Calling all supporters of Dr. Willie Soon

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, David Legates and Matt Briggs

Willie Soon

The three of us are Willie Soon’s friends and colleagues. With him we co-authored the paper Why models run hot (scibull.com, January 2015). We are asking all friends and supporters of Willie to come to his aid by agreeing to sign the following letter to the Regents of the Smithsonian, which has employed him for 25 years.

The letter covers a report by us to the Regents giving the findings of our investigation into the allegations against Willie that the Smithsonian, echoing various political advocacy groups, had widely and improperly circulated. Our investigation concludes that the Smithsonian is gravely at fault on numerous grounds, and that Willie is blameless. Our letter invites the Regents to ensure that the Smithsonian investigates the wrongdoing by the Smithsonian and its senior officials identified in our report, and, when they have confirmed that our report is in substance correct, to see to it that the Smithsonian issues a public apology to Willie, pays him just and full restitution, and meets his legal costs.

If you are willing to support Willie by signing the letter, please send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com. Your name and qualifications will be added to the list of signatures, which is led by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, the distinguished international expert on sea level rise, who has written more than 600 papers in his half century of studying sea level.

The letter and the findings of our report follow. Anyone who would like the full report, which includes the evidence in support of our findings, should email me. Thank you, in advance, for your help. We are determined to get fair play for Willie, who has been outrageously treated. Your support for him will help to bring the Smithsonian to its senses and lead it to realize that it must now apologize and make amends to him.



 

[Name and address of Smithsonian Regent]

[Date]

Dear [Name of Regent],

Recent misconduct by senior managers at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics

We are friends, colleagues, or supporters of Dr Willie Soon, a solar physicist who has been on the strength at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, part of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, for a quarter of a century. Recently, with Lord Monckton, Professor David Legates and Dr Matt Briggs, Dr Soon co-authored a paper in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences that led to widespread but false allegations by the Smithsonian, echoing various advocacy groups, that he had improperly failed to disclose a source of his funding for his work on the paper.

When those allegations were proven false, the extremist advocacy group originally responsible for them circulated further false allegations that in 11 earlier papers Dr Soon had acted improperly in not having disclosed the source of his funding. However, the Smithsonian had negotiated a contract with the funder in question by which the funder’s identity was not to be published. The only papers in which Dr Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which the Smithsonian, not he, was solely responsible.

The Smithsonian, however, unlawfully and publicly issued a series of statements intended to blame Dr Soon, though it was at fault for having improperly agreed to the obligation of confidentiality by which he was bound. His three co-authors of the Science Bulletin paper have investigated the allegations by the Smithsonian and various political advocacy groups against their colleague. Their findings are set out in the first two pages of their report to the Regents, attached hereto, followed by the evidence.

We now ask you –

(1) to instruct the Inspector-General of the Smithsonian to investigate the co-authors’ findings (pages 2-3) and the evidence in support of the findings (pages 4-17) as part of his investigation of this matter,

(2) to investigate Dr Alcock’s malicious and dishonest interview with the Chronicle of Higher Education; his subsequent refusal to make any correction of his falsehoods upon request by Dr Soon and separately by Dr Soon’s lead author; and his failure to pass on to the general counsel the lead author’s freedom of information request;

(3) to request the Attorney-General of Massachusetts to investigate those aspects of the conduct of the Smithsonian in general and of Dr Alcock in particular that constitute a fraudulent campaign of connected and co-ordinated deceptions, persisted in despite requests to cease and desist and, therefore, intended to cause not only continuing reputational harm but also financial loss to Dr Soon; and

(4), if the report’s findings are in substance correct, to order the Smithsonian to apologize publicly to Dr Soon and to make just and full restitution to him for the loss and damage it and its defalcating senior management have caused.

Yours sincerely,

Monckton of Brenchley; Professor David Legates; Dr Matt Briggs


 

for themselves as Dr Soon’s co-authors and for the signatories listed hereunder

Attached: 2-3 Findings by Lord Monckton, Professor David Legates and Dr Matt Briggs

4-17 Evidence in support of findings

18 List of signatories, led by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner

Misconduct by the Smithsonian

A report to the Regents of the Smithsonian Institution

AS the three co-authors with Dr Willie Soon of Why models run hot, a January 2015 climate paper in the Chinese Academy’s Science Bulletin whose publication led to the wide circulation of allegations that he had not disclosed a source of his research funding, we have investigated the allegations. Our findings are:

For 25 years Dr Wei-Hock Soon, an award-winning solar physicist of international standing expert in the Sun’s modulation of terrestrial climate, has been a tenured but unsalaried employee of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, affiliated to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The Smithsonian Trust Fund pays him out of money received from donors he has approached. He reports each proposed grant to the Observatory, which is then solely responsible for negotiating and signing a funding contract with the donor, receiving the funds, retaining 30% for overhead, and paying for his research out of the balance.

In 2008 the Observatory negotiated such a contract with Southern Company. The contract included a term binding the Smithsonian and, therefore, Dr Soon as its employee not to publish the donor’s identity. The Smithsonian should not have agreed to that term, but, having agreed to it, should have honoured it. Instead, it acted in breach of contract, of the Stored Communications Act and of its obligations to Dr Soon by disclosing the funders’ identity. Dr Soon, in making no disclosure, honored the contract as the law requires.

Late in 2009 a political advocacy group made an FOIA request to the Smithsonian for details of Dr Soon’s funders. Dr Soon twice wrote to the general counsel’s office to say FOIA did not bind the Smithsonian and that disclosure would breach the Smithsonian’s obligation of commercial confidentiality and its policy on FOIA compliance, and advocacy groups would exploit it to prejudice his academic freedom. Nevertheless, the Smithsonian’s general counsel shut off Dr Soon’s computer access and appropriated copies of his files, whereupon the Smithsonian made the disclosure, which, as he had predicted, the advocacy group swiftly and ruthlessly exploited to his disadvantage and to that of the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian’s disclosure was intended to put Dr Soon’s funding at risk, and has now done so. It is now reported that later this year Southern Company will not renew its long-standing contract with the Smithsonian to fund his research.

In January 2015 a political advocacy group, inferentially to divert attention from our paper’s conclusions, widely circulated in the international news media an allegation that fossil-fuel interests had funded Dr Soon’s research for our paper but he had not disclosed his “conflict of interest” to the Science Bulletin. The editor consulted the lead author, who explained we had done the research in our own time and on our own dime. The group, on realizing no one had funded our paper, widely circulated allegations that in 11 earlier papers published since 2008 Dr Soon had not disclosed Southern Company’s funding. The group did not challenge his scientific conclusions in se. Southern Company did not directly or indirectly influence him or require or expect him to alter the content of any of his papers or to reflect any particular scientific viewpoint. Nor, given the subject-matter of each of the 11 papers, could any conceivable conflict of interest on his part be legitimately imagined to have arisen from Southern Company’s funding of his research.

In response to the recent publicity, the Smithsonian and its senior management engaged in a willful and apparently co-ordinated campaign of false statements and implications intended to damage Dr Soon:

February 21: Ms Christine Pulliam, a Smithsonian press officer, told The Guardian that Dr Soon had “failed to meet the disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research”. She added: “Soon should have followed those policies.” Yet the Smithsonian’s contract term forbade him to do so.

February 22: The Smithsonian issued a press release announcing that it would stage an investigation into what the release described as Dr Soon’s “failure to disclose” his funding, Yet the Smithsonian knew he had merely acted in compliance with the non-disclosure obligation they, not he, had negotiated.

February 22: The press statement by the Smithsonian falsely claimed that the Smithsonian does “not fund Dr Soon”. True, the Smithsonian does not pay him a salary, and he is responsible for attracting research funds, but it is the Smithsonian Trust Fund that receives donors’ grants and pays him from the Trust Fund.

February 22: The Smithsonian’s statement said Dr Soon is merely a “part-time researcher”, when his appointment is full-time but he has been ill ever since – and at least in part owing to – the original disclosure by the Smithsonian of the confidential details of his funding.

February 22: The Smithsonian’s statement falsely implied that Dr Soon does not think we are a cause of climate change. Yet Why models run hot is irrefutable evidence that he accepts we are a cause of it.

February 25: The Observatory’s director, Dr Charles Alcock, told the Chronicle of Higher Education that Dr Soon should not have described his affiliation as “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics” and that he “holds no Harvard appointment”, falsely implying he had inflated his affiliation. Dr Alcock added that, legally speaking, the Center has no existence. Yet he is its director. Its name is mentioned in funding proposals it sent to Southern Company. If it has no legal existence, the Observatory’s use of its name in funding proposals was dishonest. A previous director had issued a standing instruction, not since rescinded, that the affiliation was to be stated as “Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics”. In every paper for 25 years Dr Soon had complied, without objection from the Smithsonian. Dr Alcock was wrong to criticize him on this ground, wrong to imply he was falsely claiming “a Harvard appointment”, and wrong in terms of Smithsonian policy not to pass to general counsel our FOIA request for the Center’s founding documents.

February 25: Dr Kress, the Smithsonian’s interim under-secretary for science, made a public statement that Dr Soon’s research “was not of the highest quality”. Yet the Smithsonian had given Dr Soon an award in in 2003 for the high quality of his research. Dr Kress, a botanist unqualified to assess the value of research in solar physics, was wrong thus to cast aspersions, particularly at a time when his colleague was under fire.

These many falsehoods and false implications, within days of each other, were intended to reinforce each other, to cause severe financial loss to Dr Soon and to compound the damage the Smithsonian had already done to his health, reputation, livelihood and career as a solar physicist. The inexplicable and continuing refusal by the Smithsonian to correct the record, despite Dr Soon’s requests and ours that it should do so, further aggravates the damage to him and evidences the Smithsonian’s intent to cause him loss and damage.

Dr Soon is manifestly blameless. He has acted at all times correctly, in compliance with the policies of the Smithsonian and with the terms – however repugnant – of his donor’s funding contract with his employer. Dr Soon declared his sources of funding all his published papers that were not funded by the Smithsonian, being under no contractual obligation not to disclose the funders’ identity. It was only in the 11 papers to whose funding Southern Company had contributed that he did not disclose the funders’ identity, for – through the Smithsonian’s fault and not his – he was bound in law not to disclose it.

Yet the Smithsonian and its personnel acted incorrectly in agreeing to the confidentiality clause, in failing to honor it once they had agreed it, in failing to follow its own FOIA policies, in failing to come to the aid of a long-standing and award-winning colleague suffering because he had complied with a contract term to which they had improperly consented, in conducting a campaign of coordinated and false allegations and implications intended to damage him, in failing to correct the record when asked, and in failing to respond to our legitimate FOI request for copies of the Center for Astrophysics’ founding documents.

We are asking the Inspector-General of the Smithsonian and the Attorney-General of Massachusetts to investigate the Smithsonian’s misconduct. When they have confirmed our findings, the Smithsonian must apologize to Dr Soon and make just and full restitution to him for the loss and damage it has caused.

Viscount Monckton of Brenchley: monckton@mail.com: +44 7814 556423

Professor David Legates

Dr Matt Briggs

===============================

NOTE: I add my name to this letter, signed, Anthony Watts

Advertisements

349 thoughts on “Calling all supporters of Dr. Willie Soon

    • Yes. I know what you intended. But in fact, the lies are told about Dr. Soon, not vice-versa.

      More projection from you, that’s all. No doubt you’re the idiot who downvoted this article.

  1. Any links?
    1) Where and how can people sign it?
    2) Where is “4-17 Evidence in support of findings”? I think that people should be able to see it before deciding whether or not to sign.

      • I think he meant that it will read better and be more effective if the letters
        are personalized? For example, if I sent the letter in I would put my own credentials
        and say I was a supporter (deleting colleague, etc.) and I saw a few other parts that
        different wording came to mind.

      • For one, he writes that Soon “has been on the strength at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory….” I do not know what “on the strength” means, in American OR English.

  2. Oops … sorry, did not see “Anyone who would like the full report, which includes the evidence in support of our findings, should email me.”
    There’s still a question of why the evidence can not be posted online? I’m afraid that the “other side” might interpret this as a fear that it might be refuted before the action is taken.

    • Actually this letter looks like the notice of intent for a lawsuit. The plaintive sends this sort of missive giving the defendant a chance to reverse their conduct to avoid litigation with the broad outline of the charges they will be defending in court if they do otherwise. When such a document is delivered, the court looks very askance at continued bad behavior and tends to treble the damages. The defendant needs to look very closely at their conduct and take very public means to assuage the harm inflicted or we may be calling it the Soon-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    • Thanks, Owen in GA,
      Finally a more substantive answer instead of a trolling-echo-chamber. I’m not a lawyer, so would that be a valid reason for not putting the attachments or evidence online?

      • Probably just convenience. Email Lord Monkton and he will send it as he said. I’ve always found him to be a man of his word.

  3. The impression I’ve taken from what Lord Monckton says here is that Dr. Soon has indeed been treated shabbily. But it is my recent experience that the impression one is likely to take from what Lord Monckton says is not necessarily the correct one.

    So, with regret, I decline.

    • Joe Born, a true scientist or a honest person goes by facts of the matter. Which of the above facts about Willie Soon do you disagree with? In fact you were the one who misled everyone in the thread you linked. Will Nitschke’s comment on that that thread sums it up aptly. And you showed complete bad faith in the entire episode. So your protestations carry no value and show everyone clearly for what you are.

      I’d any day trust Mat Briggs, Willie Soon, David Legates and Lord Monckton’s words compared to your words. You impunged all of them with your pathetic post.

      • I don’t know what the facts are. But to sign on I’d be going by what Lord Monckton tells me.

        For years I’ve read what he said about IPCC reports and other things I hadn’t completely read or known about, and I’ve believed them. Maybe because I wanted to. But when he held forth about things I had actually looked into and I found he’d gotten in over his depth, he rejected with ill grace my attempts to throw him a line. This happened several times.

        So, what am I to conclude, that he’s right about everything but what I know something about? At some point one’s credulity gets stretched too far. I have reached that point.

        I am embarrassed that it took so long.

    • Joe Born,

      Up to now I’ve tried to keep an open mind in your dispute with a few others here. I didn’t take sides, and I haven’t posted one word regarding any of your issues.

      No more. The comment you linked to never mentions Dr. Soon. So it appears you are using a personal grudge as an excuse to refuse giving support to an honest scientist who is being unfairly attacked. Boo!

      • Well, if I were confident of the facts that Lord Monckton stated, I would support Dr. Soon no matter what I thought of the paper I’ve criticized. But, frankly, Dr. Soon’s behavior in that context did not impress me. When an error becomes apparent, a big man owns up to it. In the reply to me he joined his co-authors in, he didn’t.

        That wouldn’t have stopped me from supporting him on this issue. But that last experience also demonstrated to me how easily Lord Monckton leads people down the wrong path when they don’t know the facts. I don’t know the facts in Dr. Soon’s case, and I don’t want to be another one of those gulled by Lord Monckton.

        Perhaps once my taxes are done I’ll independently verify what Lord Monckton said and support Dr. Soon. It’s certainly a position I’d like to take. But my days of taking what Lord Monckton says at face value are over.

        I understand your opinion because in the past I’ve harbored similar ones against Lord Monckton’s detractors, although I was not so free in voicing them without more basis. I was not skeptical enough then. I’m trying to be now.

      • Joe Born makes a very strange statement : “my days of taking what Lord Monckton says at face value are over“. Surely, in an intense area of dispute such as climate science, no-one ever takes anyone’s statements at face value? To do so shows extraordinary naivety. A more likely explanation surely is that Joe Born is being disingenuous.

      • Mike Jonas: “Surely, in an intense area of dispute such as climate science, no-one ever takes anyone’s statements at face value?”

        On the contrary, everyone takes much of what they read at face value. How many things that you read in the newspaper have you fact checked? Everything? If so, my hat’s off to you. As the years go by, I’ve become increasingly skeptical, but I still find there are things in the newspaper I’ve taken at face value.

        Naive? Probably. But there it is.

      • Unfortunately Joe, you come across as either disingenuous or a naive hack with no integrity. Neither is worth anyone’s time, least of all Dr. Soon’s.

      • Joe;

        Your best bet would have been to just not comment here at all on this subject, you can or can’t do what ever you want when it concerns Dr. Soon and no one would fault you for it. Your comments make it clear your issue is with L.M. and not Dr. Soon yet it is Dr. Soons reputation that is on the line along with entire scientific process. You are making yourself look petty. Even if you can believe that Dr. Soon made a mistake you can not justify the way he has been attacked, it is clearly just an attempt to shut him up.

      • @Joe born: your words,I don’t know the facts in Dr. Soon’s case, and I don’t want to be another one of those gulled by Lord Monckton.
        If you do not know the facts??? re-evaluate that sentence and give yourself an answer.

