Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

Guest opinion by Ron Arnold

Willie Soon, Ph.D., is an astrophysicist in the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge, Massachusetts.

Soon’s career has proven to be a textbook example of speaking truth to power and bravely facing the consequences.

Beginning in 1994, Soon produced an important series of astrophysics papers on the Sun’s impact on Earth’s climate, which received positive discussion in the U.N. Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s (IPCC) second and third assessment reports, released in 1996 and 2001, respectively. Throughout the 1990s, IPCC still acknowledged there were uncertainties about humankind’s potential influence on climate, despite pressure from nongovernmental organizations to find a “smoking gun” in the weak data.

In his 2007 book History of the Science and Politics of Climate Change, Bert Bolin, co-creator and first chairman of IPCC, deplored the denial of uncertainty, writing, “It was non-governmental groups of environmentalists, supported by the mass media who were the ones exaggerating the conclusions that had been carefully formulated by the IPCC.”

In 1997, Bolin told the Associated Press, “Global warming is not something you can ‘prove.’ You try to collect evidence and thereby a picture emerges.”

Soon’s study about the influence of the Sun on climate made him a target for alarmists, but Soon had defenders. In a 2013, Boston Globe article, iconic physicist Freeman Dyson praised Soon.

“The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas,” said Dyson. “For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.”

Unjustified ‘Conflict of Interest’ Claims

In February 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic of Soon since 1997, falsely accused him of wrongfully failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal he submitted research to. Despite the fact the journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules, Davies’ accusation created a clamor amongst alarmist reporters, who repeated the claim without further investigation.

The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.

Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists.

In March and April 2016, two outlets published stories scurrilously demonizing Soon, relying heavily on bogus claims. The two activist-writers, David Hasemyer, who worked for the controversial InsideClimateNews, and Paul Basken, who worked for The Chronicle of Higher Education, seem to have forgotten journalistic ethics and the facts.

 

Multiple Checks Prevent Biased Research

Neither Hasemyer nor Basken displayed any familiarity with the hurdles scientists have to clear in order to do science in the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.

About one-third of the Center’s scientists, including Soon, are employed in what are called “Smithsonian Trust positions.” These positions are held mostly by Ph.D. specialists. According to the Smithsonian Employee Handbook, paychecks given to those holding federal positions are paid from Smithsonian’s annual federal appropriation, while Trust positions are paid from Smithsonian’s trust fund. Trust scientists are paid by the hour.

According to Smithsonian’s requirements, scientists in Trust positions develop donors willing to give Smithsonian grants to fund research.

“Obtaining competitive funding is an important part of the scientists’ jobs and a measure of their career success,” states the Smithsonian Employee Handbook.

Grants go directly to Smithsonian for the specified science projects, and 30–40 percent of each grant goes directly to Smithsonian for management and overhead costs. The money never goes directly to the researcher.

Media attacks made against Soon for his fundraising prowess, which is part of his duty as a Smithsonian employee, are either ignorant or disingenuous. Trust scientists must follow exacting procedures established in Smithsonian’s contractual terms and the detailed “Contract and Grant Administration” rules in order to obtain grants.

One prescribed step requires each researcher to prepare a draft of any proposed scientific project to be pre-approved by the director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The scientists must give the director suggestions for potential funders, but all decisions remain in the hands of the director.

If the director approves the draft proposal, he signs it and gives it to the Grant Office, which prepares the presentation package, including a budget, the approved proposal, and a cover letter formally requesting a grant. After the director signs the cover letter, the grant officer sends it to the potential donor.

Donors can agree to be invoiced by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, or they can make a direct payment to Smithsonian, which handles all of the Center’s money. The scientist who performs the project may not even know who gave the grant funding for his or her research.

Even unfunded studies produced by Smithsonian researchers for peer-reviewed journals have to follow Smithsonian procedures and gain the appropriate approvals.

With Smithsonian’s safeguards in place and publicly available, hostile reports attacking Soon cannot be considered ethical journalism according to the “Code of Ethics” of the Society of Professional Journalists, which states: “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. Journalists should support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

Accordingly, writers who’ve accused Soon of wrongdoing despite evidence to the contrary are unethical and should be censured.

Advertisements

187 thoughts on “Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

    • So what is the bottom line.

      “””””….. Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate …..”””””

      This asserts that Dr. Soon HAS been cleared of wrongdoing. By whom, and when were these journalists indicted ?? And by whom ??

      Willie Wei Hock Soon is, one of the nicest individuals, I have ever had the pleasure of exchanging e-mail comments with, and it’s about time that the Smithsonian bellies up to the bar, and makes a definitive statement on this nonsense.

      For a vendetta that has been so public; and involving an individual who has brought a wealth of good publicity to the institution; they need to clear the air once and for all.

