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.”
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: http://www.americanthinker.com/articles/2009/11/cru_files_betray_climate_alarm.html#ixzz3SaJIib00
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
Soon’s attackers cannot fault his science, so they’ve resorted to attacking the man.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2014/05/22/the-age-of-unenlightenment/
Pointman
Just wondering if anyone knows the name of the current science advisor to the POTUS?
Happy Gilmour
In case anyone is wondering why Dr. Soon is the target here, the answer is this:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
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.
Thanks for an important link in this chain.
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.
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”.
CaligulaJones
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.
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.
“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?
Ha!
Barking Mad — an AMC original series:
Starring
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.
The Microcap Observer is, ah, factually challenged. I am told that Scot (sic) Walker is the Governor of Washington.
http://www.microcapobserver.com/washington-governor-scot-walker-r-also-join-in-the-bandwagon-of-former-new-york-city-governor-rudy-giulianis-comments/236436/
In my wildest dreams. (:
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
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.
So it’s settled then. Just like the science.
Thanks for stopping by.
John Parsons
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?
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 .
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
John Parsons
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.
JP,
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?
Are you asking me if I have evidence to back a claim I did not make? JP
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”.
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.
Phil-dot,
I repeat my question to you.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/23/smear-campaign-his-judgment-cometh-and-that-right-soon/#comment-1866715
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
Are you saying that Soon received funding from Southern for the “Models run Hot” paper? That’s what benofhouston was referring to.
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.
Phil.dot
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.
John M February 24, 2015 at 2:04 pm
Phil.dot
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.
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.
This maybe part of what prompted the NYT to run the story.
http://dailycaller.com/2015/02/20/republicans-to-investigate-climate-data-tampering-by-nasa/
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.)
michael
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.
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.
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.
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.
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php/Climate_change_skeptics/common_claims_and_rebuttal
http://mahb.stanford.edu/wp-content/uploads/2014/05/2014_Abraham-et-al.-Climate-consensus.pdf
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.
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.
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
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.”
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
Introduction
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]
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 http://agwunveiled.blogspot.com . 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”.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
microcapobserver.com
Micro Cap Observer
1400 Eye St. NW, Ste. 1115
Washington, DC 20005
Same address as:
http://www.capstonedc.com/index.html
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.
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.
That’s a very Machiavellian attitude. The Science speaks for itself. JP
John Parsons
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.
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.