      • Joe Born said “On the contrary, everyone takes much of what they read at face value.” Joe G0d help us if that is true, I don’t know world you and they live in but early on in my electronic career I found out most of what the media wrote about my chosen industry, was mostly incorrect or misstated since the author to the most part were lazy word smiths and not electronic experts. Their idea was to read something that they though interesting and then put an article together quoting industrial experts I quickly figured those industrial experts were name they pulled out of their Rolodex that might know something what the writer was righting about were they were experts or not on the subject did not matter as long as it fit the slant the writer was going. I learned that over forty years ago. So yes most of what you read is adult bovine fetal matter, to bad you and “everyone” still have not figure that out. What I determined about the electronic and computer publication to the most part over three quarter of what was/is written is bovine fetal mater, and when it come to the rest of the media to the most part it ninety percent adult bovine fetal matter. It is to bad there is so little truth or just plain good reporting going it the world we live in and yes I do lament that people on the whole in the media are to stupid, lazy or just plain dishonest to get the story somewhat correct.

        Oh by the way if you don’t believe me, boy do I have some land to sell you, good farm land just east of the one sixty my grand father homesteaded, presently it has a slight water problem but I am certain “global warming” oh sorry “climate change” will take care of that.

    • So let’s see. Soon was screwed, but personal “experience” shows some undefined “impression”, is “likely not necessarily” the correct “one”. Implying there are a number of necessary or unnecessary impressions for Soon getting screwed.

      All of which is irrelevant.

      It is similar to a juror voting not guilty because even though the evidence was sufficient to demonstrate guilt they did not want to leave the wrong impression. This then leads to my impression (likely, necessary and correct) that you are being disingenuous and have no regrets in not signing the letter.

    • Joe your lack of intellectual honesty and integrity to do the right thing by Dr. Soon because of a personal grudge with Lord Monckton is both juvenile and repulsive. I am going to recommend that Anthony does not give you any more space here to waste our time with your childish behavior.

      Grow up.

    • You have not sown any decency, integrity or honesty Joe Born, with this response. You have shown yourself to be an epitome of a cheap, slimy no moral scruples lawyer with this behaviour and your earlier posts.

      It’s a credit to our gracious host to allow this kind of crap to be spouted and in a way it is good as it shows what kind of rot is prevalent.

    • Joe Born,
      By my interpretation of your successive posts, you are in effect saying, “Lord Monckton made a mistake, therefore I can’t trust anything he says.”
      I think it is a huge mistake to proceed with a series of public ad hominem attacks, which you have done,

      Therefore, by your own logic, I can never trust anything you have to say.

    • Joe Born, the pattern that has become apparent to me is that of a lawyer (you) advocating against Lord Monckton and if that means being deceitful, that is what you will do. In your attacks against Lord Monckton, it is you who has continued to lose credibility.

    • Joe Born says “with regret, I decline.”

      Why the regret? At any rate, nothing prevents you from writing to the Smithsonian yourself under your own name.

      I have seen no credible argument against his science in the current instance. This flurry of “investigations” is should also disclose its funding source. But that’s hardly a secret, is it? I think there’s a piece of green in there.

      This is a Saul Alinsky tactic; attack the person, not the science. It is a distraction. “Ignore that man behind the curtain!”

      Let us review a few of Saul Alinsky’s “Rules for Radicals”:

      Rule 1: Power is not only what you have, but what an opponent thinks you have. If your organization is small, hide your numbers in the dark and raise a din that will make everyone think you have many more people than you do.

      Rule 4: Make opponents live up to their own book of rules.

      What rule? Disclosure of funding sources. Note that it does not require the attacker to live up to the same rules such as who is funding all these attacks?

      Rule 5: Ridicule is man’s most potent weapon. It’s hard to counterattack ridicule, and it infuriates the opposition, which then reacts to your advantage.

      Dr. Soon has been relentlessly ridiculed for more than a decade. To his credit he has not “reacted to their advantage”. Keep in mind that Alinsky wrote these rules to be used against other leftists to try to “organize” them. Ridicule works very well on the left; you’ll see it regularly on DailyKOS or MSNBC.

      Rule 8: Keep the pressure on. Use different tactics and actions and use all events of the period for your purpose.

      Check.

      Rule 9: The threat is more terrifying than the thing itself.

      Check.

      Rule 11: Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, polarize it. Don’t try to attack abstract corporations or bureaucracies. Identify a responsible individual. Ignore attempts to shift or spread the blame.

      Check.

    • Bob Boder: “Your best bet would have been to just not comment here at all on this subject.”

      Although no purpose would be served by my responding to the other commenters’ vitriol, Mr. Boder’s question merits a response. I of course recognized that submitting my comment would invite some readers to attribute it to base motives; that’s the way of the world.

      But there’s an important question I didn’t explicitly ask that I think others should take into consideration: Is this the right case in which to raise the very serious issue of skeptics’ being intimidated? Remember, the letter above marries their paper, with all its flaws, to that issue. Rightly or wrongly, you don’t understand the case if you don’t understand their paper. That’s not the way it should be. But that’s how it often is.

      Lord Monckton has asked us to sign a letter calling for, among other things, an investigation by the attorney general of Massachusetts. This is serious step. Yes, it appears to be warranted; from the representations that Lord Monckton has made, it appears that Dr. Soon has been done an injustice. But my trade taught me that later evidence can make the case can look quite different from the facts the client initially came in with.

      And my experience with Lord Monckton suggests that we should be particularly careful about the facts we get from him. If you really study the technical issues I and others have raised about the Monckton et al. paper, you’re likely to form the same impression I have: that Lord Monckton has been consistently evasive and misleading in response to questions about it.

      Was that intentional? Maybe not. Who knows what’s in his head? Maybe he actually believes what he says: maybe he’s just a muddled thinker. But we shouldn’t avert our eyes from the other possibility. This is not nit-picking. It goes to the character of the man. And, by joining in the authors’ reply to me, Dr. Soon became complicit in that behavior.

      That behavior can be appreciated fully only by digging into the technical facts. For example, consider my second post’s Fig. 1. It depicts the step responses implied by their Table 2, which their paper alleges was “derived from” the Gerard Roe paper. Once you understand the implications of the f = 0 curve’s intersection with the others, i.e., that the authors made a clear error, you will see that it requires an answer, and you should ask yourself whether their reply provides one and whether even now the authors have unambiguously identified the source of those anomalous values.

      Note particularly in this connection that, even though the text accompanying Fig. 1 plainly said it showed “the results of multiplying each row’s entries by the corresponding \lambda_\infty=\lambda_0/(1-\lambda_0f),” Dr. Soon signed on to a reply that evaded that intersecting-curve issue by professing not to understand whether the step response was “simple or normalized” or what the units were—as though that were even relevant to the curves’ intersection.

      Or go to what the authors say and Lord Monckton separately commented on about their Table 4. Various commenters have said I’m naïve to believe what I read, but they are naïve if they believe Lord Monckton’s explanation of “committed but unrealized warming”—particularly since he gave no link in support when he was challenged to do so.

      Or, after you’ve understood their paper’s model equation and what their paper and my posts say about f_t, ask yourself whether their reply appears candid where it says that “of course” the “equilibrium feedback sum seems to be the only feedback sum our model uses.” Not even on this minor point can they admit that their paper is confusing (and much less that their own thinking was confused before I pointed the issue out).

      And, generally, once you’ve really dug into the technical issues I raised, study the authors’ responses critically. You can’t go by atmospherics; you have to grok the technical substance. Ask yourself whether there’s any issue I raised that Lord Monckton didn’t misrepresent, evade, or ignore. Notice where he’s “moved the pea,” as Steve McIntyre puts it. Notice how much his responses were irrelevant to my posts.

      And ask yourself whether you really believe the authors’ reply comes even within shouting distance of being candid.

      After you’ve read my posts you’ll see that I tried to say what good I could about the Monckton et al. paper. But that paper has serious flaws. By themselves those flaws certainly are not a reason to withhold support from Dr. Soon. But in their reply to me Dr. Soon and his colleagues did not own up to a single one of those flaws. This is perhaps understandable on Dr. Soon’s part; he was signing on to a reply probably written by someone who is giving him very vocal support at a difficult time for him and his family.

      But behavior such as that is something that should be taken into account in deciding whether Dr. Soon’s case is the best ground on which to fight this battle. It’s a serious battle, and it merits assessing the candor of those who would lead the charge. On that issue I have reservations, and I think others would, too, if they studied the matter carefully.

      No, I have no illusions about whether anyone really will study it carefully. But they should before they lend their names to this effort.

      • Joe Born says “Remember, the letter above marries their paper, with all its flaws, to that issue. Rightly or wrongly, you don’t understand the case if you don’t understand their paper.“. Surely, this statement is absurd. The issue is about the (non-)declaration of funding and the mis-treatment of Dr Soon. Joe Born is trying to deflect the debate from the actual issue to the quality of one of Dr Soon’s papers, with the presumed aim of getting the whole debate bogged down in irrelevant technicalities. Is that the standard legal practice when you can’t win a case on its merits?

      • Mike Jonas: “Surely, this statement is absurd.”

        Absurd? I don’t think so.

        Oh, I agree that the only thing that should matter to the Regents of the Smithsonian or the Attorney General of Massachusetts is funding and mistreatment of Dr. Soon, independently of mistakes in the Monckton et al. paper or whether Dr. Soon behaved in an upright manner in his reply when those mistakes were raised.

        Similarly, the only thing that should have mattered to the District of Columbia jury in the Marion Barry trial should have been whether the evidence against him was overwhelming, independently of what his race was.

        Similarly, the only thing that should have mattered to Dr. Soon in replying to my post was the accuracy of its facts, independently of whether a forthright reply would have required him to admit an error or whether he could divert attention by accusing me of discourtesy.

        Yet here we are.

  4. Can the evidence be posted online?

    I am uncomfortable about signing anything of this nature without seeing the basis for the letter.

    If not, please send me a copy by email to tonyATclimatereasonDOtcom

    Thanks

    tonyb.

    • tonyb,

      Monckton wrote

      Anyone who would like the full report, which includes the evidence in support of our findings, should email me.

  5. Feb 25th “founding documents”.
    Also I’m not understanding the sentence, “Dr Soon declared his sources of funding all his published papers that were not funded by the Smithsonian, being under no contractual obligation not to disclose the funders’ identity”.

  6. Almost perfect, Lord Monckton. I am only missing something. I quote from your text:

    February 21: Ms Christine Pulliam, a Smithsonian press officer, told The Guardian that Dr Soon had “failed to meet the disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research”. She added: “Soon should have followed those policies.” Yet the Smithsonian’s contract term forbade him to do so.

    Appart from the Smithsonian’s contract term forbidding it, those “disclosure requirements of the journals” were not applicable to Dr Soon’s work because they only required disclosure in case the donor had had any involvement in methodology, conclusions or decision to publish or not the investigations. This is an important part that I find missing in your allegations.

    Thanks a lot.

    • A very helpful point. Perhaps we should reword as follows:

      Yet the Smithsonian’s contract term forbade him to do so; and, in any event, no reportable conflict of interest arose because Southern Company had had no involvement in the methodology, conclusions or decision whether to publish the research, and because the subject-matter was not such as to arouse any genuine suspicion of a conflict of interest

  7. Done – emailed to Lord Monckton.

    An outrageous injustice, perpetrated by scoundrels against Willie Soon.

    The green scum are becoming increasingly desperate, as atmospheric CO2 continues to rise and the planet refuses to warm.

    Having utterly failed in their alarmist predictions of catastrophic runaway global warming, the green scum are attacking decent individuals with ever greater hostility.

    • “..alarmist predictions of catastrophic runaway global warming…”

      Documentation too much to ask for?

      • Village – For some examples of dire alarmist predictions, you can go to climatechangepredictions.org. On the right side, under ‘Categories’ click on ‘Doomsday’.

      • @ Village Idiot
        you seemingly claim to be unaware of the “alarmist predictions of catastrophic runaway global warming”.

        Given the widespread MSM coverage of these in recent years and your apparent interest in the subject (given your presence here) then you are either an Honest or Dishonest person.

        I you are Honest then your chosen pesudonym for posting here is entirely accurate.

        If not then I must conclude you are a warmist troll.

  8. Not with a clear conscience, I’m afraid.

    “In the past decade Soon’s research has been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests [1], which provided over $1.2 million in funding over 10 years, including $409,000 from The Southern Company and $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation. This potential conflict of interest was not disclosed in a number of papers published since 2008, leading the Smithsonian Institution to investigate whether Soon had violated conflict-of-interest policies [2-4].”

    This is exactly how impartial, evidence-based scientific research is NOT done.

    [1] http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/24/house-dems-did-big-oil-seek-to-sway-scientists-in-climate-debate/
    [2] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html
    [3] http://news.sciencemag.org/climate/2015/02/smithsonian-asks-legal-watchdog-investigate-climate-skeptic-s-disclosure-practices
    [4] http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/26/science/lawmakers-seek-information-on-funding-for-climate-change-critics.html

    • So you did not see the evidence cited and did not ask for it? Just mindlessly following NY Times and Washington Post.

    • If any funding taints the science then only gentlemen (or ladies) of leisure could do any science. That worked in the Victorian age but modern technology is expensive. Could we probe the edges of our knowledge with 19th Century resources?

      Is it only Big Oil that you object to? Or those bankers who supply the industry with resources? Or the Governments that own the oil in the ground and tax the extraction?

      Or is the idea of wealth itself objectionable?
      I refer you to the wisdom of Deng Xiaoping, “It is glorious to be rich”.
      And science had given us the tools to be rich. Why object to funding of science?

      • Right. I’d add that if funding is seen to be a source of bias, government funding would produce bias not merely because government is an owner of resources, but because most western governments have had their thumbs on the scales of research in this field for ideological reasons. And since governments are far wealthier than corporations, any bias introduced would be greater and more dangerous.

      • government funding would produce bias
        ==============
        why else would someone spend hundreds of millions of dollars to win a job that pays hundreds of thousands?

        there is an expectation that once in office politicians will influence the flow of funds in favor of those that pay the piper. this influence used to flow from the wealthy to the politician; from the pulpit to the people. Now it flows from the wealthy to the politician; from the scientist to the people.

        Science has replaced the church as the new religion. The teachings of science are the new gospel. Like the gospel, science has replaced Fact with Truth, and in the process lost its way.

        Science has no claim on Truth. Truth is the province of religion. Science can claim only Fact, and Fact is relative to knowledge. As we learn more, the Facts will change, while Truth never changes.

        Thus, when someone says “the science is settled” they are claiming Truth, not Fact. They are preaching religion, not science.

      • More on funding and bias: although the bias argument is a secondary one to be employed if one is unable to deal directly with the facts and theories presented in a piece of research, it’s not completely worthless. So a question comes up as to whether it’s better to have governments or private organizations funding research. The argument in favor of government is that it will ensure neutrality, but we know that that idea has failed in practice. The contrary approach is to have multiple sources of funding by private non-profit and commercial enterprises, each assumed to have some kind of bias, and all competing for validation and approval. The second, perhaps surprisingly, is more likely to produce unbiased results as a social system, though not necessarily in its individual components.

      • This is not really about funding sources, it’s about conflict of interest.

        If people believe being funded by the Government is a source of conflict of interest, you can see that in the acknowledgements under “funding sources” that are in most papers and make up your own mind. Most people funded by NSF or DoE would laugh at such an idea, but at least it’s there to see.

        But being funded by a source that wishes to not have its activities known…

      • “Is it only Big Oil that you object to? Or those bankers who supply the industry with resources? Or the Governments that own the oil in the ground and tax the extraction? ”

        Or the current administration, including NSF, that has a very clear political set of objectives?

    • @Max Sargent,

      What has Dr. Soon done that any number of other scientists have not done?

      It is rank hypocrisy to hold him to a different standard.

      • And accepting money from governments for climate research is apparently pure as the driven snow, no strings attached and unquestionably unquestionable.

    • I recently had a email from a pro AGW acamdemic stating consensus on the science from such people as “the fine group at MIT” and that the skeptic scientists who had any opposing view were funded by the oil and energy scientists.
      “You appeared to say that MIT were part of the vast majority of scientists who support your view that climate change is the “greatest threat that has faced human beings in their entire history…” and also that “the energy corporations are working overtime to try to suppress the facts and create doubt”.”
      Funny bedfellows, MIT and their sponsors
      http://globalchange.mit.edu/sponsors/all

      • Big Oil stands to gain the most from CAGW. Demon Coal is eliminated as their only real competitor, and they stand to get paid to pump CO2 underground. Currently Big Oil has to pay for the CO2 they pump underground to enhance oil recovery.

        Imagine that instead of having to pay at the pump, you instead got paid every time you pumped fuel into your car. The more fuel you pumped into your car, the more you got paid. That is what Big Oil stands to gain if CO2 policies go ahead. Every time they pump CO2 underground to get more oil, the government will mail them a check for having reduced CO2. What would you as an oil company be willing to “donate” to politicians to make this happen?