      And those scumbuckets, who have been just Imagineering, need to be dragged through the streets, tarred and feathered.

      And that is just MY personal opinion on the matter. Do NOT cite that in your PhD oral exam; or you will get an F.

      G

      • So what is the bottom line.

        “””””….. Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate …..”””””

        This asserts that Dr. Soon HAS been cleared of wrongdoing. By whom, and when were these journalists indicted ?? And by whom ??

        Exactly, George. That’s what I was looking for too.

      • Dear Luc,

        The facts “clear” Dr. Soon of fabricated wrongdoing. The Smithsonian’s inspector general found no rules were violated, among several other facts in the above article. These facts are simply public knowledge. The burden of proving they are not true rests on Dr. Soon’s detractors.

        Janice

      • It does say Guest OPINION, as opposed to finding or ruling. Perhaps this was inserted after this question was initially raised?

      • G: “or you will get an F.” Orrrr, you can theorize that G. Smith’s opinion is a disaster, and blame it on fossil fuel burning,,,and pass! Maybe a grant! And a puff piece in NYT!! Sorry, spent the weekend trying to absorb NYT report that NSA head lied to reporters, but not reported in hard-hitting expose of gov’t mendacity (security agency no less), instead a profile of one of Obama’s whiz kids, the one who ran foreign policy while Sec. of State Clinton… did what again?? Ahh, sorry again. It helps to rant a bit.

      • Climate Investigations Center

        Founded by Kert Davies, 2014
        http://www.climateinvestigations.org/who_we_are

        ——————————————————-

        Huffington Post: Kert Davies

        Helped launch: ExxonSecrets, Pollution Watch, Stop Greenwash and Pollution Harmony

        Has been with: Ozone Action, Environmental Working Group and Greenpeace USA, 2000-2013

        http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kert-davies

        Just the fact that Greenpeace International which Greenpeace USA belongs to is affiliated with UNEP should raise a flag?

      • Barbara, notwithstanding the UNEP’s claim (and very misleading title!), I doubt very much that this group of 213 is the “full list” of accredited NGOs (“major” or otherwise). In 2012, although it is now somewhat dated (i.e. as of November 2011), this list constituted a visible hockey-stick of accredited NGOs. See:

        Introducing … the UN’s jolly green sustainable hockey stick

        and:

        Josh on the UN’s a-MAZE-ing place

        Back in November 2011, there were 3,421 duly accredited NGOs – including 102 NGOs under suspension, at that point, because they hadn’t filed their “quadrennial reports”!

        Considering the plethora of NGOs given a voice at various and sundry gatherings of the UNEP’s (and/or UNEP affiliated) great and the good, I very much doubt that this number has been reduced in the intervening years.

      • Hilary, people can’t connect the dots as they relate to the U.S. and Canada!

        An example:

        Energy Foundation, San Francisco, Calif. Board:

        William Ruckelshaus, World Resources Institute Board and a Republican.
        Bill Ritter, Jr., Colorado State University/CNEE/Center for New Energy Economy

        http://www.ef.org/board

        WRI & UNEP

        WRI > Gus Speth > Al Gore & Maggie L. Fox >Colorado State University & Gore’s Climate Reality Project.

      • Energy Foundation

        Partners include:

        ClimateWorks Foundation
        Children’s Investment Fund Foundation
        Oak Foundation
        Tilia Fund

        All of the above made grants of $1 million or more to the World Resources Institute.

        http://www.ef.org and see webpage bottom

        The Energy Foundation is “pass through” foundation. Funds flow into the Energy Foundation which in turn gives grants to other organizations.

        http://www.wri.org > Donors

      • ClimateWorks Foundation

        Partners include: Oak Foundation, core funder and $1 million + WRI donor

        Portfolio funders include:
        Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Also WRI $1 million + donor
        Childrens Investment Fund Foundation, Also WRI $1 million + donor

        Board includes: John D. Podesta, Center For American Progress

        http://www.climateworks.org

        Also a “pass through” foundation.

        ———————————————————————————

        CEGN/ Canadian Environmental Grantmakers Network, Toronto, Canada

        Includes:
        Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation
        Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Flint, Michigan
        Oak Foundation

        http://www.cegn.org/about/members

      • Oil Change International, Washington, D.C.

        Staff includes: David Turnbull, s/o Susan W. Turnbull. David involved in Canadian tar sands.

        Board includes: Michael Brune, Sierra Club, U.S.

        Funders include:
        Charles Stewart Mott Foundation, Flint, Michigan
        ClimateWorks Foundation
        Oak Foundation
        Rockefeller Brothers Fund
        William & Flora Hewlett Foundation

        http://www.priceofoil.org/about/staff

        —————————————————————————–

        Tilia Fund, funds the Rainforest Action Network/RAN, San Francisco, Calif. which is also active in Canada.

