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

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

349 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
April 10, 2015 10:00 am

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

F. Ross
April 10, 2015 10:10 am

“…
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?

Non Nomen
Reply to  F. Ross
April 10, 2015 11:34 am

If your home was on fire, would you really care if the firemen have proper diploma or education?

Reply to  F. Ross
April 10, 2015 12:38 pm

Yes.
Also, if a legal fund is deemed appropriate, one will presumably not require academic qualifications to participate there either.

Reply to  JohnWho
April 10, 2015 12:40 pm

Oh, my “Yes” was to F. Ross’ comment.
Doh!

April 10, 2015 1:19 pm

Done.

Phil
April 10, 2015 1:38 pm

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.

Reply to  Phil
April 10, 2015 3:26 pm

Many thanks. That point is already in the minute of evidence that accompanies our findings.

Neil Jordan
April 10, 2015 2:59 pm

. . . DONE

Owen Jennings
April 10, 2015 3:10 pm

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?

George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
April 10, 2015 3:38 pm

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.’

Reply to  George Devries Klein, PhD, PG, FGSA
April 10, 2015 4:13 pm

I agree. Best defense is a good offense.
/Mr Lynn

April 10, 2015 4:25 pm

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

Lance
April 10, 2015 4:40 pm

done!

Eamon Butler
April 10, 2015 6:59 pm

Done.

April 10, 2015 7:04 pm

Done

John F. Hultquist
April 10, 2015 10:43 pm

Done

Aert Driessen
April 11, 2015 12:03 am

Where do I sign??
Aert Driessen

John Matthews
April 11, 2015 12:17 am

Me too!.
Jolan.

Andrew Richards
April 11, 2015 1:43 am

Just sent. Thanks for the opportunity to help Willie Soon, Chris.

Harry Passfield
April 11, 2015 5:59 am

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.

meltemian
April 11, 2015 6:28 am

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

April 11, 2015 8:25 am

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

nutso fasst
April 11, 2015 9:03 am

MOD: please delete my comment in moderation. I’ll post an edited version later.

nutso fasst
Reply to  nutso fasst
April 11, 2015 10:04 am

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?

nutso fasst
April 11, 2015 9:58 am

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.]

page488
April 11, 2015 11:18 am

done

April 11, 2015 2:36 pm

Hopefully we will get an update regarding whether this letter had its intended effect.

April 11, 2015 2:59 pm

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)?

Doug
April 12, 2015 1:39 pm

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

Reply to  Doug
April 12, 2015 2:14 pm

Doug,
Interesting info. Got a link? Thanks in advance.

Doug
April 13, 2015 8:52 am

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.