      • Ferd,
        I think you are mistaken, after the coal business is ruined the Government will attack the oil and gas business. How else can the Administration achieve the emission reduction goal?
        Why do you think they are wasting $20+ Billion every year to subsidize unattainable green fuels and regulating the oil and gas industry with a view to shut it down?.

      • ferdberple:

        Big Oil stands to gain the most from CAGW. Demon Coal is eliminated as their only real competitor,,,

        Add to your excellent points that as supply is artificially reduced by regulation, prices will obviously go up — substantially. Big Oil will produce less oil, be paid more per bbl, and then collect for being an artificial (and inefficient) CO2 sink. The “Big Oil” boogie man is a political fiction created by and used by Big Green to stir up their base. Big Oil is in a Win/Win situation regarding CAGW.

        Case in point: 1973. OPEC had a good political excuse to embargo. Supply fell, price rose, non-OPEC producers made windfall profits (and govt made a lot with “windfall taxes”), OPEC lost a bundle short term, BUT made it all back and a lot more when prices remained high after the embargo was lifted.

        Share holders in Big Oil will do just fine. And as a share holder in Big Oil, you are also heavily invested in just about every green energy option out there: algae, ethanol, bio-diesel, solar, wind, nuclear, and you name it. You are also, as a big oil share holder, a generous donor to nearly every Big Green organization of note. The losers will be the Big Oil employees that are laid off and the public, particularly seniors and low income classes. But Big Green (and the radical left) want to do away with them anyway.

    • Repeaters …

      You Mr. Sargent, are like the man in the bar who is continually reading out the opinions of others from some “news” magazine, and then professing the veracity of such musings, as though this was scrupulously documented fact.

      Just because You repeated the opinions of some others, does not make You correct in what you say, nor does it make them more truthful than they were when they wrote their opinions in such political journals as are owned and run by vested interest individuals and organisations.

      • Thanks, John. It’s refreshing to see that some here are actually looking at the forest and not just counting the trees.

      • It is amazing the number of Americans that believe the Federal Reserve Bank is an arm of the US government. Most are surprised to learn that it is a privately held company. from which the US government borrows the money it prints.

        Why does the US government need to borrow money from the Federal Reserve Bank in order to print money? Why does the US government need to go $1 into debt to the Federal Reserve (a private company) for every $1 the Treasury Department prints? Does the Federal Reserve Bank own the US of A?

        What does the Federal Reserve actually give the US for that $1 of debt? It cannot be money, because the actual money comes out of the printing press. What thing of value passes from the Federal Reserve to the US government in return for the $1 of debt?

        Does the Federal Reserve simply supply permission to the government to print money, in return for a promise to give the exact same amount of money back to the Federal Reserve? Isn’t this simply an agreement for the Federal Reserve to eventually get all the money the US government prints? What is left over for the US citizen and taxpayer? Is it any wonder Americans as in debt?

      • No arm of US govt has control of the Fed, ferdberple, Greenspan is on record saying this. The Fed gets a 6% guaranteed interest on every dollar it clicks into existence out of thin air. As only 3% of US money circulates as coin or notes, this means that 97% of money is created as interest bearing debt.
        Possibly where the 97% consensus falsehood came from?
        Money can be printed, on the credit of the nation, interest free. IE Lincoln’s Greenback, or the original colonial script.
        Kennedy had plans for an interest free $.
        When the English banks were in trouble 1913, the Brit govt issued the Bradbury £
        Luckily for the Banksters WWI came along. Wars are most profitable for Banksters. Google: All Wars are bankers wars. For a 3.5 hr documentary, youtube & Bill Still The Money Masters. Also his The Secret of OZ, a financial allegory. Essay: http://www.themoneymasters.com
        Also: http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/ A short synopsis of his 3.5 hr work.
        Banksters run the World. Posturing posing muppet politicians are there purely to preserve the illusion of democracy. Fractional reserve banking, with fiat money, & with inflation built in is a system to keep 99% working as debt slaves for the 1%.
        John Doran.

      • We used to have a guy on here quite a few years ago now – before Climategate 1 – who made a lot of posts on the theme of ‘follow the money’ – I wish I could remember his name. He started with Maurice Strong, an interesting case, and associates inc George Soros, made us aware of UN Agenda 21, and all the rest of it. Gates has joined in since then. It’s a rich seam for research

      • Sorry, Sam the First & folks. The remark I made re the unsustainable middle class is Maurice Strong’s, not Soros’s.
        Soros is busy stirring up revolutions in Russia’s border states & South America. All in the name of “democracy”, of course.
        I just put ‘Soros’ in the search box at: http://www.globalresearch.ca & got about 20 articles on the first page.
        Soros & Strong: they’re both globalist lieutenants fronting for Rothschild, working assiduously toward One World Totalitarian Govt & our feudal future. After they’ve wiped out 13 out of 14 of us, of course.
        John Doran.

      • jdseanjd, from your global research.ca link (Dean Henderson article), and this goes for ferdberple as well, who wrote, “Most are surprised to learn that it [Federal Reserve Bank] is a privately held company. from which the US government borrows the money it prints.”

        [Thomas] Schauf lists William Rockefeller, Paul Warburg, Jacob Schiff and James Stillman as individuals who own large shares of the Fed.

        Private individuals cannot own shares in a Federal Reserve District Bank. Names of all shareholders are available on the individual regional Federal Reserve websites. Dean Henderson got this from Tom Schauf’s self-printed disjointed books with no footnotes or direct sources. It’s hooey.

        For ferdberple in particular:

        There is NO Federal Reserve Bank. Does not exist. There are 12 regional entities called Federal Reserve District Banks.

        The Federal Reserve Board of Governors run the 12 Federal Reserve District Banks. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors are appointed by the President of the US for 14-year terms. The Federal Reserve Board of Governors must report to Congress twice a year, and are an agent of the US Treasury (at min: 1:34:39).**

        Each Federal Reserve District Bank is owned by the banks in the district. [Curiously, this is because in the decade leading up to 1913, people thought a national central bank would be socialist, so they insisted on ‘private’ ownership, which the government did but severely restricted.] There are capital requirements the local bank must meet to become a member i its district, typically 6% of its capitalization. In return, your local bank gets preferred shares with no voting rights other than to elect three local businessmen to the district board. Local banks have no say in how the Federal Reserve District bank is run. None.

        At the end of the year, your local bank gets a dividend from the Federal Reserve District Bank commensurate with its original capitalization, not on how successful the local bank has become over time. Overall, the Federal Reserve distributes about 1.56% of its earnings as dividends/per annum to the 12 district bank shareholders. The rest of the Federal Reserve’s income, minus expenses, is returned to the US Treasury by law (since 1947).

        ________________________
        Listen to the following in the same C-SPAN video

        (0:39:50) Ch. Bernanke: Well first let me say, of course, Congress sets the mandate for the Federal Reserve and so Congress has the right, of course, to set the mandate any way it likes.

        (1:15:17) Ch. Bernanke: The Fed is doing what Congress told it to do, which is doing our best to promote maximum employment and price stability

      • Hi, PC.
        I got my info from my previous refs & Nomi Prins. My question & her answer are here:
        http://www.nomiprins.com/thoughts/2014/11/10/qe-isnt-dying-its-morphing-.html
        Ron Paul spent 20 of his 23 years as a Texas Senator trying to achieve an audit of the Fed. He failed. There has been no audit of the Fed since its sneeky founding, Christmas eve 1913, when the majority of Congress was away. What is the Fed hiding, & why? I repeat my contention: The Fed & its 12 Regional banks are private banks, working effectively for the benefit of the Banksters.
        John Doran.

      • @ferdberple,

        the US government borrows the money it prints

        Here is the Daily Treasury Statement for the last day of fiscal year 2014, published daily by the Bureau of the Fiscal Service, the accounting department for the US Treasury:
        https://fms.treas.gov/fmsweb/viewDTSFiles?dir=a&fname=14093000.txt

        Look at “Table II Deposits and Withdrawals of Operating Cash”

        Under Deposits, there is an entry ” Public Debt Cash Issues (Table III-B) .” Go to the far right column, “Fiscal Year to Date.”

        The amount is $7,519,455 million, or $7.5 trillion. This is the amount of treasury securities the US Treasury “prints up” (actually, it’s electronic, keystrokes), or issues, and sells at auction to the world, after Congress appropriates spending (per the Constitution) in the same amount.

        Just to be clear: Congress appropriates, the US Treasury tells the Federal Reserve to send that amount out to the vendors Congress authorized, and now there’s an overdraft in the US Treasury’s General Account. So the US Treasury ISSUES treasury securities in the amount of the spending.

        Hold on.

        Now go back to the Daily Treasury Statement. Go to Table II Deposits and Withdrawals of Operating Cash –> Withdrawals –> Public Debt Cash Redemp. (Table III-B). Go to the far right column, “Fiscal Year to Date.”

        The amount is $6,885,758 million, or or ~$6.9 trillion. That means holders of treasury securities worldwide cashed in $6.9 trillion treasury securities for fiscal year 2014.

        Ever heard of a contronym? That’s one word that can have two opposite meanings: citation vs citation (an award vs a penalty). Or, left can mean something that remains or something that’s gone. Ditto, sanction can mean to permit or to punish.

        Well, “debt” is a contronym. (To you and me, “debt” means collateral, interest payments, and we have to pay it back, or our credit rating suffers.)

        Not so at the federal level. At the federal accounting level it means creating money, or “printing money.” Creating, issuing, treasury securities is how the US federal government creates money. And there is no interest owed, and no one has to pay it back. Hell, the federal government evens offers the savers who buy them some interest!

        It’s right there in black and white: Public Debt Cash Issues. AKA, the National Debt. It’s in everyone’s bank accounts.

      • And the word “borrowing” is another contronym. At the federal accounting level, it means “I print the treasury securities then you by them from me so I can say I have the money.”

        Is your head spinning?

        Why do they do it this way?

        It’s left over from the gold standard days when it was imperative to control the gold supply. As long as you held treasury securities then, you could not change them for gold. The federal government offered interest as an enticement. Gold did not offer interest. Furthermore, there was a law on the books that said the US Treasury’s General account at the Fed could not have an overdraft. No one has bothered to change the law. Ditto the 1917 Debt Limit, another thing that has no meaning today.

      • jdseanjd April 10, 2015 at 8:24 am
        The Fed gets a 6% guaranteed interest on every dollar it clicks into existence out of thin air. As only 3% of US money circulates as coin or notes, this means that 97% of money is created as interest bearing debt.

        You’ve got it backwards, and obviously from some old book. The Federal Reserve paid the US Bureau of Printing and Engraving $0.06 for every physical dollar printed, whether that was a $1, $5, $10, or $100 bill. These days it’s $0.09 because of color and other security things they put in the paper. The rest of the money created by the government are treasury securities issued by the federal government and they pay interest to those who buy them at auction. Savers the world over want them because they are the safest financial instrument in the world. From a US perspective, everyone who has more than $250,000 in a commercial bank account wants treasury securities because the FDIC does not insure accounts with more than $250,000 in them. This was the horror some people discovered in 2008 who kept their retirement savings in commercial banks that went under. They lost everything.

        No arm of US govt has control of the Fed, ferdberple, Greenspan is on record saying this.

        Complete nonsense. The Fed Chair gets called on the carpet twice a year. Greenspan Reports To Congress

        In Washington, late July is time for the “four h’s”: heat, humidity, and Humphrey-Hawkins.

        And that means Wall Street will be sweating until Tuesday at exactly 10 a.m. (EDT), when Federal Reserve Chairman Alan Greenspan delivers his semiannual report – called Humphrey-Hawkins testimony – on the U.S. economy.

        From Wikipedia: Monetary Policy Reports are mandated by the Humphrey-Hawkins Full Employment Act of 1978, which require the Federal Reserve [Board of Governors, the government body that controls the 12 district banks] to formally report on its activities to Congress. The Monetary Policy Reports were previously referred to as Humphrey-Hawkins reports.

      • Policy critic;

        Are you still on this stupid kick? The Fed is a fraud and a distorter of an effective economy, even you by now should be able to see how none of what they do ends up being good for the economy in the end.

      • Bob Boder,

        Did it ever dawn on you that because the majority of people don’t understand how the Fed and our financial institutions really work that things like the 2008 Great Recession happened, and why Agenda 21 was created?

        Clinton caused the 2008 Great Recession. Know why and how?

        Maurice Strong, under instructions in 1987 from Baron Edmond A. de Rothschild (dead, thankfully), created Agenda 21. Know why and how?

        And now under the umbrella of Global Warming or Climate Change, Rothschild’s crew in Geneva are using UNEP to impose a legal framework on the US and other countries (in advance of “global governance”) via the Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), the Transatlantic Trade and Investment Partnership (TTIP), and another draconian one I can’t remember the acronym for. Do you understand what’s going on?

        No.

        Instead, everyone spouts BS learned from books written 20-30 years ago that has/have no meaning today. Those books include Eustace Mullins, Gary Kah, Thomas Schauf, and G. Edward Griffin. All clouding everyone’s judgment, and keeping them from understanding the simple “how” and “why” of things. Keeping people busy fuming over stuff that is not germane. And a smoke screen, one I think has been planned over the years to occupy otherwise intelligent minds.

        Ever ask yourself why the present US Trade Representative, Michael Froman, the guy pushing this stuff through, including Paris 2015, was also (according to his Copenhagen ’09 bio)

        chair of the Major Economies Forum on Energy and Climate [Energy and Climate??? WTF?], a group of the largest industrial and emerging economies which have been working through issues related to the Copenhagen negotiations. He is also the U.S. Government co-chair of the Transatlantic Economic Council, the U.S.-India CEO Forum and the U.S.-Brazil CEO Forum.

        He was also “Deputy Assistant to the President and Deputy National Security Advisor for International Economic Affairs. He is responsible for coordinating policy on international trade, investment, energy, climate and development issues.” Now he’s the US Trade Representative working on secret agreements in Geneva.

        Obama is their tool.

        Does any of this ever dawn on you? Do you not see how the impoverishment of the American people is rendering them helpless–and hopeless–in the face of this?

        And you think I’m on a “stupid kick?”

        Wake up.

        And, oh, BTW, the Federal Reserve (and whatever machinations you can dream up) is small potatoes compared to what they have planned. That’s why conspiracies about it are being thrown to the otherwise thoughtful as a bone. Keeps ‘em occupied. Like a mental mobile in the crib.

        They put the frog in the cold water 28 years ago and have been slowly turning up the heat. You better start paying attention.

      • Policycritic

        We have had this argument before, you lost then and you would lose now. I know what your views are on the Fed and you are right about its structure and how it views money. That doesn’t mean it works and no matter how much you peddle it money is not what you or they think, the evidence is clear every day and all around us. The exchange is not true if only one side is putting in work, creativity and effort, no matter how you spin it.

      • Bob, I also like: globaleconomicanalysis.blogspot.co.uk

        & this:
        charleshughsmith.blogspot.co.uk.2015/04/rich-middle-class-poor-middle-class.html

        All are politically astute economists.
        John Doran.

      • Policycritic

        My issue with you is your view on money and governmental its creation and effect there off. I do not quibble one bit with you over you fears about you express here.

        “Obama is their tool.

        Does any of this ever dawn on you? Do you not see how the impoverishment of the American people is rendering them helpless–and hopeless–in the face of this?

        And you think I’m on a “stupid kick?”

        Wake up.”

        I am awake and have been since a very young age, this is not new to me. we are in the same fight just from I guess a different angle, I apologize for the “stupid” part of my comment. Pay no head to my commentary above it is based on a narrow argument about “money” not on the general issue you are talking about.

      • Perhaps this helps, Bob Boder, policycritic & any others interested. Many more people are seeing the malignity of our Central Bankster system. It is a ponzi scheme of ever increasing & thus unsustainable debt. Fractional reserve banking creates this exponential spiral of debt for the plebs & riches for the Banksters. Debased by QE & overprinting, fiat money is bound to fail, leading to a worldwide crisis. The central banksters are being sussed: http://www.davidstockmanscontracorner.com

      • Bob Boder,

        Thanks for your reply. Yes, I make a major distinction with how things operate–not approving of them, how they operate–versus what’s going on behind the scenes. However, I’ve now spent five years calling and emailing the Chicago Federal Reserve District bank, the US Treasury, and the Congressional Research Service, and reading countless papers and books to get through the BS. The most enlightening book was Frank Newman’s Freedom From National Debt, 2013, 87 pages. He was Deputy Secretary of the Treasury.

        My perspective has been, frankly, It’s damn banking. How difficult can it be? Anyway, my study on this has come down to this: it’s Congress’s fault. Congress has fiscal power, something Congress hasn’t done for 30 years, and something that does not exist in Europe, for example, because there is no ‘united states of europe’ government with the power to dictate what the ECB does. (Those unelected ECB officials do what they want.) Our central bank OTOH answers to Congress, who have the constitutional duty to create jobs and get people back to work. That’s called fiscal policy. Only the govt can do it when the economy is in the tank, with no debt to “children or grandchildren,” no matter what you’re told. The Eisenhower admin did it with the interstate transportation system in the 50s. The Kennedy admin with space. Instead, these congressional mo-fos spend their time voting on the Ukraine, Israel, and Iran, a job the Constitution gives to the Executive, and the Office of the President as Head of State.

        Anyway, thanks for the conversation.

      • jdseanjd,

        Fractional reserve banking went out in the US in 1934. Here’s Ellen Brown five days ago in Counterpunch.

        Today the vast majority of the money supply in Western countries is created by private bankers. That tradition goes back to the 17th century, when the privately-owned Bank of England [it really WAS privately owned then], the mother of all central banks, negotiated the right to print England’s money after Parliament stripped that power from the Crown. When King William needed money to fight a war, he had to borrow. The government as borrower then became servant of the lender.

        In America, however, the colonists defied the Bank of England and issued their own paper scrip; and they thrived. When King George forbade that practice, the colonists rebelled.

        They won the Revolution but lost the power to create their own money supply, when they opted for gold rather than paper money as their official means of exchange. Gold was in limited supply and was controlled by the bankers, who surreptitiously expanded the money supply by issuing multiple banknotes against a limited supply of gold.

        This was the system euphemistically called “fractional reserve” banking, meaning only a fraction of the gold necessary to back the banks’ privately-issued notes was actually held in their vaults. These notes were lent at interest, putting citizens and the government in debt to bankers who created the notes with a printing press. It was something the government could have done itself debt-free, and the American colonies had done with great success until England went to war to stop them.

        President Abraham Lincoln revived the colonists’ paper money system when he issued the Treasury notes called “Greenbacks” that helped the Union win the Civil War. But Lincoln was assassinated, and the Greenback issues were discontinued.

        The power to create paper money was returned to the US federal government in 1934. It was how Roosevelt put people back to work, and how three federal government economists were able to put the whole country to work building armaments for the war, effectively creating the middle class and producing the greatest period of economic growth in the history of mankind for the next 30 years.

        QE was an asset swap from savings to checking; I’m not going to go into it here except to say that treasury securities, which are always kept in a bank’s Federal Reserve savings account (OK, it’s called a securities account), are sold and the seller’s money is put in the banks’ Federal Reserve checking account (OK, it’s called a reserve account). Like moving money from your right pocket to your left. AND. AND. AND. Because the Federal Reserve is now receiving the interest income the seller would otherwise have received, which the Fed returns to the US Treasury by law every year, that interest income is removed from the real economy, with the net effect there are less dollars available to the private sector and therefore drove up the value of the dollar.

        I wouldn’t put too much stock in David Stockman. He has no clue how things work operationally. His studies were in history and divinity school. Reagan fired him for a reason.

      • That story is told rather differently in William Guy Carr’s book on Banksters: Pawns in the Game. 1955. £20.00 & worth it. In return for a loan of £1,250,000 the moneylenders facilitated the accession to the Brit throne of the Dutch General William Stradholder. The terms were as follows, in part:
        1. Anonymity for the Banksters, & a charter to establish a Bank of England.
        2. The right to loan out £10 for every £1 they held in bullion in their vaults, & charge interest on the lot.
        3. Consolidate the National debt & secure payments of amounts due as principal & interest by direct taxation of the people.

        2. is fractional reserve banking, also known euphemistically as the Gold Standard. Loaning out money you do not possess is fraud, for all but the Banksters. For them it is a business with insanely gross profit margins.
        Carr’s opinion seems correct to me:
        “Thus, for the sum of £1,250,000, King William of Orange sold the people of England into economic bondage.

      • QE was & is a bailout for Wall St., not a help for Main St. In plainer terms, shoving money to the 1%s, not the 99%. Andrew Huszar called this in a WSJ article. Here he speaks on QE again:
        kingworlsnews.com/man-u-s-called-upon-execute-qe1-warns-major-chaos-erupt-2015
        I note with dismay that you couch your explanation in hard to understand jargon, & your Troll tactics ad hom attacks on David Stockman.

      • Policycritic;

        I quibble with your understand and don’t agree with your solution, but I don’t doubt that we see the same problem. Government is not going to be the solutions and monetary policy doesn’t achieve the results you attribute to it even if congress would act how you want to (which not matter what you do they won’t). Congress acts in its members best interest and not on behalf of the interests of the people. That means the highest payer gets the action or in lew of that the politician act to accumulate power. Corporations pay for market share and elimination of competition (through tax policy, regulation and direct government funding and contracts, this includes the banks), politicians act on these issues to finance themselves and direct there energy to gain as much power unto themselves as they can. There is no room there for what you see or want even if you were correct, neither entity cares a wit about the economy or the individual citizen.

        This is why we fight for individual freedom from the government its not just about the economics it is about the right to self determinations (freedom). The goal is not so much economic growth as it is self determination. though we do believe both are linked.

        Keep fighting against the problem and don’t misunderstand your allies, just remember the fight is about a lot more the just economics, as some of your commentary so rightly points out.

      • Bob Boder, we absolutely agree on this:

        Congress acts in its members best interest and not on behalf of the interests of the people. That means the highest payer gets the action or in lew of that the politician act to accumulate power. Corporations pay for market share and elimination of competition (through tax policy, regulation and direct government funding and contracts, this includes the banks), politicians act on these issues to finance themselves and direct there energy to gain as much power unto themselves as they can . . . neither entity cares a wit about the economy or the individual citizen.

        However, I have a major objection with monetary policy being used to run the economy. That’s my objection. That’s what the Federal Reserve does: “monetary policy.” But in order to biotch about it, I’ve had to understand how it works. (I was a firm believer in the Eustace Mullins/G. Edward Griffin POV for over 18 years, preached it. Thought we borrowed from China, the whole nine yards.) But once you discover how it works, your outrage level hits the chandelier, because if the common people understood–and it is not hard to understand, I’ve been teaching 16-year-olds who get it immediately–then it becomes the first question you ask a potential candidate: tell me how federal accounting works. Can’t answer that? You’re out. I can’t wait for Hillary Clinton to do a townhall here. Her g.d. husband caused this mess.

        Fiscal policy can only be done by Congress, but they haven’t done it, they’ve been infected with the neoliberal Chicago School of Economics since 1980, which is why 40% of the economy now is finance capitalism and not industrial capitalism. People be damned. We lose $6 – $11 billion a day from the lost output of people out of work and wanting it. Walmart just opened their first store in Washington DC about two weeks ago. 23,000 showed up for about 400 jobs.

      • And the outrage comes from realizing that no one is doing fiscal policy. The Federal Reserve cannot do fiscal policy. It is precluded by law. So it ditzed around with monetary policy “tools” accomplishing nothing but helping the banks to the tune of $29 trillion (yes, you read that right) while Main Street lost their savings, retirements, and their houses.

      • jdseanjd,

        I read Carr’s book Pawns in the Game. I chased it down. I found it fascinating. But you have to realize that he was exposing historical stuff. Just because something happened XX years ago doesn’t mean that that is how things work today. We are not on a gold standard today. That went away 81 years ago.

      • Can’t agree, policycritic. The fundamentals remain unchanged, apart from window dressing. & the ponzi scheme is going down, as they all must.

      • jdseanjd,

        We were fine in this country for 64 years until Clinton ran a surplus starting in 1998. If the “ponzi scheme” was going to cripple everything, don’t you think that it would have happened within that time.

        Take a look:

      • Smells to me, PC, from that chart, that the Banksters want the US Govt in debt, thus paying interest. How dare the US Govt pay them less interest? We’ll have to discourage that. Why do you think Ron Paul tried so hard for 20 years to get an audit of the Fed? Why did he fail? Who’s running US, Congress or Fed? Why did Greenspan say no arm of Govt has power over Fed? Because it’s true. A group of Banksters, working behind the daft academics such as Yellen & Bernanke, own & run the US, UK, Multinationals, & the Western world, mostly via the corporate owned media. This is why everywhere is war & chaos. Banksters don’t care a dime for people, their only focus is the bottom line, profits.

      • You haven’t been fine in US since the the sneaky inception of the Fed, Christmas Eve, 2013. May I suggest you put “Fractional Reserve Banking for Dummies” in Youtube? There are many articles/videos. Then you can explain to people without getting lost behind a bunch of incomprehensible jargon. This, I feel sure, will make your life easier. & that of others. Best,
        John Doran.

      • jdseanjd,

        I just saw this. I gather you don’t live in the US? (BTW, I appreciate the comment that I’m obtuse; not being sarcastic, being appreciative. I’ll work on that.)

        You wrote, “Smells to me, PC, from that chart, that the Banksters want the US Govt in debt, thus paying interest.”

        Has nothing to do with banksters. Has to do with the federal government. The federal government should always be roughly 5% in deficit during normal times to accommodate growth. The US federal government does not borrow from anyone (it issues its own currency) so it does not pay interest to anyone. That’s what has everyone so confused. They think about the federal government as if it were a business or household. It’s not. They think federal government “debt” is the same as business or household “debt.” It’s not. It’s the opposite of business or household debt.

        Everytime you hear the words “government debt,” you should think “”government money,” or “government equity.” The National Debt is what the American people OWN, not what they owe. The National Debt (also called “Debt Held by the Public” on the US Treasury website) is what is in every pension fund, corporate bank account, Grandma’s retirement account, small business account, and Billy’s lemonade stand account. To the penny.

        If we “paid off the National Debt,” not one person in this country would have a dime in their pocket.

      • jdseanjd,

        I like to think of it as the “National Cash,” or “Cash Held by the Public.”

        Because that’s what it is. If this is new to you, and I think it is, your head is probably exploding as mine did when I figured it out. But try it on for two weeks whenever you hear people talk about the government debt or national debt or whatever.

        That’s why the US Treasury (on their Daily Treasury Statement) refers to treasury securities as “Public Debt Cash Issues.”

      • I like to think of it thus:
        There’s two types of money in circulation, funny money, or monopoly money, or fiat money, call it what you will. The other is blood, sweat & tears money.

        The fiat money is created out of thin air, as debt, is 90% imaginary, yet attracts full interest,

        The second is accrued through hours of toil, risks taken, goods produced & sold.
        Put in the bank, this real money attracts zero interest.

        Govts & Banksters have been running ponzi schemes, relying on an ever-expanding economy rather than savings to fund pensions etc. It will crash, as all ponzi schemes must, because they rely on an infinite supply of taxes & interest. Impossible.

      • jdseanjd,

        You are hopelessly muddled, or worse, if you believe nations or persons have to be in debt to be prosperous.

        Nations that create their own currency are on one side of the teeter-totter. [This is called “base money”]

        Persons, businesses, banks, the foreign sector, that use a particular nation’s currency are on the other side of the teeter-totter.

        You are mixing the two.

      • Then here’s some reality. The US federal government has run a deficit, except for Clinton’s surplus which created the Financial Crisis (albeit delayed by the dotcom and housing bubbles), since 1934.

      • Which is why the US dumb govt is in $18+ trillion dollars of un-repayable debt. This does not include unfunded liabilities like pensions & social security.
        Go fourth & multiply.

      • You’re just not getting it. Don’t you think that if an $18 trillion “debt” were a problem that someone would have done something about it when it was, say, $2 trillion, or $12 trillion?

        You only have to look at the Daily Treasury Statements available on the US Treasury’s Bureau of the Fiscal Service. They have been made public since 1998. Right there in black and white. You can add them up yourself. Since 1998, the US Treasury has issued a total of $719 trillion in marketable, non-marketable treasury securities, and government inter-agency securities (which includes those they use only for Social Security as an accounting artifact). Also, since 1998, the US Treasury has redeemed a total of $701 trillion.

        The difference is $18 trillion. That’s the amount of cash in pension funds and bank accounts. Savings. It’s the people’s savings.

        What you don’t get is that this is result of the US federal government issuing its own currency. You don’t understand that; you can’t see it. And you are thinking like a user of the currency, who can actually go into real debt, with real collateral, and real payback schedules. Government “debt” is cash, moolah, money for the people, completely interest-free. (No one has to pay it back; they earned it.) Where else would businesses and households get it than from the entity that makes it? Hunh? Think.

    • Evidence-based is what it is. It does not depend on who funded the study. Monckton, Soon et al. Provide all the data required for other researcher’s to reproduce their results. If you think that their conclusions are questionable, you are perfectly free to do as Joe Born did and write a scientific criticism, instead of resorting to moronic, politically motivated, ad hominem inuendo.

    • Accordingly, since all scientists are funded, they all have a “potential” conflicts of interest.

      In court cases the prosecution brings a credentialed established expert witness saying one thing and the defense brings a different credentialed established expert to refute the prosecution witness. Each expert is paid for their unbiased expert opinion which coincidentally aligns with the objectives of the side that signs their check.

      When a president enters office on a plank of expanding green energy and dramatically expands funding for green research , scientists respond accordingly. BTW Eisenhower besides warning of the military-industrial complex also warned of government funding excessively influencing scientific research, converting science from an open-ended independent research entity, into a government lackey.

      The reality is those with the funds use money to influence outcomes. Scientists are along for the ride to make the best living then can. Right now AGW pays much more towards an opulent lifestyle than being a skeptic. If you are digging for gold using science, you are much better off playing the AGW card.

    • All those references are for Feb 2015. The paper of which W Soon was co-author and which generated much discussion world-wide , and displeasure, and possibly anxiety , in certain quarters , appeared in Jan 2015 .
      Draw your own conclusions.

  9. For over 150 years the Smithsonian has been molding, shaping and selectively picking and choosing artifacts and information in all aspects of the sciences including, paleontology, archaeology and of course in matters of global warming. The scandalous behaviour of the Smithsonian is legendary.

    My mind is just stunned at the immature expectation that a simple letter like the above is going to actually achieve anything. Letters like this have been occurring for over a hundred years when it comes to the scientific crimes that have been perpetrated by the Smithsonian. You really think that the AG will do anything serious, like take your claims in sincerity?

    As I have pointed out many times in the past. This is a conspiracy, by government and science and of course including any legal instruments that are in their power to subvert truth and honesty all for personal gain. The AG is a tool of the government, and since the government has NO desire to do anything to harm the Global Warming Church, you will just end up seeing your “letter” be given the typical attitude that all such letters have been given over the last 150 years.

    This is a very immature and naive approach to a serious problem; fraud and white collar crime, including government officials and agencies, including the AG and the Smithsonian. Its been going on for 150 years, and will continue to go on for another 150 years.

    This letter is pointless. Understand this, the Smithsonian has been around for 150 years and has, credentials that nobody else has. You really think that the powers to be are going to open such a hornet’s nest to depose the Smithsonian? Think about it. If they do this, then there is 150 years of OTHER letters that will need to be dealt with. Yes the Smithsonian lies. Yes the Smithsonian has been corrupting science and the facts about many things in science for its entire existence. Yes the Smithsonian has its own agenda. Yes the Smithsonian is corrupt; any mildly intelligent person knows this. But nothing will change! And your letter will be given the same treatment that all other letters have been given; leading to nothing.

    What ignorance. What mind stunning naivety. The battle here is not an institution. The battle here is the foundation of Science. Science has become corrupted with white collar criminals. The real problem here, is that all you people can’t bear to think and deal with the truth; Science has gone bad.

    You damn fools, all you are doing is letting this cancer get worse. Go ahead write your letter to the AG, go ahead sign your names to a worthless stupid letter. Then what? What’s Plan B, when nothing is done?

    The Smithsonian is not a place to learn science, it is a place of indoctrination. The AG is not a place for justice, it is a place to intimidate. The Justice System is not a place for Justice, it is a place to shut up and imprison the dissenting. Government is not a place for governance, it is a place for subjugation. And sadly, my beloved Science is not a place for learning, it is a place for religious idealists with lazy philosophies who can’t accept Nature as She is and think they can tune Her by playing god, that is, they have a God Complex. Note the similarity here, Smithsonian, AG, Government and Global Warming Morons, they all have God Complex’s.

    You people just don’t either get it, or are sticking your heads in the earth and playing fantasy.

    And so it is…. the world will continue on its present path … Lord have pity on us few who do really care.

    For those of you who understand …. NEVER take your children or anybody to the Smithsonian. Think of the Smithsonian as The Ministry Of Truth, the AG as The Ministry Of Love, and of course the US Government as The Ministry Of Plenty; apologies to George Orwell.

    What a sad day this is; writing letters to The Ministry Of Love.

    The Folly Of Man.
    What sorrow, what despair,
    When Man falls short,
    For strength and care.
    Truth is no weapon, for the meek,
    When Man falls short,
    Cause he’s weak.
    When Sight is feigned,
    And Knowledge poor,
    Science becomes ignorance,
    And Man becomes no more.

    And so we sink further into the New Dark Ages…. ah what historians will think of us in the future, I am sure, like so many times in the past, they will say, “Never Again!” Oh how those words haunt humanity…. woe is me, it is, a very sad day today. Very sad.

    • It may not achieve anything. But it is still worth doing.
      You can’t object to misbehaviour of an organisation if you haven’t given the organisation the opportunity to regulate its own members. Else you are generalising from the individual to the group.

      Imagine “I was mooned by a Chinese child therefore all Chinese children are mooners”. Or, “I was mooned by a Chinese child therefore I asked the parents to have a word with their child”.
      Which seems the more appropriate response?

    • My general thoughts as well. This letter however well intended is but a fart in a swirling hurricane. This age of hate, and darkness and faux piety among the progressive class will persist for years to come.

    • “Dorian”, whoever it is, should recall that in the early days of the Nazi ascendancy people would say, “How stupid it is to try to argue with these madmen. Just leave them to destroy themselves.” As Edmund Burke used to say, “For evil to triumph it is necessary only that good men do nothing.” Fortunately, others here have learned the lessons from the indifference and appeasement that allowed the rise of Hitler, and are not willing to fall silent when a new totalitarian establishment attempts to tighten its grip by silencing scientific research and ending academic freedom.

      Imagine that you had been on the wrong end of the unprecedentedly vicious campaign of baseless denigration in many major news outlets, scientific as well as secular, to which Willie Soon has been subjected. Even if the Chief Justice of the United States qua chief regent of the Smithsonian does nothing – and thereby puts himself at risk by making himself a party to the fraudulent campaign of lies the Smithsonian has told about Willie, at least Willie will have the great comfort of knowing how many good friends he has – friends who do not carp and cavil and whinge and whine and weigh this against that, but simply sign to show that they support him in his hour of need.

      If the furtively pseudonymous “Dorian” cowers behind a half-name and does not even disclose his identity, and yet he feels that it is appropriate to sneer, he should be thoroughly ashamed of himself.

      Fortonately, no one is paying any attention to his sniveling. The signatures are coming in thick and fast.

      • Of course the wording of this looks like the needed documentation for treble damages should the thing go to court as a defamation case. It gives the defendant full notice of their bad behavior and a chance to make amends. It also lays out the outline of a RICO case as there is definitely a conspiracy outlined in the coordinated stories from several disparate entities. Should the Attorney-General of Mass decide to pursue it, there is quite a case to be had, but as the office of attorney-general would rather defenestrate themselves than to besmirch the name of the hallowed halls of Harvard, this will never happen.

    • Dorian : I think you are missing something. If no-one attempts to defend Dr Soon, then the Smithsonian will be able to claim that their persecution of Dr Soon was obviously justified, as otherwise someone would have defended him. So even though the Smithsonian may be as corrupt as you claim, that is one line that is now just a little bit more difficult for them to take. Climate science is a political war, no one battle will be decisive.

    • coward?
      no letters behind my name so I can’t sign but I would be willing.
      course I am not scared of the smithsonian boogeyman.

    • Dorian:
      So, are you proposing the ostrich method or trying another whiskey rebellion approach which allows the POTUS to send in troops?

      Either method is wrong. Period.

      Lord Monckton’s letter approach identifies the issues, errors and misconduct. Putting them into writing and gathering signatories identifies popular, academic and professional support, while establishing a public record. Attorney Generals and Inspector Generals ignore such letters to their professional peril; improper official investigations will eventually be followed by serious investigations that may prosecute improprieties.
      At the least the official record will be corrected identifying wrongdoers for the next century or so.

      • ATheoK says “while establishing a public record.”

        Precisely. That is a worthy goal by itself. Get it on record. Make it harder in the future for the Ministry of Truth to disappear this incident. Not impossible, but more difficult.

    • Established powers are overturned all the time on local and national levels, sometimes collapsing due to their own internal rot and other times due to external forces.

      Regardless, I am not sure how wringing ones hands is a better option than signing a letter of protest with like minded individuals.

    • Dorian says “What ignorance. What mind stunning naivety.”

      Whereas you are smart and clever. Got it!

    • So according to you YOU have your head clearly above the sand ? your epitome is way worse than this letter.

  10. Done … sent… done…
    So, you guys don’t bother seeing the evidence or wonder why it’s not posted online?

    • Sven

      You really are a piece of work!

      The letter calls on the appropriate authorities to do the job they are employed to do. Nobody needs to see anything for them to support that call. And that is not changed by you carping from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity.

      The facts are as follows.

      The letter calls on the Regents of the Smithsonian and the above article says

      The letter covers a report by us to the Regents giving the findings of our investigation into the allegations against Willie that the Smithsonian, echoing various political advocacy groups, had widely and improperly circulated. Our investigation concludes that the Smithsonian is gravely at fault on numerous grounds, and that Willie is blameless. Our letter invites the Regents to ensure that the Smithsonian investigates the wrongdoing by the Smithsonian and its senior officials identified in our report, and, when they have confirmed that our report is in substance correct, to see to it that the Smithsonian issues a public apology to Willie, pays him just and full restitution, and meets his legal costs.

      The request is to the appropriate authorities to make all necessary investigations of a Report which concludes “the Smithsonian is gravely at fault on numerous grounds” and states the action(s) the Report’s authors claim the Regents need to undertake if the Report’s conclusions are correct. Of course, if the Regents (n.b. the appropriate authority) decide the Report is flawed then they could refute the Report and state their reasons for the refutation.

      In either case, the Regents now have a clear duty to investigate the truth of the conclusion that “the Smithsonian is gravely at fault on numerous grounds” which are itemised in the Report and to respond to those conclusions. The letter merely calls on the Regents to fulfill that duty.

      Richard

    • Richard,
      I might be “a piece of work” or not, I don’t know…
      But “The letter covers a report by us …”. Before signing I certainly would like to see the report to be sure what I’m signing! Otherwise it would be like the activists claiming “trust us, we are scientists…” There are attachments to the letter, one of them “4-17 Evidence in support of findings”. A need to see the evidence makes one ” a piece of work”? Now think about this exchange as taking place on Real Climate, Tamino or Hot Whopper… Just like Brandon Shollenberger getting beating from both sides for sticking to the same rules for everybody.

      • Sven

        The desires of an anonymous troll such as you are of no interest to anybody except perhaps yourself.

        The Report is an accusation that “the Smithsonian is gravely at fault on numerous grounds”. The Regents of the Smithsonian have a duty to investigate the truth of that accusation with a view to correcting any true “fault” or refuting any untrue assertion of “fault”. The letter calls on the Regents to fulfill that duty. Nobody needs to see anything for them to support that call.

        Stop trolling.

        Richard

      • Random remarks from “Sven” copied and pasted in here just adding to the noise, smoke, and confusion, which is what troll-boy wants. Please return to the underside of the bridge, and take your reading list of grudge makers with you.

      • Sven,

        You don’t need to see the report to sign a letter supporting Willie Soon in his hour of need. If Monckton is making things up he will be refuted, but there is little doubt that Willie has been treated badly by the Smithsonian, as have others who don’t follow the party political line in this so-called “Science”.

      • geronimo,
        I agree. Yes, I don’t need to see the report to sign a letter supporting Willie Soon in his hour of need (and by the way, I just did sign). But I want this support be as helpful and thus as accurate and solid as possible.

      • Or actually, geronimo, thinking about it, I would rephrase – I don’t need to see the report to support Willie Soon in his hour of need. But I would need to see the report to sign any letter based on any report. First, as I said, to be sure that the support is really effective and second, to be sure that whatever I sign is accurate. But as said, in spite of this, because of the need for support for Dr. Soon and the travesty of the whole affair, I (took the risk and) signed it even before I’ve received the report.

      • Sven, Moncton said email him and he’ll send it all to you. it’s right there in the post.

    • “And that is not changed by you carping from behind the coward’s screen of anonymity.”
      Now, Richard, do you also have an anonymity problem with everybody else on the thread (just how many commentators are not anonymous here?) or am I singled out because you don’t like the substance of my writing?

      • Sven

        This thread is not about your cowardice as displayed by your choice of anonymity.

        It is about the call for the Regents of the Smithsonian to fulfill their duty in response to the accusations from Monckton et al.

        Stop trolling.

        Richard

      • And just how am I more anonymous than you? Sven is my name. You’ve added your family name, that’s it. OK, I’ll add mine – it’s Jurgenson. Better?

      • “It is about the call for the Regents of the Smithsonian to fulfill their duty in response to the accusations from Monckton et al.”
        That I agree and I also agree that what’s happening to Dr. Soon is an absolute disgrace (even whether the report mentioned here is wrong or right), but the letter to be signed has to be available to the signatories with all the attachments. So that people could be sure that the facts in the letter are right.
        But you really should consider your definition of trolling…

      • Sven

        Trolling is an attempt to deflect a discussion from its intended subject and often includes attack of a person .

        I don’t need to amend anything. You need to stop trolling.

        Richard

      • Richard,
        You really are a piece of work!
        “Trolling is an attempt to deflect a discussion from its intended subject and often includes attack of a person .”
        I asked the attachments (parts of the letter!) mentioned in the article to be public to the potential signatories and I did not attack any person. Is that deflecting the discussion? For that you called me “piece of work”, coward and a troll. The irony. But OK, goodbye, I just remembered why I actually stopped reading the WUWT comments long time ago (though I often do follow the posts)

      • Sven Jurgenson should read the head posting before writing any more nonsense. My email appears there twice, and there is a plain statement that if he or anyone wants a copy of the evidence they have only to send me an email and ask for it. Don’t be silly.

      • Moncton of Brenchley should read more thoroughly what Sven Jurgenson has written. Don’t be silly

        Sven April 10, 2015 at 12:46 am
        Oops … sorry, did not see “Anyone who would like the full report, which includes the evidence in support of our findings, should email me.”
        There’s still a question of why the evidence can not be posted online? I’m afraid that the “other side” might interpret this as a fear that it might be refuted before the action is taken.

      • Well Mr Ambassador, I didn’t know we were in such hallowed company (bow & scrape).
        Tell me how are things these days in Estonia? You have been “singled out” because
        you are talking balderdash, so don’t complain about that, it is a problem of your own making.

      • There you go, Echo Chamber (your name is a really good description for what’s going on). You see, using the first name only was not for cowardice (giving my last name should be enough to prove that) but for the reason that my work has nothing to do with anything I write over here, or does it?
        I have no problem with the letter. It’s very good. As I’ve also said, I find what’s going on with the whole Soon affair an absolute disgrace. Maybe there is a good reason for not putting the attachments online, but I just find that it weakens the possible outcome as it could make the letter vulnerable. After all, transparency is one of the issues what the whole warming debate is about. As you’ll notice, I also wrote “I’m afraid that the “other side” might interpret this as a fear that it might be refuted before the action is taken.” I put the “other side” in brackets because I think that there really should be no sides in it. But unfortunately, in fact, there are… What I actually also find a disgrace…
        And I do not see that any of this falls under Richard’s definition of trolling. If anything, then his writings would (“Trolling is an attempt to deflect a discussion from its intended subject and often includes attack of a person”).

      • Sven

        You ask me

        By the way, are you an anonymous coward, Echo Chamber? Or do you, Richard, think he is?

        I see no evidence that Echo Chamber is an anonymous coward.
        He, she, they has not thrown insults and attacks from behind the coward’s shield of anonymity. Indeed, he has been opposing you doing that.

        Richard

    • Sven says “you guys don’t bother seeing the evidence or wonder why it’s not posted online?”

      As the One True Authorized Speaker for “the guys” (*), I can assure you that the details have been posted regularly online as they have been revealed. It’s not exactly evidence; I could whip up a nice story about Bigfoot complete with photos, GPS coordinates and a dozen credentialed scientists even if I have to make up the names and credentials; it appears not that difficult.

      * Or maybe not. How can you discern?

      Consider the fake PhD at California Emissions Board (CARB)
      http://calwatchdog.com/2012/11/05/carb-scandal-also-shames-california-media/

      So anyway, regular stories appearing over the course of a year are much more believable in aggregate than suddenly appearing here demanding support.

      The timing of this burst of attacks on different skeptics is remarkable; coordinated, funded. That by itself lends credence to the existence of this “war”.

      It is clear that science and politics are increasingly polarized with both camps, but mostly warmists, demanding total conformity to dogma. It isn’t enough to admit to some human global warming; if you doubt any of the catechism you are outcast.

      But who created the catechism? Who wrote the story that “humans are evil”?

      It’s ancient and manifests itself in many guises. Stomp this one down and another story will take its place.

      Eternal vigilance is the price of liberty.
      http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/eternal-vigilance-price-liberty-quotation

      I’ve been watching Dinesh D’Souza’s “America: Imagine the World Without Her.” It’s fabulous. The first 30 minutes tells that same story; America the imperialist and so on. Then the next hour unravels the story and reveals that America is also the only nation on Earth to go to war to stop slavery; that after the Mexican American war, America owned ALL of Mexico but gave half of it back. It reveals that about half the slave owners in the south were themselves black (**) and 300,000 northerners died to end slavery (more or less). You cannot give Mount Rushmore back to the Sioux, because it wasn’t theirs either, they had conquered yet earlier tribes, and why should the United States give Texas back to Mexico? It didn’t belong to “Mexicans” (Spaniards). Texas fought their own war of independence (Remember the Alamo!) and was for a time its very own Republic.
      ** http://turcopolier.typepad.com/sic_semper_tyrannis/2013/03/httpwwwtherootcomviewsdid-black-people-own-slaves.html

      There exists a force that doesn’t like life. It is nihilistic.

      • reveals that America is also the only nation on Earth to go to war to stop slavery

        Lincoln stopped slavery because it had been outlawed in Europe.

      • America is also the only nation on Earth to go to war to stop slavery

        Not true of course, the usual distortion of history you get by those who’ve never bothered to study the rest of the world.

      • Phil. (quoting Michael 2)

        America is also the only nation on Earth to go to war to stop slavery

        Not true of course, the usual distortion of history you get by those who’ve never bothered to study the rest of the world.

        I will grant Great Britain’s anti-slavery efforts did not need to “declare war” to stop slavery in Canada, NZ, OZ, SA, etc. – and that they (the UK) had a larger, more intense and actually more legislatively successful anti-slavery effort than the US.

        But name another country and culture that did so. China used forced labor through the middle of WWII, the Muslim countries did not outlaw slavery until the 60’s and 70’s … And women are sold today, paraded through streets in literal cages behind bars in the radical Muslim “terrorities”. African slavery still exists. Germany’s camps were infamous – but they were “populated” with the willing assistance of governments in all of the occupied countries. Russia/NK/Venezuela/Vietnam/China all retain their forced labor camps. Stalin’s camps killed millions between 1917 and 1992 – far more than the Tsar’s. Stalin’s gold, silver, diamonds, and oil were all forced-labor prison/slavery institutions.

      • PolicyCritic;

        Lincoln stopped slavery (aside from the fact that he was a true believer in freedom) because the crazy right wing religious nut job northerners (republicans) forced the issue with the south by gaining control of congress and forcing the south into a corner. England only stopped slavery because there was not a huge market or need for it in England if they still controlled the Americas and where controlling the cotton economy of the south do you really think wonderful England would have ended slavery here? if you do then you know nothing about the English.

        It was the Europeans who started the slavery in the new world in the first place, the first goods that Columbus brought bake to Europe where slaves.

        America with all its flaws and with all its mistakes is the only nation that has ever existed that would after winning a decisive war the likes of WWII and not only act as conquers but would liberate, rebuild and empower those that we conquered. If you think Lincoln was anything different then a true believer in freedom and fairness then explain his handling of the south after the war. In what other country would that occur?

      • RACookPE1978 April 11, 2015 at 8:21 am
        I will GRANT Great Britain’s anti-slavery efforts did not need to “declare war” to stop slavery in Canada, NZ, OZ, SA, etc. – and that they (the UK) had a larger, more intense and actually more legislatively successful anti-slavery effort than the US.

        Yes, Great Britain mobilized a fleet to blockade the African continent for about 50 years, captured over 1500 slave ships and freed over 150,000 slaves.

  11. What religion does Willie Soon belong to? Does his religion preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not?

    • Daniel

      There are many web sites where you can discuss religion. This is not one of them.

      Please conduct your trolling somewhere else.

      Richard

      • trolling? i don’t want to debate religions. i jsut want to know his religion, that is an important point to know if he even should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups.
        how can one sign this letter before Willi Soon can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.

        I am sure Monckton can surely understand this.

      • richardscourtney

        I think we already received the message. Trolling is treated by ignoring, not spamming.

      • Hugh

        Your (inadvertent?) defence of tolls says

        I think we already received the message. Trolling is treated by ignoring, not spamming.

        NO! Trolling is treated by refuting, not ignoring.

        Trolls attempt to deflect threads with disinformation. They cannot be corrected because they don’t want to learn and are often aware that they are presenting falsehoods.

        Uninformed onlookers may be misled by disinformation that is “ignored”. Therefore, trolls need to be refuted.