  1. Most liberals have no ethics…They believe the end justifies the means…

    [And “The wants justify the needs.”? .mod]

    • [And “The wants justify the needs.”? .mod]

      Yes, good observation there Mr/Mrs. mod. It is a great restatement of the basic collectivist philosophy.

    • ..Nice, I’m going to save that in my ” Best One liners ” file !! ( with your permission of course )

      • For “Progressive” Liberals: Means=Ends=Thought Control=Totalitarianism, which is what the Offending “Journalists” are subserving and promulgating = “Rhetoric over Reality” [Charles Krauthammer] or in other words, “Perception is Reality” Delusionalism, which is either the clinical definition of “being Deluded” or an announcement of the Intent To Delude other people, aka “Big Brother’s 1984 Utopia”.

      • “For “Progressive” Liberals: Means=Ends=Thought Control=Totalitarianism”

        Probably should be End = Means = Thought Control = Totalitarianism.

        With due respect to Mr./Mrs. Mod, “the wants justify the needs” lacks the clarity (or blindness) that comes with “the end justifies the means”. A body might need broccoli and not want it, and a body might want cocaine but not need it. All people have wants and needs, but the wants are not nearly as universal as the needs. The thought may encapsulate the murky waters of leftism, but it only compliments their cause not criticize it.

        It doesn’t take any special kind of critical thinking skill to know that whatever the end, it was arrived at by the means. It may take a little more critical thought to realize people selling an end as a justification for their means have no end in sight, and all will suffer their means in perpetuity as long as such a ludicrous strategy is tolerated. Let the left keep claiming the end justifies the means and let’s not encourage them to change that to the “wants justify the needs”. The former is easily refuted, the latter is way to0 fuzzy to effectively refute.

    • Most liberals have no ethics…They believe the end justifies the means…

      That is what Ethics are, to a ‘Liberal…’

    • It’s not just liberals guys … it’s anyone who allows a political ideology to distort facts, or in this case, put a road block up for the scientific process.

      • GeologyJim: The sad thing is that most of them would feel no guilt about distorting the news like that.
        They would view it as protecting people from information that might hurt them.
        Liberals view society as a bunch of children who need to be protected. By the liberals of course.

      • agreed, i hate the politicization of the debate. i know people of all persuasions that hold opinions supportive of both sides of the debate.

        i trust the two scumbag journalists in question will be writing articles about jagdish shukla any time now ?
        the treatment of willie soon by the alarmist press and certain members of the “science” community has been appalling , exposing hypocrisy of the highest order.

    • I’m afraid the worker bees, i.e., the masses led (read that ‘controlled’) by the liberal elite, are only guilty of thinking with their hearts instead of their brains. I actually feel sorry for them. Their leaders have learned how to tug the right heart strings to gain almost total brain-dead subservience. Their approach reminds me of a type of TV advertisement now gaining traction among charity marketeers (e.g., ASPCA).

      • Joe,

        “I’m afraid the worker bees, i.e., the masses led (read that ‘controlled’) by the liberal elite, are only guilty of thinking with their hearts instead of their brains.”

        The exact opposite seems true to me. Cold calculated faking of emotions to get what one wants is what I believe is being taught/indoctrinated. Rationalizations (mental stuff) used to block out direct perception of those one is attacking and dehumanizing, so emotions won’t get in the way . .

        Now, I know that might not feel right . . ; )

      • John,
        I see the liberal elite as the ‘cold calculated’ type’, people like Ben Rhodes of recent NY Times fame. They are the ones that just know they are infinitely smarter than and know what is best for ‘us commoners’ here in flyover country. To me the worker bees are those of us that really care about little puppies, the starving Armenians and how man is screwing up his environment, but also let our hearts overrule our logic and are thus susceptible to their directed propaganda.

        A correction in my above post: swap in Humane Society for ASPCA. I saw one of their horrible, ‘move you to tears’ advertisements again last night.

  2. Dr Willie Soon is a gentleman, with integrity and dignity, I suspect he will benefit from his adherence to finding the truth in the end. I have a lot of respect for the guy, he has a lot of courage.

    he could teach the guttersnipe Schmidt a thing or two

  3. Of course there will be no publishing of this fact Dr Soon has been cleared on the Granuiad. They still have an article claiming he got 1 million from oil money, I’d sue their asses off if I were him.

      • In common use an indictment is an accusation of fault; the word is not limited to its use in law. Indict is exactly the word I’d use. Their attacks on Soon are faulty and subject to indictment by anyone with any sense of honesty and civility.

      • Rick read the article ffs, they suggest someone “indict” the journalists responsible, preferably libel and lots of money for Dr Soon

      • Soon is cleared by the facts and his accusing journalists are indicted by the facts. The facts do the clearing and the indicting.

        A legal indictment is a special usage of the word”. In our society legal indictment is not always dependent upon facts. We are beginning to see that in the climate wars.

        Eugene WR Gallun

      • I’d be even more harsh. The insinuation for over 20 years now is that skeptic climate scientists accepted industry money in exchange for performing the service of lying to the public. Journalists across the board in the mainstream media did no due diligence that I can readily find on checking the veracity of the accusation and the people who were pushing it. That’s where this whole situation will implode, and it is why the AGW issue is about more than just climate science.

      • Rick read the article ffs, they suggest someone “indict” the journalists responsible, preferably libel and lots of money for Dr Soon

        I did read the post – twice. Last night at Heartland, this morning here.

        I doubt I’m the only person to read the headline and think it might mean the journalists would be facing legal charges. (OTOH, I distrust most headlines, so I wasn’t surprised that they have nothing to respond to.)

        I like to think we’re above writing alarmist headlines. Yes, I know we didn’t write it….

        Hey – I just searched for the word “indict” – it’s not in the article. Did you use quote symbols or are you just wiggling your fingers?

      • The headline says nothing of the sort (“have been indicted”) – it states that the “facts” clear Soon and the “facts” indict (accuse) the journalists. It is not misleading in any way, unless you insist that the term “indict” can only be used in a strictly legal context

    • “Sorry” — yeah, right, Mr. Gardener.

      Your sloppy reading ability (likely in your haste to condemn) prevented you from answering your own question.

      Answer: the facts clear Soon and the facts “indict” (or accuse, waddaya know, that’s what indict means) his “ignorant or disingenuous” accusers. The above article never said that there was a legal “indictment” of Soon (just FYI).

      You might also have, if you had paused to think about it, realized that the principle of: innocent until proven guilty also exonerates Dr. Soon.

      • Come now Janice. We may all agree that the “facts” as …. WE …. know them may exonerate Dr. Soon, and even “indict” (well accuse) the scoundrels.

        BUT, even in a court of law, the “Facts” are NOT “Facts” until acknowledged by the court to be so.

        Until the Smithsonian publicly agrees to the “facts” they remain simply conjectures.

        I think Forrest put it even more succinctly than I could have.

        And I believe the article concludes by saying the miscreants “should” be censured.

        I see nowhere that that has happened.

        G

      • Janice why so belligerent . I too saw the article and thought great I’ll find the sources and link th to UK Sci weather group where some blighters there are rabid AGW’s but there is seemingly nothing of any clout that will stand up to scrutiny. I’ve personally had a hard day and seeing the Soon article lifted my spriits but I read it through and through all though very tired and couldbn’t find any definitive proof that Willie has been exonerated You jumped down Forrest’s throat although he was dead right. The article makes a claim that it can’t substantiate which cheesed me of as much as your artitude, as I wanted to stuff story down the throats of the warmers, but cased on the article presented they would tear it apart.

      • Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules …

        That the “miscreants should be censured” in no way changes the fact that the facts, per se, “indict” those miscreants.

        We’re not dealing with getting “facts” admitted into evidence, Mr. Smith. Further, you are overlooking the principle that Dr. Soon has NOTHING to prove, no need to be cleared. He is innocent until proven otherwise.

        I’m sorry Lawrence13, that you had a bad day. I hope it goes much better tomorrow. Your (and Mr. Smith’s) reading ability will likely be much better! :)

        My ‘tude toward the slimy Mr. Gardener was due to his being a mock-dismay poseur. Such a stance disgusts me.

      • Thanks for your answer Janice. You confirm what I took from the article which is that Soon will continue to be accused of wrongdoing and that nobody will indict journalists any time soon.

        I am surprised, however, by the abuse directed at me. I had expected a more rational response from regulars at this forum.

      • Janice, I see that you now describe me as “slimy” and have a few other choice words to say.

        Very poor form from someone whose opinion I previously held in high regard.

      • Well Willie Soon stands “indicted” by these miscreants, and others on the basis of “facts” they have asserted to be such, which many (maybe most) of us to be at variance with reality.

        That “indictment” Janice is in the court of public opinion; which may indeed be far more harsh than a court of law.

        Clearance or “acquittal” if you will, of Willie Soon of the allegations in that public opinion indictment, can only occur, when that same court of public opinion acknowledges the error of their accusation, and accepts as the true facts (publicly) the reality that we believe to be true.

        We know what WE believe to be the facts. Willie will only be exonerated publicly when “they” acknowledge the reality of the set of facts we believe that WE know to be true.

        MY opinion of Dr. Willie Soon, Plus $0.75 (tax included) will get me a senior coffee at McDonalds, plus two free refills (same day).

        Only when the human detritus, that created this issue, publicly acknowledges they were wrong, and apologizes to Willie, can he reclaim the respect that is his due.

        He’s an excellent Scientist; he’s a fun guy to chat with even by e-mail, and he’s also quite a funny guy.

        He deserved none of this.

        Same gose for Dr. Sally Baliunas who also has faced the flight of arrows directed at Willie Soon.

        If you haven’t read his book; ” The Maunder Minimum, and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection. ” or words to that effect, you should read it to get a better idea of his efforts to bring some of this science to our attentions.

        G

      • So Janice have you stopped throwing heavy things at your soul mate yet ??

        g

      • What are you talking about. Just kindly point out who says , besides the author . The article is an opinion and has no validty whatsover if endeavouring to launch it at the AGW morons

        “Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate”

        All the article has done is mislead folk and showed that some here are mindless rude zealots

      • M, your reply is vacuous and condescending. See Lawrence13 above. I have no idea what his disposition to warming alarmism is, but what he says neatly encapsulates my views on this article.

    • This will help you:

      A Few Facts For Climate Alarmists Waging War Against Astrophysicist Willie Soon

      “In February of 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic since 1997, falsely accused Dr. Soon of wrongfully taking fossil-fuel company grants by failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal. The journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules. However, the Greenpeace accusation caused a clamor around the world as lazy liberal reporters repeated it for major media with no fact-checking for accuracy.

      The Greenpeace ruckus brought high-level Obama administration pressure on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics – Vice President Joe Biden is a member of Smithsonian’s Board of Regents. The Institution responded with an elaborate new Directive on Standards of Conduct that forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an Ethics Counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause of a sort not seen since the McCarthy Red Scare.

      The Institution announced an Inspector General investigation of Soon, combing his emails and announcing that he had broken no rules. That seriously stung the NGO-Media-Politician coalition, which launched more attacks.”

      http://blog.heartland.org/2016/04/a-few-facts-for-climate-alarmists-waging-war-against-astrophysicist-willie-soon/

    • Forrest, if you didn’t read or comprehend the Article above, why would you read or comprehend the answers? These are your problems alone, and only you can solve them. Since it’s your mind which you’re going to be stuck with, why don’t you do yourself a favor first?

      • Another one, this time with abusive rhetoric. The responses of Janice and others have kindly confirmed that my reading of the article was correct. Whilst I agree with the sentiment in the article, it contains nothing new.

        What was new is the hostile groupthink displayed by people I had previously regarded highly. Frankly, there are a few of you including Janice I will never be able to look at the same way again.

      • Forrest, it isn’t group think at all and the complaint about the headline is silly too since there was no LEGAL indictment claim made,it was about those lying dishonest jerks out there who are trying to take down Dr. Soon any way they can. The bullcrap has been going on for years as Willie puts up with the slanders in stride while he continues to adhere to the rules of his employers and follows the detailed grant process as well.

      • Let me stand with Forrest Gardener here. From the title, I was expecting to hear that something had CHANGED, and for the better. A better title, like “willie soon still innocent, lying sleaze bag alarmist journalists still getting away with it”, would have been so much less misleading.

    • Forrest,Dr. Soon was never charged by the legal authorities of wrongdoing.Next time try reading the article first without dark glasses. It was gutter quality journalists who make false charges against Dr. Soon that caused this ruckus in the first place.

      But this should help you understand WHY Dr. Soon was not charged in the first place:

      “Scientists in Trust positions must follow exacting procedures in order to obtain grants for their science according to the rules in the elaborate Contract and Grant Administration document.

      The prescribed steps most relevant to Dr. Soon’s position are: First, the scientists must prepare a draft of their proposed scientific project or work. The draft then goes for pre-approval to the Director’s Office, held since 2004 by distinguished astronomer Charles Alcock. The scientists must give the Director suggestions for potential funders, but all decisions are the Director’s.

      If the Director approves the draft proposal, he signs it and gives it to the Grant Office, which prepares the presentation package, including a budget, the approved proposal, and a cover letter formally requesting a grant. The Director signs the cover letter and the grant officer sends it to the potential donor.

      The donor replies to the Director saying yes or no. If yes, the reply may contain a pledge to be paid when invoiced by the Center or direct payment to Smithsonian, which handles all of the Center’s money. The scientist who performs the project may not know and has no need to know who gave the grant.

      When scientists perform an “off the clock” (unpaid) study to be published in a peer-reviewed journal and pays for it out of personal funds, as Willie Soon has on numerous occasions over the years, all Smithsonian approvals and checkpoints must still be passed. Claims that Dr. Soon has pocketed any off-the-clock grant money have all been shown false.

      Writers who accuse Dr. Soon of wrongdoing despite firm evidence to the contrary are violating the Code of Ethics of the Society of Professional Journalists, which states, among many other points: “Ethical journalism should be accurate and fair. Journalists should examine the ways their values and experiences may shape their reporting. Journalists should support the open and civil exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.”

      The hostile coverage attacking Dr. Soon could hardly be considered ethical journalism by these professional standards. The writers and publishers of such unethical journalism should be brought to account.”

      http://blog.heartland.org/2016/04/a-few-facts-for-climate-alarmists-waging-war-against-astrophysicist-willie-soon/

      In the link are links to documents supporting the above quote.

      • At risk of repeating myself, I am familiar with the controversy. I also agree with the sentiment in the article. To my surprise, however, it contained nothing like the breakthrough suggested by the headline.

        To those who have responded to me with hate including you S, you have wasted your time. Worse, some of you have revealed yourself to be prone to groupthink and making abusive responses. That is NOT something I regard highly.

      • Really this is your example of “hate”?

        “Forrest,Dr. Soon was never charged by the legal authorities of wrongdoing.Next time try reading the article first without dark glasses. It was gutter quality journalists who make false charges against Dr. Soon that caused this ruckus in the first place.

        But this should help you understand WHY Dr. Soon was not charged in the first place:”

        Suuure sensitive fella.

        Meanwhile all you did was complain about something missing,since it appears it didn’t meet YOUR expectations (whatever it was) that would excite you.I noting your less than enthusiastic comments about the article,I gave you a deeper one from the same author from another source which you thanked me,but didn’t expand on the additional information I gave you thus you appear to be here to complain and little else.

        The article HERE made the point you seems to miss since it was about how shoddy journalists are in covering the obvious persecution of Dr. Soon,since they continue the bullcrap of others who create the lies about Dr. Soon in the first place.The lies that started many years ago that Willie has had to endure simply because he post papers that does not please the warmist/Alarmist/ecoloony team.

        “In February of 2015, Greenpeace agent Kert Davies, a vocal critic since 1997, falsely accused Dr. Soon of wrongfully taking fossil-fuel company grants by failing to disclose “conflicts of interest” to an academic journal. The journal’s editors and the Smithsonian Institution found no violation of their disclosure or conflict of interest rules. However, the Greenpeace accusation caused a clamor around the world as lazy liberal reporters repeated it for major media with no fact-checking for accuracy.”

        So please take your thin skinned whine elsewhere,while the rest of us admire Dr. Soon’s devotion to good science research efforts,while he gets slandered by ugly jerks out there.

      • Make a copy, then use the Replace function to substitute “accuse” for “indict”. Valid synonym.

      • Yes, S. I include you in the haters and groupthinkers.

        I include you in the group who are so passionate about the situation that they feel the need to open with a statement suggesting that I had misread the article when plainly I had not. I include you in the group who are so passionate that they assume anybody not displaying the appropriate groupthink needs a lecture to set them straight.

        You misinterpreted my brief question because you failed to hold an article favourable to your own side accountable to the same standards you would expect from one against you. In retrospect it was the headline which was most at fault of misleading readers, but still you want to turn that into an insult against me.

        Be careful up there on your high horse. It’s a long way down.

      • Oh and before I finish S, you write “Meanwhile all you did was complain about something missing”.

        To correct the record, what started the controversy was that I asked a question anticipating an informative response. I doubt that I’ll make the same mistake again.

        In short I expect to be just a little bit more sympathetic to others abused on this forum.

      • Joe B,

        I don’t understand. What’s ‘lapidary’ referring to? Facets of an argument? A cutting reply?

        It doesn’t seem to fit (not that I’m a definition expert).

      • dbstealey:

        Forgive me; brevis esse laboravi, obscurus factus sum. (I chided Ms. Moore elsewhere for her gratuitous Latin, but relics of my misspent youth bubble up for me, too, when I’ve had a second glass of wine, which I prefer to blame for her intemperance.)

        I was referring to how elegantly concise was Mr. Gardner’s statement, “Soon cleared by whom and journalists indicted by whom?” That is, his statement was concise enough to bear chiseling into stone (lapis, lapidis).

    • The headline clearly (to me) says that Soon was cleared by the “facts” and the journalists are indicted (accused) by the “facts”. It is not a matter of “whom” did the clearing and indicting, but “what” did. How do you not get that?

      • Scott, you are a bit late on the scene and have the advantage of the extensive discussion which precedes your comment.

        Others have run the line that facts can clear or indict. Frankly it is nonsense. It is always a human actor who indicts or clears. The facts are what the human actor uses in that process.

        To use your own words, how did you not get that? See why you would have done well not to close with that rhetorical flourish now?

      • “Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists.”

        Usually, people are cleared of an accusation because there’s not enough evidence to convict them. It is fairly rare that the “facts” prove them innocent. I don’t know which was the case here, but I hope the facts truly did exonerate Dr. Soon. Is this the end of his troubles, or is he still facing accusations and/or other investigations? This article isn’t clear on that, but the words, “prompting additional attacks from alarmists” imply that he is still under attack.

  4. “Accordingly, writers who’ve accused Soon of wrongdoing despite evidence to the contrary are unethical and should be censured.” ~ from post

    The mainstream media does not employ journalists but merely copy writers who write whatever tripe their employers want. We should go back to paying them by the word like in times long gone.

    It was policy a generation ago to smear a man on the front page for days on end, and then print the retraction (one small paragraph) buried in the back pages. Dr. Soon will be lucky to get even that in these times.

    If there were real journalists publishing real substantiated truth; we would have major scandals in politics, medical science, the pharmaceutical industry, medicine, education, government waste, and a many other fields. We have reached a level of corruption in this country that con-artists of 50 years could only dream about.

    As one example, mentioned only because of a recent controversy, I point out the situation with medical vaccines. There has never been a “gold standard” double-blind, placebo controlled, long term trial of vaccinated kids vs. non-vaccinated kids to prove safety or effectiveness. If you find that hard to believe, contact this doctor for more http://blog.drbrownstein.com/

    “Science” has reached the state where we decide what we want to be true (what is profitable) and then we set out to “prove” it. And God Help You if you find out some multi-billion dollar industry is founded on lies and half-truths. (like the poly-unsaturated fats are good for you delusion — or the anthropogenic CO2 is warming the planet delusion)

    We are in the real dark ages.

    ~ Mark

      • Brownstein is a self-promoter, more than a serious investigator. Don’t take him at face.

    • There has been such a study. A natural one, save for the double-blinding. However, given the rate of infections are not susceptible to the placebo effect, I think we can forgive that. The anti-vaxxer movement has given us that much, a large unvaccinated population of affluent children to observe.

      And observe people have. The findings have been repeatedly published as a big, fat zero. There is no trend in increased or decreased autism, mental effects, no trend in anything. The sole trend that passes into clinical significance is an increase in the diseases for which they declined vaccination (who’d have thunk it?).

      There are some vaccines that had negative side effects, like the live-virus polio vaccine, which had a small chance of giving you the disease instead, and smallpox, which could give you a nasty cowpox infection. That was why they were discontinued when the plagues died out.

      There are certain studies you just don’t do. That little thing called “morality” and “concern for human life”.

      • @Ben If the evidence in favour of vaccination is clear-cut, as you claim, then 100% of frontline healthcare workers would get vaccinated against flu. Figures are now available for the UK NHS and that is not what happens – so clearly the people with the most health knowledge are not convinced.

        “Latest vaccination figures show 32.4% of frontline healthcare workers had influenza vaccinations in September and October 2015.” [the period when they were advised to get vaccinated.]
        https://www.gov.uk/government/news/healthcare-worker-flu-vaccination-figures-published

        Whether vaccines work or not, failing to establish the facts with proper research, so people can make fully-informed treatment choices, is utterly immoral.

      • mrpeteraustin,
        The flu vaccine is developed each year for those strains that someone ‘estimates’ will be active the next year, so they are usually only partially successful. I would also imagine that after a few years in the industry most health care workers have already been exposed to many of the strains, or at least similar ones, so they have already developed a pretty good immunity. It’s only when there is a new dangerous strain running around, and there is a vaccine for it that several health care workers I know bother to get vaccinated.

      • I can’t believe that his thread has turned into a vaccine debate. This is just ridiculous. mrpeteraustin: influenza vaccine is a completely different animal than most. According to the Wikipedia article (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Influenza#Vaccination) influenza’s high mutation rate make the use of vaccine less effective, and somewhat of a dice roll. We all have read and been told this before. Your comparison using the influenza vaccine is disingenuous.

      • Way way back in the 1950s when my dad was a professor at the University of Chicago, we kids got to be the very very first to get the polio vaccinations. We were the test subjects.

        Our parents were so terrified of that disease they volunteered us kids (a number of professors did this!) to be in the first tests. Vaccinations have saved billions of lives. The ‘test’ for the alternative (no vaccinations) was cold reality before the vaccinations, no need for ‘blind tests’ since the proof is obvious.

        Thanks to being spoiled by the polio pool being reduced in size from gigantic to very small, some people have fooled themselves into believing that they are invulnerable via magic and don’t need any vaccinations for anyone which is insane.

