Left Launches Witch Hunt Against Climate Scientists
New York Times, Boston Globe, and others help Greenpeace attack scientists
who disagree with its extreme views on global warming
CHICAGO (March 1, 2015) — A week ago, the Boston Globe, New York Times, and Washington Post ran stories repeating claims made by long-time Greenpeace staffer Kert Davies that Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics failed to disclose funding from “fossil-fuel sources” to the editors of a science journal that published an article coauthored by Dr. Soon. Davies alleged this violated the journal’s disclosure and conflict of interest requirements.
Since then, many other media outlets have covered the controversy.
This news coverage was the beginning of a witch hunt waged against climate scientists whose work contradicts the claims of Greenpeace and other liberal advocacy groups. Elements of the witch hunt include:
* Forecast the Facts, a project of the left-of-center Center for American Progress (and more recently affiliated with the even farther-left Citizen Engagement Laboratory) launched an online petition to the Smithsonian Institution demanding Dr. Soon be fired for misconduct.
* Democratic U.S. Sens. Edward Markey, Barbara Boxer, and Sheldon Whitehouse sent letters to 100 business and think tanks – including The Heartland Institute – demanding they divulge any funding they have provided to global warming skeptics.
* Democratic U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva sent letters to seven universities demanding information about funding for eight scientists who have questioned Greenpeace’s stance on global warming.
* Davies asked the editors of journals that published Soon’s work to investigate whether he had complied with their disclosure and conflict of interest policies.
The Heartland Institute, which has been part of the climate change debate since 1993, has created a web page at www.heartland.org/willie-soon that collects commentary and background information on this controversy. The web page contains information contradicting Davies’ allegations while making the following points:
* Neither the editors of Science Bulletin nor the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Soon’s employer, have said Dr. Soon violated their disclosure or conflict of interest rules.
* Davies has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source. His background and affiliations should have been included in news stories based on his latest allegations.
* Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.
* The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.
* By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.
* Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.
Joseph Bast, president of The Heartland Institute, said:
“The Heartland Institute stands four-square behind Willie Soon. He’s a brilliant and courageous scientist devoted entirely to pursuing scientific knowledge. His critics are all ethically challenged and mental midgets by comparison. We plan to continue to work with Dr. Soon on future editions of Climate Change Reconsidered and feature him at future International Conferences on Climate Change, including the next one, the tenth, scheduled to take place in June in Washington, DC.”
John Nothdurft, director of government relations for The Heartland Institute, said:
“Instead of having a real conversation with the American public about the science and economics of climate change, well-financed advocacy groups and politicians with many ‘conflicts of interest’ of their own would rather direct the public’s focus on who funds non-profit organizations, independent research institutions, scientists, economists, and other experts.
“Apparently it is now a national offense to raise any concerns over certain aspects of the science or economics of policies that purport to deal with human-caused climate change. This witch hunt has nothing to do with ensuring that science is accurate or reliable. These attacks are leveled by people who refuse to engage in civil debate over important matters of science, economics, and public policy. They should not be allowed to win the day.”
Heartland has worked closely with Dr. Soon over the years, featuring him as a speaker at conferences and including him as a reviewer and contributor to a series of volumes on climate science published for the Nongovernmental International Panel on Climate Change (NIPCC). In 2013, Heartland published a critique coauthored by Dr. Soon of a report of the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Time to start the lawsuits,
Better yet, a write-in campaign to the top newspapers within their states. Make them look like the partisan fools they are.
Those senators should be contacted and asked why they have not made similar requests of the top environmental organizations and progressive think tanks re their support of the ‘consensus’. Since they have not one can only assume they are on a witch hunt. Letters to the news paper editors within their states explaining those facts would be appropriate.
And demand to find the resolution to the regulatory agencies for their trading of NGO personnel.
September 5, 1997 #51
by: Doug Fiedor fiedor19@eos.net
THE REGULATORY MORASS
The next major federal government scandal is just starting to get legs in the press, thanks to the Dallas Morning News. That is, under a law known as the Intergovernmental Personnel Act, the federal government “lends out” 1,200 to 1,500 well paid federal bureaucrats to left-wing non-profit organizations each year.
If anyone wonders how the United Nations Non- Governmental Organizations (NGO) fit in with the federal government’s regulatory agencies, here is part of the story: They regularly trade employees back and forth.
A while back, we reported that the relationship between United Nations NGO’s and federal agencies, like the EPA, was so tight it appeared there was a revolving door between them. Now we learn that many of these people are kept on the federal payroll, even while working for the NGOs.
Many federal agencies give grants to nonprofit groups. Often, federal regulatory agencies even offer grants to nonprofit organizations that use the money to sue the agency. It’s all a big game, with a well orchestrated game plan. Their plan is to grab power, and the game plan is working well.
The idea is for nonprofit NGOs to use taxpayer funds to force federal agencies to regulate the American public in ways the NGO desires. Many of the laws and regulations these NGOs want promulgated would be much too harsh to get passed through normal means. So, they trump up some “need” or “violation,” whether environmental or health, and the NGO sues the regulatory agency in court. The courts then “force” the federal regulatory agency to regulate whatever. Hence, it’s a synergistic relationship. The federal regulatory agency ends up with more power and churns out even more regulations, forcing American citizens to act according to the wish of the NGO.
Doubtful if it will have any positive effect, considering what the New York Daily News did to William Shatner this weekend over his charity schedule and Leonard Nimoy’s funeral. If you are going to enlist the MSM, you first need to decide whether you are prepared to lose whatever ethics you have, and can afford the electric bill for the shower afterwards.
@DD More March 2, 2015 at 9:06 am
Where was “THE REGULATORY MORASS” published?
Mark Steyn has a good new column out on this topic:
http://www.steynonline.com/6831/the-warmish-inquisition
In response to this, I’ve sent letters to many democrats demanding they do something that is anatomically impossible.
I like the idea of labeling this the Warmists Inquisition.
Paul Coppin,
I hear the Canadian gov’t is unhappy with Spock fans altering their currency:
[Snip. You’re on the wrong blog. This is a science site. ~mod.]
failed to disclose funding from “fossil-fuel sources” to the editors of a science journal that published an article Am I reading and understanding this correct? Does someone have to pay for having an articles in science journals published? Before or after the article been accepted?
Long ago it wasn’t that way at all.
My wife was a long-time medical researcher. Yes, authors pay to have their articles published in scientific journals. And, of course, users of the journals pay to read the articles. Furthermore, the professional scientific work of reviewing and critiquing submissions was done by unpaid volunteers. What a business!
The World that once was isn’t any more….
Don’t forget the part where the research in Global Climate [insert currently approved scary term here] is paid for with our tax dollars… and then the research papers are paywalled so that if we wished to read the fruits of our tax dollars, we get to pay for it again. To top it all off the data we paid for in the first place is kept secret or deleted.
Yup. Scientific journals do NOT pay the authors. AT BEST, the journal may accept a submission for review and publication without charging the author(s). Many however, require a fee up front from the author(s). One of the big reasons that plagiarism is an immense issue in scientific publishing is that the sole recognition an author may get for contributions to their filed is through citations. That is also a reason that many scientific papers have absurdly long lists of authors. Every time that paper is cited every author on the list tallies a tick on their citation index.
One might pay for reprints, but no bona fide scientific journal (at least none that I’m aware of and I’m familiar with many) charges an author to publish. They just ask for the copyright. Paying to publish sounds like vanity press.
Ah, that’s interesting. I wondered why the recent flurry of papers on comet 67P/Churyumov-Gerasimenko had 60+ authors each. Trouble is, if they are riding on the coat tails just for the citations, they can just as easily be tarred by association. Some of those papers assumed the comet was a contact binary. Sooner or later they will realise it is in fact a single body that has been stretched. All 60 authors will then look rather silly.
Yes, we have paid some of the publishing costs in the past This was in biological sciences. Really it helped defray some of the glossy, excellent quality print materials costs and provided authors with production prints of their work in the days when others, who wanted a copy of your work, wrote to the author(s) to get them. This was always after peer review, editing, and acceptance and publication of the work. The publication costs were made clear by the journals up front in their guidelines.
It was expected back to the 70s that I personally experienced and we included those costs in any funding or grant requests, which reasonably expected those publications. We also reported our funding sources. At the time, peer review was uncompensated, but considered an honor and we took great care to define, describe and avoid conflicts of interest.
I don’t know how it works now with paywalled internet access, but that part is just about money. I have larger issues with what constitutes peer review anymore, at least in “climate science”.
Thanks for the answer. I have heard from friends who back in 70’s had studies published that it could be free after peer review and acceptance to publish but then again in some fields they had to pay. In first case if I understood it correctly (checked last year) the journal “owned” the rights for further publications of same report.
But what I have against it today, read re. so called “climate scientists reports” is the feeling that some of the Journals publish due to being paid no matter if the study, thesis and so on, has or hasn’t arguments used in accordance with Theories of Science.
Today while reading an article in some of the Science Journals I can’t help wondering if the “scholar” ever taken time to understand the need for acrebi and the need to present correct facts and so on.
I can’t imagine that the tiny circulation of a discipline specific journal allows it to rake in the advertising revenue. Even with the really high subscription costs (that we taxpayers usually bear for university and government entities and personnel) I’d bet most of them run at zero profit anyway.
Perhaps Heartland should publish the affiliations and funding sources of the Alarmist gang. Would be rather illuminating, I think.
Joseph Bast ” (Soon’s) critics are all…. mental midgets…”
I don’t disagree with the man. But we must do better. This is the language of children.
I’m with you on that one, but I have to admit to giggling as I read that statement, and muttering “shut the front door”…
Heartland needs to first publish their funding sources. Any chance this comment will make into being published?
Yep you got it. The statement was published and not ‘disappeared’ a la Garudian &c. Does Greenpeace as an advocacy publish their funding sources?
I am a Heartland Sustaining Member by my $250 yearly contribution. By the way, I am a retired Professional Engineer living on SS, so it represents a hardship. But it is my way of fighting this Club of Rome Ideological Driven Propaganda Infringement on the Scientific Method, the attack on Carbon Fueled Energy and my Persona Liberties.
Keep in mind this, Greenpeace are the good guys they just lie and stuff, Earth First not so much they come to your home or office and not to say just hi and bye.
Well, it is good to know that good guys “lie and stuff”.
Except, in Greenpeace’s case, the “lies and stuff” keeps them from being “good guys”.
Well just like the sierra Club of John Muir’s time, Green peace was at one time a “good guy”.
So when they were the immediate victims of an unprovoked Military attack on New Zealand by the Government of France, it was Greenpeace’s “Rainbow Warrior.” that was blown up in Auckland harbor while moored there, with at least one crew fatality.
Well That attack probably ranks high amongst the catalog of Famous French Military Victories.
I guess they did it, because New Zealand and other Pacific Countries complained about France using the Pacific Ocean as their own personal Atom bomb testing facility.
Well the frogs can forget about any help from us, next time they get themselves invaded.
But as for Greenpeace, they now better fit the description of Eco-Terrorists, more closely than a peace organization.
Sierra Club is also pushing their luck.
Let’s not forget the timing, deflect attention away from Pachauri, not to mention the preemptive strike against the Nevada Flash Fried Poultry fiasco …
This looks like the acts of desperation.
Panic does not help them so, the thing to do is increase the pressure more.
People in cheap lie made glass houses should know better than to start a rock fight.
A relevant quote:
“If you tell a lie big enough and keep repeating it, people will eventually come to believe it. The lie can be maintained only for such time as the State can shield the people from the political, economic and/or military consequences of the lie. It thus becomes vitally important for the State to use all of its powers to repress dissent, for the truth is the mortal enemy of the lie, and thus by extension, the truth is the greatest enemy of the State.” – Joseph Goebbels – Reich Minister of Propaganda
[Snip.]