        And refuting trolls is NOT “spamming”. The severe troll infestation of WUWT requires several refutations. You should provide some instead of supporting the trolling unless, of course, that is your purpose.

        Richard

    • wow scary stuff from Daniel. if he can’t see the obvious hypocrisy and flaw in his dizzying argument then I don’t know what to tell him. What is Gavin Schmidt’s religion? Does anybody care? I wish I had his e-mail so i could ask him if last week was the hottest week on record of all weeks ever recorded by mankind. In the history of that week

      • Flaw in the argument? It is not my argument. It is the argument of someone very respected on WUWT.

      • It’s ethics not religion. is there any cowardly method you are willing not to use to go one self righteous witch hunts? How about some American Indian elder literature that is completely made up. is that coming next?

      • No. Religion. Monckton was very clear about that. And not just any religion. You really should read his position on this.

      • The incompletely identified “Daniel” is off topic. Nothing in the head posting mentions religion. If “Daniel”, whoever it is, has any doubts about the quality or probity of Dr Soon’s research, or about the morality of his publishing it, perhaps he would care to be specific.

      • im not here to discuss the validity of the approach, i just want to know Soon’s religions, so i can decide if he should practice in any of the sciences.

      • Daniel,

        I’m just curious as to what special insight or divine knowledge you have that makes you uniquely qualified above all others to “decide if he should practice in any of the sciences.”

      • “Daniel,

        I’m just curious as to what special insight or divine knowledge you have that makes you uniquely qualified above all others to “decide if he should practice in any of the sciences.”

        good question. i just follow Monckton’s formula. as he described here

        http://sppiblog.org/news/what-is-science-without-religion

        so when i find out what religion Soon belongs to, i can look up if that religion preaches “the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not.”

      • Daniel,

        Thanks for the response, but you miss my point. His science should stand (or fall) on the merits of his science, and his (or any) religion should have no place in the science. If you want to disregard his science based on his religion, that is solely your problem, but you are in absolutely no position to “decide if he should practice in any of the sciences.” If you think that someone’s religion automatically invalidates their science, you have an extremely poor understanding of what both science and religion are.

      • “but you are in absolutely no position to “decide if he should practice in any of the sciences.” ”

        is Monckton in such a position?

      • Daniel says “I just want to know Soon’s religions, so i can decide if he should practice in any of the sciences.”

        In the United States, religious discrimination is not permitted. It isn’t even permitted to ask.

        It seems that you have already decided.

      • Daniel, thank you for pointing this out:

        http://sppiblog.org/news/what-is-science-without-religion

        I would not have known of it without you. It is an excellent essay and “spot on”.

        I will say that not only do I believe in Dog, I have heard his voice more than once, and the words of it were specific, objective and necessary. Once it saved my life telling me to change lanes on a six lane highway; unknown to me a drunken driver was traveling at high speed on the wrong side. I called the police and reported him; that will be a matter of record, but the reason I called the police, and was alive to do so, will not be a matter of public record.

        I also believe in electricity, gravity, quantum theory to the extent that it explains laser diodes and any kind of semiconductor for that matter, the Lorentz Transformation, black holes and so on.

        I am SO GLAD that in the United States you have no power over me whether I conduct science.

      • “In the United States, religious discrimination is not permitted. It isn’t even permitted to ask.”

        ooh, seems like Mr. Monckton did not know that.

      • ” I have heard his voice more than once, and the words of it were specific, objective and necessary.”

        ok…… you hear voices…..

    • Daniel, your clumsy attempt to construct a straw man from a rhetorical statement in Monckton’s excellent essay is reprehensible, and you come off as a real jerk. IMO, that is.

      • You seem to have one mode of argument, that of intentionally misinterpreting (straw man). You think you’re being clever, but you are actually being lazy and immature.

      • “that of intentionally misinterpreting”

        pls?

        “Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.”

        what does it mean?

      • Daniel, you did not answer the question – when did you become a religious bigot? Misrepresenting Monckton’s position on religion and science is not an argument.

    • and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not?

      LOL, nothing worse than a comedian without an audience.

      Pray tell Daniel what do you use to define morality – a magic book, an invisible force, tea leaves, secret messages from higher being(s), your local priest or priestess?

      Don’t answer, don’t care. Just think you are funny.

    • Daniel says “What religion does Willie Soon belong to?”

      He belongs to the church of the Great Smithsonian. He might be a bit outcast right now like Martin Luther back in the day.

      • amazing how quickly the view changes when they realize it’s Monckton that said it :)

        hilarious.

        WUWT made my day once more….

        not one dared to post and say, well Monckton is wrong about that point, it is religious bigotry….

        it seems it is only religious bigotry when i say it, not when Mr. Monckton says it…..

        wow

    • Daniel says “he even should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences”

      You mistake the existence of an Authority that decides who, and who cannot, practice science.

      *I* practice science on a regular basis. I ask no one’s permission. That you think it is appropriate and perhaps necessary reveals your authoritarian streak as expressed by T.H. White, “Everything not forbidden is compulsory”.

      Fortunately, you appear not to be an authority or you wouldn’t be here complaining. You would be authorizing! Or revoking.

      Whether I convince anyone of the effectiveness of my science depends on complete and accurate description of my methods and results so that any person can repeat the experiment. After a while I might become trusted but that works both ways; failed predictions lead to a public lack of trust. One of my favorites is “Children just won’t know what snow is”. That failed prediction seems to have gotten is author a promotion but it hasn’t increased his credibility outside of his clique.

      • Daniel:

        You say

        dang, was not expecting to get so much hate here for using Monckton and quoting Monckton…..

        Please do not pretend there is “hate” of you for “quoting Monckton”.

        There is only reasonable and understandable disgust and contempt of you for attempting to derail this thread by misrepresentation of an essay by Lord Monckton which is on a subject not relevant to this thread and is published elsewhere.

        Richard

      • “misrepresentation ”

        nope. just quoting him….

        and it is very releveant.

        but i can see why you are looking for excuses…..

        so you really think religious bigotry is the way to go?

        should people make their support or non support for Soon dependent on Soon’s religion?
        according to Monckton, yes.. or does his inquisition only aim at other scientists he dislikes?

    • Daniel refers to this sentence “Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality”

      Sounds pretty good to me. It cannot happen in the United States of course. But consider the Boy Scouts of America which does insist that Scouts, and leaders, subscribe to some sort of Supreme Being, as the anchor and author of a shared morality.

      Without that anchor, you have a morality, but there’s no telling what it is, probably something you created yourself or have been given by one of your Authorities.

      Science is the author of “nobody is created equal” because that is the compelled result of science — firstly because people aren’t “created” (not ex-nihilo anyway), and because they demonstrably aren’t “equal”.

      Religion is the author of “created equal” — no promise is made about staying equal, or even superior, that’s up to you!

      • ““Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality”

        Sounds pretty good to me”

        WOW

        hilarious. the inquisition is good aslong its your inquisition.

      • be specific. do you think
        “Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality”

        is wrong ?

    • “NO! Trolling is treated by refuting, not ignoring.”

      so you don0t think im trolling? because you did not refute anything.

      (Reply: Repeated your thread bombing may result in getting your future comments snipped. Read the site Policy. -mod.)

      • Troll posting as Daniel:

        Not content with misrepresenting Lord Monckton you now try to misrepresent me.

        You say

        “NO! Trolling is treated by refuting, not ignoring.”

        so you don0t think im trolling? because you did not refute anything.

        That response to my correct definition is absolutely and completely untrue.

        I refuted you here where I wrote

        Daniel:

        You say

        dang, was not expecting to get so much hate here for using Monckton and quoting Monckton…..

        Please do not pretend there is “hate” of you for “quoting Monckton”.

        There is only reasonable and understandable disgust and contempt of you for attempting to derail this thread by misrepresentation of an essay by Lord Monckton which is on a subject not relevant to this thread and is published elsewhere.

        Richard

        Now, please retire to under your bridge because interacting with you engenders the same feelings as removing something unpleasant from the instep of one’s shoe.

        Richard

      • lol you think that is a refutation?

        it is pure hypocrisy, that0s all. religious bigotry is ok when its coming from you, would it be the other way around you would all be totally furious, just like those that responded to me when i asked from Soon’s religion.

      • Troll posting as Daniel

        Yes, it is a complete refutation of your false assertions.

        Your reply amounts to “No ‘t’isn’t” and is typical of your infantile postings which are wasting far too much space on this and other threads.

        Richard

      • Troll posting as Daniel:

        I provide this addition to my reply to your childish temper tantrum.

        No congregation whose worship I have led and no colleague from other religions has ever suggested that I am a religious bigot. Please refrain from such offensive psychological projection in future.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney

        do you think that this is religious bigotry or not?

        ““Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.””

      • Troll now posting as Daniel Kuhn

        I refer you to my previous posts which said to you

        There is only reasonable and understandable disgust and contempt of you for attempting to derail this thread by misrepresentation of an essay by Lord Monckton which is on a subject not relevant to this thread and is published elsewhere.

        And I yet again call on you to slither back under your bridge because your falsehoods and infantile drivel are wasting much space on several threads.

        Richard

      • richardscourtney

        so quoting Monckton is a falsehood to you?

        but very telling that non of you dared to say outloud that Monckton was not right with

        ““Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.””

        it seems all of you that posted here very angry that i would dare to ask fo Soon’s religion, suddenly agree with religous bigotry from the second on you realiued it was Monckton that said it.

        and you just spamm now, you have not pointed out how i misrepresent what Monckton said. you do not show how my quote from Monckton is a falsehood, you just spamm……

        so explain, how do i misrepresent Monckton? what did he mean? when he wrote it?

        is there any context for you in which “Perhaps, therefore, no one should be allowed to practice in any of the sciences, particularly in those sciences that have become the mere political footballs of the leading pressure-groups, unless he can certify that he adheres to one of those major religions – Christianity outstanding among them – that preach the necessity of morality, and the reality of the distinction between that which is so and that which is not. For science without the morality that perhaps religion alone can give is nothing.” is acceptable?

      • Troll posting as Daniel Kuhn:

        Your misrepresentations of both Lord Monckton and me are reprehensible. Anybody can misrepresent by quoting out of context: it is not clever and is merely yet another of your infantile behaviours. Crawl back under your bridge because there has been far, far too much of you here..

        Richard

      • richard, why don’t you explain the context in which Monckton’s religious bigotry is acceptable to you?
        or explain why you think what Monckton said is not religious bigotry?

      • Troll now posting as Daniel Kuhn

        I do not need to explain your misrepresentation: nobody does. This is because – as I have already twice pointed out –

        There is only reasonable and understandable disgust and contempt of you for attempting to derail this thread by misrepresentation of an essay by Lord Monckton which is on a subject not relevant to this thread and is published elsewhere.

        Slither back under your bridge.

        Richard

  12. A disgraceful witch hunt. Persecution of an employee & colleague of 25 years standing.

    Someone, somewhere has obviously threatened large lumps of Smithsonian funding. Follow the munneee.

      • I have come to the conclusion, Sven, that our present form of democracy is an unsustainable sham. As in US, both main parties are beholden to Big Money, & working toward their interests rather than for the benefit of the dumbed down majority. If we can escape the planned global dictatorship, perhaps a republican form of govt for regions, rather than nations, might be best?
        http://www.wakeup-world.com/2014/08/05/agenda-21-the-plan-for-a-global-fascist-dictatorship/
        Best,
        John Doran.

      • Jdseanjd

        it is not democracy that is the problem, as Winston Churchill said “democracy is the worst form of government”—“except for all the others”

        Its the group think and group actions that are the problem, the solution is unflinching defense of individual liberty from all form of government a group control. Dr. Soon is being attacked because he followed the science where it led him and not where the group wants it to go. Governments serve a purpose but never forget they are evil in their nature, because in the end the only real power they have is force. you must at all times resist the attempts by any government or group to take control of anyone’s individual life. Defend others liberties as you would defend you own.

  13. We are friends, colleagues, or supporters of Dr Willie Soon, a solar physicist who has been on the strength at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, part of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, for a quarter of a century

    …on the strength?

    • I believe it arose out of the British military term, the strength of a regiment is the number of officers and men affiliated with that regiment. Therefore to be on the strength is to be one of the members of that regiment.

  14. “On the strength” – English slang for employee, or colleague of a corporation or group.
    England & US, two countries separated by the same language. :)

    • I don’t know about that – I’ve never heard it used in that way. At best, an obscure usage and at worst a drafting mistake. I’d suggest that anybody signing this rewrite that part to use words that you actually consider normal.

      • “On the strength”, HK, readily understood where I come from, though I do wonder how a Scottish Lord comes to share the venacular of a South London council estate.
        Perhaps there’s a military background.
        Looks to me like this piece was written with a touch of anger, & without revision, understandably so, IMHO.

  15. I have sent my support by email to Lord Monckton today, asked to get the full report by email, and trust he will represent my supporting vote as intended, re his statement above:

    “If you are willing to support Willie by signing the letter, please send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com. Your name and qualifications will be added to the list of signatures, which is led by Professor Nils-Axel Mörner, the distinguished international expert on sea level rise, who has written more than 600 papers in his half century of studying sea level.”

    Willie, all the best from Norway! Hang in there like a hair in a biscuit!

  16. Is anybody picking up the tab or offering the legal services for this man? is anybody helping him financially to get through this witch hunting nonsense with some sort of basic comfort?

    I don’t have the credentials to sign such a petition. i don’t know why the pitchfork mob picked this guy as their pariah either. I could careless where somebody gets their funding. Last time i checked in this country people are allowed to work for whomever they please.

    I’m sure many of you guys thought about this before but in light of this current fraud science scam maybe a good idea would be to start a blind charity for ethical science with no conflict of interest. i know some very wealthy people that would willing to donate to this cause without having any knowledge of what kind of research their money is going to. A blind charity with total transparency on its inner workings. That would be the hiring and firing records of all that are funded. if this sounds like an absurd idea that would never work just let me know.

    • I don’t read into Lord Monckton’s request that supporters must have academic credentials. Only that he asks for including the credentials in the email.

      I also assume that professional credentials are also welcome.

      • Just to clarify: anyone can sign, credentials or no: but those who have credentials would help us by including them. It is all part of the process of making the Smithsonian aware that it is not going to get away with its shameful behavior.

        Those who say our findings look like a legal letter before claim are not entirely amiss. Actually our findings are the result of a careful investigation: and, when one summarizes the Smithsonian’s misconduct on a couple of brisk pages, the full horror of its behavior becomes clear. We did things this way so that when the Regents get our letter, backed by hundreds of signatures, including learned professors and doctors of science, they will be able to read the first two pages in a couple of minutes, realize they have to do something, and order the relevant people to sort this out.

        If the Regents don’t act, they make themselves party to the Smithsonian’s criminbality: and that will not be wise. The Regents will order an investigation of the Smithsonian’s behavior, and they will know by the sheer weight, quality and quantity of the signatories to this letter that no whitewash will succeed.

  17. Given the way the world works nowadays, This request should really include a disclaimer stating that the email addresses will be held securely, destroyed after use, and not used for anything else. In many European jurisdictions this is a legal requirement….

  18. I have no academic qualifications, so nothing I’d have to say is taken seriously, including Luke warmists like Dr Soon and his friends above.
    Yet I would stand in front of a room full of people and demolish global warmists, Luke warmists and any other academics that dared to stand there with me and debate me on the existence of a “greenhouse effect”, large or small. Fill the room with 1st year physics students at Uni, for all I care.
    One thing you can be sure of, I receive no funding from anyone!

    • “debate me on the existence of a “greenhouse effect””

      OMG! Really? Still?

      http://www.asterism.org/tutorials/tut37%20Radiative%20Cooling.pdf

      Point an IR thermometer to the sky at night, what’s it reading?
      Why is a cloudy winter night generally warmer than a clear winter night?
      Why do night-time temperatures in deserts drop so low in comparison to daytime temps?

      Answers:
      Downwelling IR from GHG’s and/or clouds.
      Clouds absorb and radiate IR and not just a few bands.
      Water vapour is the primary GHG, a lack of humidity results in a very weak GHE allowing the surface to cool radiantly rather quickly.

      The GHE exits. Be thankful as it increases the average temperature of the Earth some 30°C and lessens the day-night temperature differential.

      The “debate” is not about whether AGW exists but rather how much influence does it have and whether it’s good or bad.
      See: http://nofrakkingconsensus.com/2015/04/07/asking-the-wrong-question/

      • “Downwelling IR from GHG’s and/or clouds.”

        I propose abandoning “downwelling”. The photons have no idea they are going “down”; there’s nothing special about photons going down. That just happens to be the photons your IR thermometer intercepts.

        Also a mention of how those things work might inform a few people: A lens focuses that infrared energy coming down from a cloud onto a sensor (a microbolometer) which actually heats it and the device measures the change in resistance due to heating. Strictly speaking it tries to match the temperature of what you are measuring, because its sensor is emitting photons at the same rate it absorbs them when in temperature equilibrium.

