the agenda for economic research has resulted in a distortion of traditional values. The new values favor ephemeral knowledge, myopia in planning, instant gratification, marginalization of savers, consumerism, debt-creation with abandon, without seeing how it can be retired, scientific charlatanism, spreading half truths. Discarded are the old values: durable knowledge, work-hard/save-hard ethics, long-horizon planning, and a healthy fear of dangers involved in the unlimited accumulation of debt.
[end of excerpt]

February 23, 2015 3:48 pm

A simple proof that change to the level of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) does not cause climate change has been hiding in plain sight. Here it is:
CO2 has been considered to be a forcing. For a unit area, the units of a forcing are Joules/sec. Energy change for that same unit area has units Joules. Average forcing times duration equals energy change (analogous to average speed times duration equals distance traveled). Energy change divided by effective thermal capacitance is temperature change. Thus equivalently, the appropriate scale factor times the time-integral of the CO2 level would produce the average global temperature (AGT) change attributable to the CO2 change.
According to widely available data from Vostok, Antarctica ice cores, during previous glaciations and interglacials, CO2 and AGT went up and down nearly in lock-step (as so dramatically displayed in An Inconvenient Truth). If CO2 is a significant forcing (scale factor not zero), temperature could only increase and it would increase with the time-integral of the CO2 level. Because instead AGT and CO2 go up AND DOWN nearly together, this actually proves CO2 change does not cause significant average global temperature change. Because CO2 is only a trace gas in the atmosphere, if CO2 change does not cause temperature change, it cannot cause climate change. THUS THE CO2 CHANGE FROM BURNING FOSSIL FUELS HAS NO SIGNIFICANT EFFECT ON CLIMATE.
Application of this analysis methodology to CO2 levels for the entire Phanerozoic eon (about 542 million years) (Berner, 2001) proves that CO2 levels up to at least 6 times the present will have no significant effect on average global temperature.
See more on this and discover the two factors that do cause climate change (95% correlation since before 1900) at . The two factors which explain the last 300+ years of climate change are also identified in a peer reviewed paper published in Energy and Environment, vol. 25, No. 8, 1455-1471 or search “agwunveiled”.

February 23, 2015 4:28 pm

The Governor of the state of Oregon was just forced to resign due to his fiance’s taking money from “Big Green” outfits funded by Tom Steyer and others to influence the Governor’s office. The media coverage of the Governor’s resignation has generally ignored the connection with “Big Green”. I believe the timing of this slamming of Soon was tied to wanting to ignore the “problem in Oregon.”

February 23, 2015 4:50 pm

Thanks, Anthony.
Dr. Soon has demolished too many icons; The hockey stick, extinction-endangered polar bears, CAGW. The left is targeting him for a public execution.

February 23, 2015 4:59 pm

Add to the consensus of old: (since 1968. Not really so old.)
1. Margarine is good.
2. The thymus has no function.
3. The spleen has no function.
4. The stomach is sterile. Ulcers are caused by bad thoughts.
5. Clot busting drugs cannot work for acute MI.
6. Post menopausal estrogen is good for most women.
7. Evolution occurs only by small, incremental steps.
8. Coronary bypass procedures cannot work.
9. Radical mastectomy is the only way to treat breast cancer.
10. Low grade lymphomas need to be treated with highly toxic chemotherapy.
11, For unknown reasons, women don’t get lung cancer by smoking, unlike men. (Really. The rates didn’t go up until the 1970’s in women. A thirty year lag time from starting smoking [WW II].) Now it is the biggest cancer killer in women.
One could go on and on. “Consensus” just means that people have stopped thinking critically. People who cry “consensus” are laughable.

Reply to  Joel Hammer
February 23, 2015 7:27 pm

You can add virtually everything in psychiatry’s bible of billables, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM).
Also, how about gluten intolerance?
Someone brought up evil saturated fats. I’ll second that. It’s a fattie … err … biggie.