Oh the horror!
Oh the horror!
Is there an updated version of this awesome graphic, or better, a year-by-year?
I know quite a few places I’d like to shove it that receive no solar energy.
U.S. Global Change Research Program FY 2012 Budget Request:
http://www.ucar.edu/oga/pdf/FY12_USGCRP.pdf
U.S. Global Change Research Program
YEAR….BILLIONS..LINK
2014….2.652…..http://www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/microsites/ostp/2014_R&Dbudget_climate.pdf
2013….2.427…..http://www.ucar.edu/oga/pdf/FY13_USGCRP.pdf
2012….2.642…..http://www.ucar.edu/oga/pdf/FY12_USGCRP.pdf
2011….2.561
2010….2.122
2009….2.080…..http://www.climatescience.gov/infosheets/ccsp-8/#funding
2008….1.864
2007….1.825
2006….1.691
2005….1.865
2004….1.975
2003….1.766
2002….1.667
2001….1.728
2000….1.687
1999….1.657
1998….1.677
1997….1.656
1996….1.654
1995….1.760
1994….1.444
1993….1.326
1992….1.110
1991….0.954
1990….0.659
1989….0.134
Total $41.931 Billion
Thanks Steve! Those numbers are simply staggering.
(So you’re saying it’s the Koch brothers, right?)
The US government has more money than the Koch brothers. That’s the reason for the sad discrepancy. Life isn’t fair.
Well, if it’s a witch hunt…
Has Dr. Soon proven, yet, that he sinks when bound and weighted and thrown into a pond?
It is curious that so many journalists and politicians are not only scientifically illiterate but also ignorant of the arts.
Arthur Miller’s The Crucible isn’t just a metaphor for persecution of the left by the right in the 1950s.
It is also a metaphor for persecution, per se.
But the partisan can’t see beyond their own bigotry.
All part of the lefts plan. Yell your lies louder and silence any and all other voices. Makes me think of old Hitler movies. It still gives me the chills to see him screaming in front of massive crowds. The worst of it is, people like to follow.
Sorry, I should’ve said, the far right and far left, to be totally accurate. Unfortunately many politicians regardless of political views will follow because they have no scruples
.
Can you elaborate on what you believe is the “far right” and “far left”?
You see, they’re no longer allowed in the mainstream media (MSM) to hurl gutter level abuse at foreigners, non-whites, non-Christians or most minorities, but if you do happen to disagree with an establishment doctrine; that stricture simply ceases to apply to you. The gloves come off and the rules of civilised discourse are forgotten. You can quite safely be called a racist, redneck, elitist, denier, sexist, flat-earther (thank you for that one from the supposed democratic leader of the free world), a shill, insane, Aryan Nation, a flag fetishist, a paid protester, a conspiracy nut or whatever they need to label you, to simply avoid addressing your awkward questions.
https://thepointman.wordpress.com/2013/07/19/know-your-enemy-the-establishment-journalist/
Pointman
Yes, they use ad-homs that would be more accurate descriptions of themselves. Particularly the “flat-earth” cliche. It is us who claim that the sun does not revolve around our climate.
Pointman,
Interesting.
For us to actually be effective in this struggle for our culture and civilization, we must know our opponents’ belief system, and where it came from.
This short video is a good start:
Rep Grijalva’s campaign funding at a glance https://www.opensecrets.org/politicians/summary.php?cycle=2014&cid=N00025284&type=I Looks like he’s looking for new contributors.
In the dark ages and through the reformation the church was the final authority on what passed for science. But human curiosity being what it is, a few individuals began to explore and try to measure the world around them. Some discoveries seemed to oppose the church’s view. The solution was to arrest, question and sometimes torture these heritics.
Somehow I don’t think we’ve progressed much….
Mike
Meanwhile, the head of the IPCC is out on bail on charges of being a pervert which kinda makes you wonder tying that in with th soft porn novel he wrote.