        But behold, it can also cool below ambient. Pointed at a clear night sky, the sensor itself is radiating, but nothing is coming back, so the sensor itself becomes very cold and is insulated from the device to permit that to happen. It is also usually encased in Nitrogen or something that won’t condense because it can get really cold almost instantly.

        Same with an automobile that condenses dew or frost, radiating heat to the night sky (deep space) and getting nothing back. The automobile will be colder than ambient air thus leading to condensation.

        Another detail is that hardware-store IR thermometers are designed to use the “atmospheric window” wavelengths that are transparent to carbon dioxide and water vapor (but not water droplets in clouds). This can lead some people to conclude incorrectly that CO2 has no effect.

  19. Many thanks to those who are signing the letter inviting the Regents of the Smithsonian to investigate the lamentable misconduct of their senior managers towards Willie Soon. Keep those signatures coming.

  20. @wickedwenchfan

    …Yet I would stand in front of a room full of people and demolish global warmists, Luke warmists and any other academics that dared to stand there with me and debate me on the existence of a “greenhouse effect”, large or small….

    Er… the so-called ‘greenhouse effect’, by which extra CO2 in a container of air enables it to absorb more radiant energy (hugely simplified statement) is well understood and can be demonstrated in lab conditions. Current scientific understanding is that it exists.

    Whether it works that way in the atmosphere, or whether other energy flows render it insignificant, is not known. AGW theory just assumes that it does, but the data seems to show that this is an incorrect assumption. So you could argue that it is not a threat and stand some chance of winning, but you would lose an argument that it does not exist…

    • DG: A question – not a trick: Can you tell me where I can get to see the CO2 warming effect ‘demonstrated in lab conditions’? It’s just that all the demos I’ve seen of this have had (cough) problems.

      • John West: Thank you for the link to the list of papers on CO2 absorption, etc. It has never been at issue that CO2 helps to keep the temperature of the planet at a habitable (for man) level. What is at issue is when people like DG claim that ‘containers of air can be shown to absorb radiant energy – and I assume, by implication, it can be re-radiated – in lab conditions. I didn’t see any kind of of that level of experiment in the papers you listed. They were a little more sophisticated than that.

      • @ Harry Passfield

        I really haven’t seen a GHE “in a bottle” type demo for classroom or home that’s free from errors either. Perhaps we (WUWT’ers) should design one.

      • John West: I don’t know about WUWTers designing an experiment in a bottle but there was a very good take-down on WUWT of Bill Nye’s/Gore’s attempt at it HERE

      • A carbon dioxide laser is a good demonstration. They work by absorbing energy, raising quantum states, and then giving it up. Since quantum states are “quantum” (discrete) CO2 can only absorb certain wavelengths and it can emit only certain wavelengths, which is why a CO2 laser is infrared.

        A demonstration might include passing an infrared beam from such a laser through air, surrounded by sensors. Normally air (nitrogen) is transparent and the beam will pass through unaffected (the air must be clean of course or you’ll get scattering). Now squirt some CO2 into the space. It will start to absorb photons and re-radiate in all directions and this can be qualified and quantified and produces such data as “mean path length” for a particular concentration of CO2.

      • Michael 2 April 10, 2015 at 1:56 pm
        A carbon dioxide laser is a good demonstration. They WORK by absorbing energy, raising quantum states, and then giving it up. Since quantum states are “quantum” (discrete) CO2 can only absorb certain wavelengths and it can emit only certain wavelengths, which is why a CO2 laser is infrared.

        A demonstration might include passing an infrared beam from such a laser through air, surrounded by sensors. Normally air (nitrogen) is transparent and the beam will pass through unaffected (the air must be clean of course or you’ll get scattering). Now squirt some CO2 into the space. It will start to absorb photons and re-radiate in all DIRECTIONS and this can be qualified and quantified and produces such data as “mean path length” for a particular concentration of CO2.

        This wouldn’t work the way you suggest because the wavelength emitted by the CO2 laser is between two excited states. In order for the CO2 in the air to absorb that wavelength it would have to be at the lower of the two excited states, which at room temperature would be very unlikely. If you had something else in the air which absorbed at the laser wavelength then local heating would change the situation.

    • Dodgy,

      Surely, the term “greenhouse effect” relates to an atmosphere, not “a container of air”.
      There’s no quarrel with certain gases absorbing IR selectively; that’s a fact, not an effect.
      The greenhouse is effected when it’s shown to be fact that CO2 affects the atmosphere, such that the effective temperature is higher than without the CO2.

      I don’t take issue with the moniker “greenhouse effect” just because the heat transfer processes are inconsistent. After all, greenhouses aren’t necessarily green, either.

      BTW, wickedwenchfan, it’s ironic that you refer to Willie Soon as a lukewarmer, because I recall hearing him allude to WUWT as a lukewarmer site.
      I did a perfunctory search for the video and didn’t find it but I’m pretty sure it’s out there.
      I like Willie Soon.

    • Indeed, the green house effect does not explain the workings of earths atmosphere, It is simply one physical phenomenon making up the atmosphere. At this point, claiming to know it’s significance is hubris. Claiming predictive powers is insanity – call the guys in the white coats.

      Skeptics are put in a difficult position due to the Green house effect. Replace greenhouse effects with fluid dynamics and one can claim that disagreeing with fluid mechanics being the cornerstone of healthy bodily function is disregarding science and not believing in fluid mechanics. The analogy is not far off, our body like the atmosphere is involves a complex interaction of physics, biology and other science branches.

      Which gives me an idea for a new product; Fluid-Health-Bracelets. Bracelets that contain unique minerals that improve the flow of fluids in the human body thereby providing rejuvenated health. The best part is it is founded on proven theories of fluid mechanics. I can get endorsements from at least 97% of scientists. Who is going to disagree with fluid mechanics?

      • Thanks for the chuckle.

        It is kind of has, (after reading most of the comments) made me come to a , (although not proven by 97% of “scientists”) but 100% proven by me, ME the absolute authority @ 100% ,

        Climate changes, there you go, 100% accurate

        And have a happy “masters” weekend everyone at least up in the NH it is now officially “spring”.

  21. @Brenchley

    …Keep those signatures coming….

    Alas, I am still waiting for some information about the intent behind the request for names, e-mail addresses and qualifications, and what will be done with them.

    I assume that the requirement for a valid e-mail is to enable the usual ‘reverse identification’ process to confirm that a submitted name is genuine. If a qualification is claimed the awarding body should really also be provided, with date, to allow for easy checking. Since personal data under the European Data Protection provision is being requested, it is surprising that the requester does not make the usual explanation and assertion of secure processing which is now a standard proviso in all such cases.

    I am guessing that the personal data requested is for the purpose of identification and authentication concerning this petition, that it will be held encrypted on a single computer with appropriate security precautions and will be securely deleted once the petition is delivered. But this is just my guess – I really need to hear that from the administrator of the petition.

    I apologise for the sceptical approach, but this touches my professional life, so I need to follow the rules…

  22. I admit to being perplexed. The entire point of the scientific method is that ‘trust’ is never a factor. If the paper published is properly a scientific paper, then we need only follow the recipe given to find out if the claimed results match the actual results.

    Indeed, the only reason for funding sources to be a concern is because science no longer uses the scientific method. At which point we should think about calling it something else. Seance, perhaps.

  23. As a retired engineer, sceptics have to get together and form a major group that tackles head on the global warming ratbags

  24. Dr. Soon’s impeccable credentials:

    Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon, B.Sc. Aerospace Engineering Cum Laude, University of Southern California (1985); M.Sc. Aerospace Engineering, University of Southern California (1987); Ph.D. Rocket Science with distinction (Thesis: “Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases”), University of Southern California (1991); Graduate Scholastic Award, IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society (1989); Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award, University of Southern California (1991); Member, Tau Beta Phi (National Engineering Honor Society); Member, Sigma Gamma Tau (National Aerospace Engineering Honor Society); Post-Doctoral Fellow, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1991-1996); Astronomer, Mount Wilson Observatory (1992-2009); Astrophysicist and Geoscientist, Solar, Stellar, and Planetary Sciences Division, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (1997-Present); Visiting Professor, Department of Science and Environmental Studies, University of Putra, Malaysia (1999-2000); Annual Reviewer, Progress in Physical Geography Journal (2001-2002); Senior Scientist, George C. Marshall Institute (2001-2003); Former Member, American Astrophysical Society (AAS); Former Member, American Geophysical Union (AGU); Former Member, International Astronomical Union (IAU); Receiving Editor, New Astronomy Journal (2002-Present); Member, CANSTAT Advisory Board, Fraser Institute (2002-Present); Member, Advisory Board, National Center for Public Policy Research (2002); Smithsonian Institution Award for “Official Recognition of Work Performance Reflecting a High Standard of Accomplishment” (2003); Science Director, Center for Science and Public Policy (2003-2006); Petr Beckmann Award for “Courage and Achievement in Defense of Scientific Truth and Freedom” (2004); Chief Scientist, Science and Public Policy Institute (2007-2010); Senior Visiting Fellow, State Key Laboratory of Marine Environmental Science, Xiamen University, China (2013-2014); Courage in Defense of Science Award (2014)

  25. My Father, Peter Brand, since passed, worked for the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in the early 1960’s helping to maintain the worldwide system of satellite tracking cameras. He was an MIT graduate, and eventually and MD as well. I know he would be thoroughly disgusted with the blatant hypocrisy shown by some of the staff at the Smithsonian. The utterly pathetic position that one can be funded by government, academia, or some “green” NGO, and somehow be completely immune to bias, yet a penny from an oil company somehow taints their work is inherently absurd. Unfortunately, this same lack of rigorous objective logic pervades much of the same work. We all need to keep in mind, though, that the purveyors of catastrophic AGW are not unique among the rot that pervades much of so called “science”. When my father switched from being a Mechanical Engineer to an MD, he saw much of the same symptoms of confirmation bias and blind faith in so called “consensus” practice and treatment. His best answer (frustrating as it was to me) to a medical question was “I don’t know”. For much of any science and or engineering, that is probably the best answer to many questions. The underlying fault with AGW and other practice of science is simply narcissism. My own measure of how objective I may be on a particular subject is my reaction to data or information which does not support any particular opinion I may have. Thanks much to the lessons of my Father, if I hunger for and seek out such information, and promptly examine it with as much objectivity as possible, then I conclude that I am still on somewhat the right path. The bottom line is that humanity has fought with itself for thousands of years to separate out the concept of ego with that of physical reality. We still have a long way to go.

    Dr. Soon deserves our support.

  26. I sent Christopher Monckton the following email,

    To: Monckton’s email address

    From: My email address

    Date: Fri, Apr 10, 2015 at 7:37 AM

    Subject: Please send the Report on the Smithsonian Treatment of Dr Soon

    Christopher Monckton,

    Before I can decide whether or not to request you to add me to the list of letter signers, I will need to read the report that Legates, Briggs and you wrote on the Smithsonian treatment of Dr Soon which forms the basis of your intended letter.

    I look forward to seeing the report ASAP.

    John

    I am waiting for the report by Briggs, Legates and Monckton.

    John

    • Within a few minutes after I sent my email to Monckton asking for the report I received by return email from Monckton’s clerk a copy of the report. THAT IS RESPONSIVE SERVICE!!!

      I am reading it now.

      John

      • Not everyone will be replied to as quickly as some have been replied to. A beloved member of my household is ill (nothing serious), but we shall not be able to answer everyone quickly over the next day or two until all is well.

        [Our hopes and prayers are with you, and your family. .mod]

    • I have finished reading the report by Briggs, Legates and Monckton; reading carefully.

      I just sent an email to Monckton and his clerk with what I hope will be considered constructive comments on the letter and report.

      I have not yet decided to add my name to the letter. Thinking about strategies in the long term, but I am favorable of the premises/motives involved.

      John

  27. For leftists, “debate” is character attacking everyone who disagrees with them.
    .
    For leftists, “consistency” is condemning any climate research paid for, or partially funded, by the private sector as “biased”, while climate research paid for by the government is assumed to be 100% honest — after all, why would politicians lie to us? What would they have to gain from declaring a climate disaster is coming that ONLY the government can stop?
    .
    Leftists might want to consider that most research and testing in most industries is financed by the private sector.
    .
    Consider the pharmaceutical industry, where most research and testing is paid for by the companies selling the drugs! A new drug approved by the FDA only has to be more effective than a placebo in two (usually) privately funded blind tests to get FDA approval.
    .
    Leftists who condemn climate research financed by the private sector ought to protest even louder about the drug research and testing financed by the pharmaceutical industry … and immediately stop taking all drugs they have prescriptions for … if they can’t trust that pesky private sector for climate research, which harms no one, then why do they trust the private sector for research & testing of the drugs they take, which all have some side effects, and sometimes even deadly side effects?
    .
    Private sector auto companies test the safety of their cars and trucks before they are sold to dealers. How can leftists drive a car, whose safety is based on private sector funded research and testing, without fearing for their lives?
    .
    Do leftists believe that private sector-funded research and testing is good for products that leftists like (cars and drugs), but bad for climate research?
    .
    That’s not a consistent position.

    My climate blog:
    http://www.elOnionBloggle.Blogspot.com

  28. Max Sargent
    April 10, 2015 at 1:51 am

    “Not with a clear conscience, I’m afraid.

    “In the past decade Soon’s research has been funded largely by fossil-fuel interests [1..”

    How come the papers you cite don’t seek information on funding for climate change proponents. It has been revealed here on WUWT and elsewhere, that all the universities and research organizations (CRU-UEA Dr. Jones et al, Dr. Mann’s research, etc. Check it out!) are heavily funded by Big Oil. Indeed, BO has invested hugely in green energy – why is only their fossil fuel department being cited in whatever funding there is for a sceptic?

    http://doingadvancework.blogspot.ca/2011/07/oil-companies-bp-and-shell-contributed.html

    • GARY Pearse April 10, 2015 at 8:20 am
      Max SARGENT
      April 10, 2015 at 1:51 am
      It has been revealed here on WUWT and elsewhere, that all the universities and research organizations (CRU-UEA Dr. Jones et al, Dr. Mann’s research, etc. CHECK it out!) are heavily funded by Big Oil

      Really, it appears to me that Mann’s research is overwhelmingly funded from governmental sources not Big Oil?

      • Phil: Care to think on where ‘governmental sources’ come from? Like, tax-payers – which includes those horrible people running ‘Big Oil’ and ‘Big Oil’ users?
        And why is it that ‘government sources’ = good, yet ‘Big Oil’ sources = bad. That logic is the mark of a simpleton.

      • I rebutted Gary’s assertion regarding Mann’s funding. I agree with your comment regarding the source of funding, I have received funding from both industrial and government sources. The reason for declaration of the sources of research funding is so that the readers can assess whether there might have been any influence. Personally I would not accept funding that included restrictions or pre-approval of publications (neither would the university).

    • “Max Sargent” is a troll from Eli Rabett who, unable to find any fault with Dr Soon’s research, thinks that smearing him will be a good alternative. Dr Goebbels was the first to use that technique on the scale now practised by the climate extremists; it was then copied by the desinformatsiya directorate under Ion Mihai Pacepa after the Second World War, and – particularly since its inclusion in Saul Alinsky’s “Code for Communists”, it is now a regular behavior pattern on the totalitarian Left.

      However, this type of misconduct is now bouncing strongly in favor of the truth, as people who had not hitherto joined the debate watch the tide of hate speech from the likes of “Max Sargent” and contrast it with the detailed scientific discussions of the skeptics. What is impressive is that, after entering the first 100 signatures into our database for the letter to the Regents, they are a very high-powered and well-qualified lot – and that is more than can be said for the thermof*scists and climate c*mmunists.

      • Yes, Lord M, I recall the ‘old days’ about 4 – 5 years ago, when almost 100% of commenters here were discussing the science in the posted articles. Anyone reading threads from 2010 and before can see that there were extremely few people causing the kind of disruption that we see every day now from people like “Max Sargent”. Often in many threads there were none at all.

        But now that the anti-science crowd has taken advantage of Anthony’s no censorship policy, they are becoming a pain in the butt. There are more all the time like warrenlb, Daniel, David Socrates, Ron House (someone stole the real Ron House’s identity), Chris, Village Idiot, Beckleybud, trafamadore, etc., etc. They are deliberately running interference (there are a few exceptions who aren’t trolling, like Phil., Nick Stokes, Joel Shore, Steven Mosher, Zeke Hausfather, and a few others who debate climate science from their unskeptical perspective).

        The recent troll infestation isn’t interested in science, where they’ve been spanked good and hard by the numerous physicists, geologists, chemists, meteorologists, climatologists, mathematicians, and other professionals who regularly contribute. The troll contingent has lost the science debate, so they fall back on politics, and their endless ad hominem attacks. Lately I’ve noticed that when they do something egregious, right away they will start to accuse others of their own faults. They have learned well from Saul Alinsky, with a dash of Cloward-Piven added.