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
February 23, 2015 5:10 pm

Add the AGE OF THE EARTH to the list of “consensus scientific thinking” that had to be changed. Lord Kelvin calculated the age of the earth to be 100 million years by calculatin heat loss of the earth (a scientific modelling exercise perhaps)?. The radioactive decay was discovered by Rutherford, and the age of the earth was found to be much older.

February 23, 2015 5:18 pm
Micro Cap Observer
1400 Eye St. NW, Ste. 1115
Washington, DC 20005
Same address as:
Capstone LLC
1400 Eye St. NW, Ste. 1115
Washington, DC 20005
Looks like they are somehow related. David Barrosse is the founding and and managing partner of Capstone LLC. Perhaps an inquiry of Mr. Barrosse about the editorial and grammatical practices of Micro Cap Observer would be warranted.

Proud Skeptic
February 23, 2015 5:36 pm

OK…let’s say Soon is guilty of failure to disclose his funding sources. Now…respond to the science. In the end that is all that matters anyway.

John Parsons
Reply to  Proud Skeptic
February 23, 2015 5:49 pm

That’s a very Machiavellian attitude. The Science speaks for itself. JP

Reply to  John Parsons
February 23, 2015 6:10 pm

John Parsons

The Science speaks for itself. JP

Yeah. No warming for the past 18 years. No warming for 70% of the years between 1945 and 2015. Funny thing, this global warming by Big Science to justify trillions of Big Government money.

February 24, 2015 1:15 am

Well let’s just hope that the hearings on the climate science, promised by Sen James Inhofe, chair of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works, expose all that is rotten about the ‘science’ presented by the warmest establishment headed by the UN’s IPCC.

February 24, 2015 5:14 am

““consensus of opinion only later to find that consensus overturned? …Eugenics…”
What part of Eugenics has been overturned? It is still fully funded and in force today, in the USA and globally.

February 24, 2015 9:38 am

The “big money”in AGW will be in “big finance”….cap and trade, climate exchanges and derivatives leveraged to 20x 30x 50x 100x the nominal value of the underlying instruments….and “big finance” is also “BIG OIL!!!”…..yes the exact same people that own “big finance” also own “big oil”…..they wont lose a cent on their oil holdings and they will make vast fortunes on AGW so the big oil argument is just another red herring

February 24, 2015 5:26 pm

Reblogged this on gottadobetterthanthis and commented:
““Cracking Big Green” examined the Internal Revenue Service Form 990 reports of non-profit organizations. Driessen and Arnold discovered that, among the 2012 incomes of better-known environmental groups, the Sierra Club took in $97,757,678 and its Foundation took in $47,163,599. The Environmental Defense Fund listed $111,915,138 in earnings, the Natural Resources Defense Council took in $98,701,707 and the National Audubon Society took in $96,206,883. These four groups accounted for more than $353 million in one year.” ——
What could you do for helping the poor improve their environment with hundreds of millions per year? Apparently all the enviros can buy with all that money is some ethically-challenged politicians and prostituted scientists. They certainly have nothing to show for their stated objectives of saving the wild.

February 24, 2015 7:56 pm

The perfect solution for Dr. Willie Soon – become an Aussie. Has he ever thought about the possibilities? Even if his ancestors were not convicts or horse thieves, opportunities still abound for conflict of interest and compromise, with collusion and general schmoozing of any and all foreign interests an extra point of virtue. Inquire within:

Reply to  Zeke
February 24, 2015 8:07 pm

Is Dr. Soon a Baby Boomer? That qualifies him to talk to Maoists about shutting down agriculture in
English speaking countries, Russians in “combating global warming” and shutting down energy, and Berlin/Frankfort in destroying brain and genetic science and promoting Eugenics/transhumanism! What is not to like. He may feel bad at the moment but just think of the opportunities for nights in Dubai with German Supermodels, if he would only admit that all human activity trips tipping points on a fragile earth.

%d bloggers like this: