By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, David Legates and Matt Briggs
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
Done
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.
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.
@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.
I think he’s talking about real labs doing real spectral analysis, not some DIY or classroom demo.
https://agwobserver.wordpress.com/2009/09/25/papers-on-laboratory-measurements-of-co2-absorption-properties/
Going way back:
http://www.sciencemuseum.org.uk/ClimateChanging/ClimateScienceInfoZone/ExploringEarthsclimate/1point5/1point5point4.aspx
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.
@ur momisugly 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
“Perhaps we (WUWT’ers) should design one.”
lol. you are funny
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 @ur momisugly 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”.
@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…
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.
Done.
As a retired engineer, sceptics have to get together and form a major group that tackles head on the global warming ratbags
Done. Thank you.
I sent an email of my support and would like a copy!
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)
Dr Soon’s complete dossier and curriculum vita:
https://www.heartland.org/media-library/pdfs/Soon-2014-Dossier-and-Curriculum-Vita.pdf
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.
“My Father, Peter Brand”
Probably the inspiration for the two Dr’s Brand in the movie “Interstellar”.
Haven’t seen it yet, now I’ve got a great reason!
to sign send a email to monckton@mail.com I just signed
Signed with pleasure.
I sent Christopher Monckton the following email,
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
I sent an email of my support.
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
The “green” fraudsters are too shallow to understand when they attack the scientist and NOT his results, they basically approve his work and findings.
Because, if his results and findings had been bad .. We would never, never ever hear the end of it!
https://roaldjlarsen.wordpress.com/2014/07/13/skeptical-science-and-the-logic-of-debunking/
Signed with pleasure.
As was said above – “For evil to succeed, all that is necessary is for good men to do nothing.”
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.
@ur momisugly 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 ?
Pardon me, I thought the future of mankind was in the balance.
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.
Ron, you’re done with this thread disruption.
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.
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.
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.
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.
should “strength” be “staff”?
In the UK “on the strength” means “with the picture”, but it seems this is not understood across the pond, so I’ve changed it to “on the research staff”.