Heartland+Willie Soon=Heroes of mine
Not only are they standing up to support Dr. Soon, whom you can see here below Dr. Singer and above Dr. Spencer (alphabetical arrangement), but other distinguished and uncompromising professionals:
http://climatechangeawards.org/
In poker we have an expression: “going all in”. Not a good idea to use it if you don’t hold a strong hand. It would appear that Sens. Edward Markey, Barbara Boxer, and Sheldon Whitehouse and U.S. Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva are not holding that hand yet they seem to have gone “all in” against Willie Soon. They have just lost control of the Senate and Congress. There will be no agreement in Paris, Putin won’t turn up. The Chinese are winning the economic war against Obama, and Modi has stated that he will not co-operate until his Country is economically on a par with the west. Canada and Australia will procrastinate and Iraq, Syria, Ukraine, Iran and Libya are not in the mood. Obama is now a lame duck..King Veto..so quite what the Democrats hope to gain is not clear. Perhaps they really believe they can create a Socialist Climate Caliphate in the West but after 25 years of failure it does not seem likely.
Well, you can also go “all in” against what you perceive is a weak opponent regardless of your cards.
I have a feeling they underestimated their opponent, got called, realized their cards were weak and now are scrambling for a technicality in the rules or a tournament director that will get them out of their jam (e.g. allow them to pull back their all in). In any case, it won’t be pretty.
“By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.”
Really? Why would the Smithsonian agree to this, and don’t you think Dr. Soon would have some idea of who was funding his work?
“Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.”
It may not be a requirement, but most funding agencies expect to be acknowledged.
Who’s responsibility was it to disclose the funding information, Dr. Soon or the Smithsonian?
The Smithsonian passed on 60% of $1.2 MM over ten years to Dr. Soon. Comes to $72,000 per year. Who signed the the Check, the Smithsonian or Big Oil?
Now think about the $$M that sports figures make for their contributions to society. Hope the poor guy doesn’t have to live in university housing. He hopefully has more grants than this to raise a family on where he is.
“Really? Why would the Smithsonian agree to this, and don’t you think Dr. Soon would have some idea of who was funding his work?”
Why don’t you ask the Smithsonian, and report back? Charitable organizations often accept unusual conditions to secure a donation.
Barry, you wrote: “most funding agencies expect to be acknowledged.”
Can you share your experience with this observation to widen everyone’s perspective on this.
Heartland:
“Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field.”
Willie Soon, writing in the Guardian, 2008:
“The rules of the leading journals in which my research is published are clear: the sources of funding must be openly declared in the paper…”
So what’s the problem? He also said that he received no support for the work that he did on the paper that seems to have irritated the warmmongers.
Once again, context is not your friend. both can be true statements (and likely are) without any conflict.
I agree that Heartland is wrong in that statement – I wish people would check before they make pronouncements like that. (I’m not familiar with “the physical sciences field [sic]”, but I would be surprised if they’re any different from other areas.) Anyway, what matters here is what the actual acknowledgements were in the paper that was published.
Anyway, this is still a witch hunt, and it’s disingenuous to pretend otherwise. (Look at all these more-or-less compromised people getting on board this thing!)
(Not compromised, you say? See Peter Schweizer’s Throw Them All Out.)
Troll alert
stop paying attention to Stokes, he is a paid troll
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
This part of the statement by Heartland is patently not true, disclosure of funding sources is an almost universal requirement in scientific publishing. I linked to Elsevier’s policy in an earlier thread, here is the equivalent for ‘Science’:
Funding and conflict of interest Authors must agree to disclose all affiliations, funding sources, and financial or management relationships that could be perceived as potential sources of bias, as defined by Science’s conflict of interest policy.
The following is typical:
Conflict of Interest Statement
The authors declare that the research was conducted in the absence of any commercial or financial relationships that could be construed as a potential conflict of interest.
Acknowledgments
This research was supported by NSF Award #0525275. Holly McKinney assisted with the selection of archeological Pacific Cod remains for analysis and assisted with some of the stable isotope sample preparation.
(Frontiers in Environ. Sci.)