        It’s always a balancing act between total free speech, and letting them ruin a thread with their incessant arguing over the man, rather than debating the facts and evidence. But they don’t have much in the way of facts or evidence. Stand-up folks would use this site to learn. But too many of the recent troublemakers posting here try to cause problems via their excessive arguing of non-essentials and anti-science. Baseless assertions are especially popular, which are often posted as fact.

        One answer is for regular commenters/skeptics to stand up to them and not allow them to thread bomb. Support the science-based arguments of fellow skeptics. Because if they get away with their trolling attacks, they will ruin this excellent, award-winning site. No one except the troll crowd wants that.

      • And what “reputation” would that be? The reputation earned as the internet’s BEST SCIENCE site? The reputation as the most censorship-free site on the subject of climate? The reputation of a site host who is a more stand-up guy than anyone in the alarmosphere?

        I could easily go on. But, be my guest. What “reputation” were you referring to?

      • Ron House,

        You made a pointed innuendo. Now you don’t have anything to back it up.

        A typical trait of alarmist trolls is their tendency to run away when questioned.

        (Note: The “Ron House” referred to in these comments is an identity thief. He is not the real Ron House, and all comments directed at the fake sockpuppet are not intended for the legitimate commenter Ron House. Our apologies to Mr. House. When we absolutely identify the identity thief, action will be taken. Identity theft is not acceptable. In the mean time, the fake “Ron House” comments have been removed, and saved. ~mod.)

      • Ron House says:

        This site is known to promote the d*****er point of view.

        What, exactly, are scientific skeptics “denying”? Be specific.

      • @ Ron House:
        You seem rather desperate to denigrate this site.
        Yet here you are, spewing your bile on “…the world’s most viewed climate website”.
        You got nobody else to talk to ?

      • Ron House says:

        Please don’t call yourself a “scientific skeptic” that label is inappropriate for you.

        I shall call myself what I find appropriate. I am a scientific skeptic, having spent my entire career in science (now retired), and I am skeptical of the runaway global warming conjecture. But I note that you never say what your qualifications are. What are they?

        Next, I’ve explained that the onus is entirely on you to support your runaway global warming conjecture. You failed. But nothing gives you or anyone else the right to set the rules for falsifying scientific conjectures. You would obviously like to. But you are impotent, so I advise giving up trying. All it does is make you look silly.

        Next:

        You ask other commenters for a measurement of MMGW, while claiming it is “tiny”

        Exactly right, son. If it was not tiny, it would have been measured by now. Therefore, it must be tiny. QED

        When asked how you arrived at “tiny” you deflect.

        Wrong as usual, numpty. It is YOU who is incapable of producing any measurements of MMGW. Therefore, YOU are always deflecting.

        You chide other commenters for “appeal to authority” then …&blah, blah, etc.

        As I have told you repeatedly: you do not understand the ATA fallacy. At all. Get up to speed on how it works, then we can discuss it.

        Next:

        …you go around and expound the popularity of a scientifically insignificant blog

        Once again you denigrate WUWT. Why do you comment here, since you obviously hate it? You come across as a clueless numpty, at odds with the million+ readers who enjoy commenting, and the quarter of a billion who enjoy reading WUWT. No alarmist blog comes close. You are a pathetic individual. I suggest you hide it, by not badmouthing the site you choose to comment on.

        Next:

        I can’t wait for your first peer reviewed published paper. Will it be on the 2-sigma variance of thermometer calibration?

        No need, that has already been published. I have never engaged the climate Pal Review system. Have you? Well, have you? Speak up, Numpty, I can’t hear you!

        See, you only get to criticize if you’ve been published. Have you? Linky, please.

        I am in full agreement with many published authors here, including Anthony Watts, Willis Eschenbach, McIntyre, McKittrick, Monckton, and Soon among many others (apologies for not naming them all; that would take far too long). So there is no need to add my 2¢. Those published, peer reviewed authors have never been refuted in the literature, and they flatly contradict your nonsense, so all your commentary is based on ignorance.

        You are truly a sad individual. But if you didn’t comment, none of us would know that. Something to think about…

      • Ron House says:

        What specific measurement did you use to arrive at the “tiny” conclusion?… How do you follow the “Scientific Method” when you say…

        You first, Numpty. You always ask questions, but you never answer questions. I always answer your questions, and I have no problem at all answering these, too. But you won’t like the answers, because you will look like an even bigger fool, if that’s possible.

        Now, it’s your turn to answer a few questions:

        What is your CV?

        What are your professional qualifications?

        How many peer reviewed papers have you published?

        What, exactly, are scientific skeptics “denying”? Be specific.

        I have more questions, but answer those first. Then I will answer yours, like I always have before: without guile, and with my heart on my sleeve. If I don’t have an answer, I will say so up front.

        But…

        …you first.

      • Someone WAY smarter than me, once told me, something like:
        If you lose your temper, you’ve lost the argument.

      • Ron House,

        You are quite the hypocrite. A HE-RO of the alarmist cult, Rajendra Pachauri, the head of the IPCC, labeled those he disagreed with as “numpties”. That is his word. He was referring to me and my fellow scientific skeptics. But I notice you have never been bothered by that, so I reject your complaint. If you state that Mr. Pachauri was wrong, then I will stop using his word.

        To be honest, I’m not sure what it means. But if it’s good enough for Pachy, it’s good enough for me. Goose, gander, etc.

        Now, you seem to have a hard time understanding anything. So I will repeat:

        I can and will answer your questions, but…

        YOU FIRST.

        Answer mine above; each one in order. Or go pound sand. Your choice.

        And for the record, readers get to decide if you’ve answered fully enough. You don’t get to decide.

      • Ron House:

        Yes, you are quite the hypocrite. I gave valid reasons. You could not refute the reasons, and you don’t like the truth. But so what? It’s the truth. And the truth is also that the alarmist cult has been flat wrong. You don’t like that fact, either. But it’s the truth.

        And once again you tuck tail and skedaddle, rather than answering any of my questions.

        Pretty soon I am going to start answering them for you. You’d be far better off if you provided your own answers. Because you will not like my answers for you. I guarantee it. They will be accurate. But you won’t like them. The truth will hurt — which is why you’re hiding out, and pretending I didn’t ask you those questions.

      • You can wait until the cows come home. It’s your turn to answer questions, and until you do, I will post whatever I see as factual.

        I’ve answered a ton of questions for you over the past few weeks . But you never answer questions, so until you do, I’ll enjoy playing Whack-A-Mole with you. The Mole has a name, you know… ☺

      • A hockey joke:
        Two opposing hockey players have been on the ice for their 2 minute shift and are totally gassed, they end up in a tussle, drop the gloves, and throw a weak punch or two.
        Then they hear their worst fear, the referee says “let’m go”.

      • I will be happy to explain exacly why you are a hypocrite, chapter and verse. But first…

        Answer my questions. Until you do that, you can go pound sand.

      • Is ‘Ron House’ the old ‘David Socrates’? Just a suspicion.

        Is that true, ‘House’? Is ‘Ron House’ a sockpuppet name?

        Just wondering, since the similarity is so close…

      • OK, u.k.(us), you made a good point. He will never answer any questions, so I’m out of here.

        Thanks for the comment.

        And my apologies to ‘Ron House’. He has serious problems, so I shouldn’t engage him.

      • Mr. “Ron House” appears to be gaming WUWT, here is a recent list of his IP addresses and locations

        68.231.197.84 2015/04/10 at 5:51 am Laguna Beach, CA
        203.206.66.94 2015/04/10 at 3:35 am North Las Vegas NV
        74.121.90.209 2015/04/09 at 1:26 pm Trenton, TN
        87.150.192.149 2015/04/09 at 9:29 am Dillingen Germany
        76.112.208.5 2015/04/08 at 3:18 pm Royal Oak Michigan
        2.123.89.5 2015/04/08 at 7:58 am London UK
        70.170.4.106 2015/04/07 at 7:26 pm North Las Vegas NV
        24.1.52.175 2015/04/07 at 5:22 pm Oswego, IL

        As you can see, it appears he’s jumping all over the world. It looks like some sort of proxy hopping since the real Ron House is based in Australia

        I suspect this Mr House is a phantom denigrator, perhaps a reincarnation of one of our old banned posters assuming a new identity of another poster. We’ve had this happen before from people so desperate to put up their point of view here as to pull such stunts.

        In any case, he’s done here.

      • Alarmists like Ron House are truly deranged. It is such a shame so many trolls showed up to disrupt a thread for an honorable cause supporting Dr. Soon. This is the first time I have had to report so many cases in the same thread.

        Thank you Anthony.

  29. Some fact checking would appear to be in order, for example:
    For 25 years Dr Wei-Hock Soon, an award-winning solar physicist of international standing expert in the Sun’s modulation of terrestrial climate, has been a tenured but unsalaried employee of the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, affiliated to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

    It is stated that Soon is ‘tenured’, it is my understanding that he is in fact ‘untenured’, it would be unusual if a tenured faculty was still supported on ‘soft money’ as is the case here. Such an easily checkable fact had better be right otherwise your letter won’t be taken seriously.

    • Dr Soon is in fact tenured. His Trust Fund appointment is indefinite. Such an easily checkable fact should have been checked before this particular Cornell University “Professor” of “Chemistry” presumed to troll here.

      • I did check before posting because the nature of his appointment being ‘soft money’ would be unusual for a tenured appointment. My source indicated that he was untenured. You should listen to someone who has more experience of the tenure process than you do, an ‘indefinite appointment’ is not the same thing as tenure (it’s often termed ‘continuing appointment’). Such an appointment is subject to regular performance reviews, availability of funds, and continued need for the position. A tenured position is only terminated for cause.

  30. The climate creeps and kooks are not going to stop, are they? They want all skeptics not merely silenced but destroyed.
    They behave like nihilisitc fools, burning down the entire scientific enterprise for the sake of their obsession.
    We are watching the spiritual heirs of those who looted and burned the great library of Alexandria.

  31. This is the exact same tactic they used against Ignaz Semmelweis. The fact that he was right and they were wrong didn’t really affect those who persecuted Ignaz for going against the tide.

  32. … strength at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory

    should “strength” be “staff”?

  33. I sent the requested email to Monckton. Since I have no ‘academic qualifications’, I signed it ‘American Citizen and Taxpayer’. That, I am certain, is requisite authority.

    /Mr Lynn

  34. “…
    If you are willing to support Willie by signing the letter, please send an email with your full name and your academic qualifications to monckton[-at-]mail.com.
    …”
    Is participation encouraged for those of us who have little or no academic qualifications?

  35. Lord Monckton,

    Permit me to make reference to a previous comment, in which I stated the following:

    Further, Smithsonian Directive 807, dated 11 Jan 2012, states the following:

    FOIA Exemption (b)(4). The Smithsonian will interpret Exemption 4 as including:

    (2) Smithsonian …commercial or financial information directly related to the Smithsonian’s revenue-generating activities …

    FOIA Exemption (b)(6). The Smithsonian will interpret Exemption 6 to permit withholding of donor files and information, including donor-identifying information.

    Effective Date for Certain Contracts/Agreements
    This directive does not apply to contracts/agreements directly related to the Smithsonian’s revenue-generating activities entered into prior to November 30, 2007, in which parties contracting with the Smithsonian entered into a contractual relationship with an expectation that the terms of the agreement would not be disclosed to the public.

    Attachment B
    April 20, 2012
    EXEMPTIONS UNDER THE FREEDOM OF INFORMATION ACT
    5 United States Code (U.S.C.) § 552(b) of the Freedom of Information Act states that the Act:
    “does not apply to matters that are —

    (B) if enacted after the date of enactment of the OPEN FOIA Act of 2009, specifically cites to this paragraph.
    (4) trade secrets and commercial or financial information obtained from a person and privileged or confidential;

    (6) personnel and medical files and similar files the disclosure of which would constitute a clearly unwarranted invasion of personal privacy .

    It would appear that The Smithsonian did not comply with this directive and that the documents that were released were covered by these provisions. The agreements with Southern appear to be dated in Feb 2008, so they would NOT be exempt from the policy NOT to disclose them under the provision exempting (i.e. disclosing) documents entered into prior to 30 Nov 2007. It seems that The Smithsonian has acted in a manner contrary to its own written Statement of Values and Code of Ethics and contrary to its own Directive.

    This Directive would seem to support the confidentiality clause in the funding agreements as being in compliance with The Smithsonian’s official policy on disclosure of funding sources.

  36. Either Soon and company are correct in their work or they are wrong. Who may have funded it should be immaterial. If they are wrong where is the refutation or paper contradicting their findings?

  37. In my humble opinion, a lawyer should review all this and advise whether to file a law suit. That may be the ONLY way to get the Smithsonian administration to take action to remedy the situation or pay attention to it. Petitions generally don’t go anywhere with academic/museum/institutional bureaucrats in the USA. Getting a lawyer involved levels the playing field for Dr. Soon, and the Smithsonian may then work to remedy the situation before it has to go to trial where they don’t want their ‘good name(?)’ dragged through the mud. The lawyer should start with a letter encouraging a resolution before ‘seeking Dr. Soon’s remedies elsewhere.’

  38. Another issue I have not seen anyone bring up.

    http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon

    “Acting Secretary Albert Horvath has asked distinguished scientist Dr. Rita Colwell to lead a review of Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies governing the conduct of sponsored research and publication to ensure they meet the highest standards.”

    A request needs to be made to have someone that is not involved in the climate debate to “lead a review of Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies governing the conduct of sponsored research and publication to ensure they meet the highest standards.”

    Right now the Smithsonian has assigned someone who links climate change to cholera,

    http://www.fic.nih.gov/News/GlobalHealthMatters/Pages/0209_colwell.aspx

  39. Chris: When I read your report, I was drawn to this paragraph:

    The Smithsonian Trust Fund pays him out of money received from donors he has approached. He reports each proposed grant to the Observatory, which is then solely responsible for negotiating and signing a funding contract with the donor, receiving the funds, retaining 30% for overhead, and paying for his research out of the balance.

    It seemed to me that this could equally well apply to government grants:

    The Government pays scientists out of money received from tax-payers – private and corporate (which includes major tax ‘donations’ from tobacco companies and ‘big oil’) – including tax-payers HMRC has approached (to prevent tax evasion). The scientists request their grants from their place of employment (university?) which is then solely responsible for negotiating and signing a funding contract (and probably keeping a percentage to offset admin costs etc).

    So, essentially, ‘Big Oil’ etc get to fund all scientists regardless of their stated morality on the matter. It seems to me that the Willie Soon gambit could equally well be used on any of the warmist scientivists out there.

  40. Sorry, only just seen this as I’ve been away from my computer for a couple of days.
    Just signed.

  41. I’ll add my name.
    While my scientific credentials are limited, my desire for honesty is not.

    • So the first comment wasn’t deleted, so I posted a correction as a reply. Now the reply is in moderation.

      What is putting these comments in moderation? Is the word “K**h” a no-no?

  42. Not deleted. Oh, well. The gist is essentially correct, but Muller may not have personally approached Koch for funding. He made his intentions public and requested donations.

    Also, among the additional $463K from other initial-stage donors listed on the Berkeley Earth site, there is this:
    “This work was also supported by the Director, Office of Science, of the U.S. Department of Energy under Contract No. DE-AC02-05CH11231 ($188,587)”

    Contract DE-AC02-05CH11231 is for $22.5 million in federal funding of Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, Muller’s employer, from June 2005–May 2010.

    The questions regarding the $800K in anonymous donations remain unanswered.

    [Reply: If you want a particular comment deleted, please indicate the time stamp of that comment to avoid confusion. Thanks. ~mod.]

  43. Ms Christine Pulliam, a Smithsonian press officer, told The Guardian that Dr Soon had “failed to meet the disclosure requirements of some of the journals that published his research”.
    ______________________________________________________________
    This statement has been puzzling me. If it’s the disclosure requirement of the journal, wouldn’t it be the journal’s responsibility to make sure the author had complied before publishing the paper(s)?

  44. Does anyone know where the Climateworks foundation sends all their money? Shouldn’t $600 million from the Hewlett foundation be traced?

    The Climate Works Foundation, though, is of special interest as it was
    in 2008, awarded $460,800,000 from the William and Flora Hewlett
    Foundation, a grant-making organisation with assets of $7.2 billion,
    which disbursed $353,400,000 in grants in 2011. It has made another
    grant to Climate Works only last week of $100 million – bringing the
    total grants to this organization to just short of $600 million

    Where such huge funding is devoted to global warming advocacy, and
    policy development, there must indeed be a distortion of the
    democratic process

  45. I don’t have that link—- it was in an email I wrote a few years ago, though I do have a screen snip from the Hewlett Foundation website confirming the $100,000,000.00 donation for that year.

  46. Could a moderator clean up all the garbage?

    [Could we? Yes. Will we? A different question – Many times, it is illustrative of strategy and tactics of one’s opponents to “see the sausage” being made. .mod]

Comments are closed.