A giant smear campaign. It will get even uglier. The alarmists have nothing left: their junk science is exposed, the warming trend ended twenty years ago, nobody but the gullible and ignorant pay any attention to their screeching while the rest of the public yawns.All that’s left is smear tactics. These tactics will backfire.
“First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
― Mahatma Gandhi
Looks like stage three to me.
This will cut both ways if push comes to shove.
How many pro-CAGW scientists get money from pro-CAGW governments and green groups??? The warmists will have to tie their own shorts in knots to squirm out of this one!
Yes. And how many green groups and university climate departments get funding through foundations controlled or funded by the major owners of big oil companies or even directly from those oil companies? Does more group focus on CO2 lead to more such funding? It’s obviously more comfortable for big oil if green focus is on CO2 “pollution” vs oil spill/cleanup pollution or tanker ballast purge pollution.
The lack of global warming is making the science deniers / warmists even more hostile than usual !
.
It’s embarrassing to be a leftist because you must always “debate” your positions with character attacks, ridicule, and questioning the motives of EVERYONE who does not agree with you.
.
If that behavior does not define a cult, I don’t know what does.
.
According to the leftists, the sun has absolutely nothing to do with tiny changes to the average temperature of the planet, assuming that statistic means anything for a planet with an ever-changing average temperature.
.
We are told the following fairy tale by the leftists, who have invented yet another new “crisis” so their beloved Goobermint can seize more power to “solve” it:
— For 18,000 years since the last ice age peaked, there has been warming from unknown natural causes … and SUDDENLY … BY MAGIC … in 1940 … those natural causes stopped having any warming effect on the climate (although they are 100% responsible for any cooling!!!) … and then MANMADE CO2 SUDDENLY became the SOLE cause of warming !!!
.
And the scientific proof of this, according to leftists, is: BECAUSE WE SAY SO, AND WE COULDN’T BE WRONG … BECAUSE WE CARE ABOUT THE EARTH, AND EVERYONE ELSE WORKS IN, OR TAKES MONEY FROM, THE OIL INDUSTRY, WHOSE PRIMARY GOAL IS TO DESTROY THE PLANET.
.
NO mind is more closed to contrary data or logic than a leftist mind.
The climate change boogeyman is 99% politics and 1% science (1% only because some of the leftists involved have science degrees).
PS:
I favor global warming, because I would like my home state of Michigan to be warmer, and I favor more CO2 in the air, because I would like my plants to grow faster.
.
I also believe all “warmists” should be put in prison for 30 days for disturbing the peace and politicizing science — the global warming scam has made me consider scientists to have integrity equal to used car salesmen.
.
Al Gore should be forced to retake those two elementary science courses he took in college until he finally gets at least a B grade in both of them (he couldn’t manage an A or B in either of them the first time).
More on the climate in easy to understand language:
http://www.elOnionBloggle.blogspot.com
A beautiful comment that deserves to be highlighted… 🙂
Until Big Oil no longer supports/pays ransom to Green Peace, the Sierra Club and other similar NGOs, hypocrisy will be their cornerstone.
Nick,
If the Heartland review is correct, then Soon would have told the journals his work was funded by Harvard, It is common practice for many major companies to provide funding to various scientific and charitable foundations simply to reduce the bottom line they pay taxes on. Odds are that the very same list of major oil companies that contribute to – say – Harvard will appear on the lists of contributors to many AGW worriers. They are not conspiracies. They are tax reductions.
Exxon, BP, Shell and others know perfectly well that the need for energy to move food, people and goods is not going to go away soon and are well aware they have nothing to worry about. Below is a link to a review of disclosure issues in a field where the concerns regarding COI actually mean something.
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3152484/
You want to remember that drugs are far more closely linked to your health than CO2.
“If the Heartland review is correct, then Soon would have told the journals his work was funded by Harvard,”
Well, not Harvard, I hope. The Smithsonian is the body connected to Dr Soon. But Dr Soon applied directly to the Southern Company for funding. His time was billed to them, and he reported to them, describing the papers in question as deliverables. So if he told them that, it wasn’t accurate.