      • Yes, contrary to what @markstoval said above:

        “As one example, mentioned only because of a recent controversy, I point out the situation with medical vaccines. There has never been a “gold standard” double-blind, placebo controlled, long term trial of vaccinated kids vs. non-vaccinated kids to prove safety or effectiveness,”

        the Gold Standard of Reality’s Test is as you mention: the elimination of Small Pox from the World’s Population.

        On the other hand, there was a time not too long ago when ER Nurses were beset with having to “inform the patient” on a matter as simple as getting a Tetanus Booster or starting the immunization of their children, and getting “their consent”. This was chaotic and possibly counterproductive, even in terms of suits against the Hospital and Doctor if the patient was left to “decide for his/herself” and suffered the possible ill-effect of not getting the immunization. So I’d go in there as the ER MD and tell the by now confused patient that I recommend that they get the immunization, because “that’s what I’d do with myself or child”. Isn’t that part of “informing the patient”? And I recorded my advice in the Chart. Thankfully, the whole charade mysteriously disappeared.

      • Ben of Houston;

        “There are certain studies you just don’t do. That little thing called “morality” and “concern for human life”.” ~ BoH

        So you agree that there has been no clinical trials of a gold standard (double blind, placebo controlled that is independent and of a large population). Thanks for that. Oh, and your “concern for human life” tells you that we should never, ever put big Pharma’s main cash cow to the test. Oh course not — what is 350 million American’s to the worship of profit.

        The doctor who wrote the following has stated that he is not against all vaccines and yet he has called for safety and effectiveness studies. (real ones, not your observational delusions)

        Since 1997, autism rates have skyrocketed in the U.S. and the Western world. In the U.S., the latest (2015) statistics show that one in forty-five children are estimated to have autism. (1) In 1995, it was estimated that autism was prevalent in one in five hundred children. That is an increase of 1,100%! If the autism rate continues to climb at its present level, some have estimated that one of every two U.S. children will be diagnosed with autism by 2025.

        I can assure you of one thing: It is not safe to inject our children (or any living being) with toxic additives such as mercury, formaldehyde, aluminum or MSG. It is not rocket science to predict that people injected with toxic items that negatively affect the human body will suffer neurological and immunological problems.

        1) National Health Statistics Report. N. 87. Nov 13, 2015. U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND HUMAN SERVICES Centers for Disease Control and Prevention National Center for Health Statistics

        http://blog.drbrownstein.com/1219-2/

        The way all this effects me, is I teach many of the poor people that have been damaged by something. I think it is time to find out exactly what that something is.

        ~ Mark

      • I should add that there is no “100% safe and effective” medication or substance existing on Earth. Yet some people use that requirement as a “Gold Standard” for its use. They might as well commit suicide forthwith, but that sometimes doesn’t work either. Woe is us!

      • JPeden;

        “… the Gold Standard of Reality’s Test is as you mention: the elimination of Small Pox from the World’s Population. …”

        I see you don’t know the history of the issue. It was clean water and sanitation that “wiped out” most of the dreaded diseases of the earlier era. Take a look at the charts of the the levels of infection that show vast declines in infection rates WAY before introduction of the vaccine. And then the CDC itself told us of outbreaks of diseases like the following:

        … In 1989 the CDC reported: “Among school-aged children, [measles] outbreaks have occurred in schools with vaccination levels of greater than 98 percent.(23) [They] have occurred in all parts of the country, including areas that had not reported measles for years.”(24) The CDC even reported a measles outbreak in a documented 100% vaccinated population.(25) A study examining this phenomenon concluded, “The apparent paradox is that as measles immunization rates rise to high levels in a population, measles becomes a disease of immunized persons.”(26)

        I realize it is reassuring to people to think that a shot of whatever will protect you; but we have not proved that. But can you explain this:

        … According to the British Association for the Advancement of Science, childhood diseases decreased 90% between 1850 and 1940, paralleling improved sanitation and hygienic practices, well before mandatory vaccination programs. The Medical Sentinel recently reported, “from 1911 to 1935, the four leading causes of childhood deaths from infectious diseases in the U.S. were diphtheria, pertussis, scarlet fever, and measles. However, by 1945 the combined death rates from these causes had declined by 95 percent, before the implementation of mass immunization programs.”(34) …

        ~ Mark

      • emsnews;

        “Polio was one of the clearly great vaccination success stories. …or was it?

        “Six New England states reported increases in polio one year after the Salk vaccine was introduced, ranging from more than doubling in Vermont to Massachusetts’ astounding increase of 642%; other states reported increases as well. The incidence in Wisconsin increased by a factor of five. Idaho and Utah actually halted vaccination due to the increased incidence and death rate. In 1959, 77.5% of Massachusetts’ paralytic cases had received 3 doses of IPV (injected polio vaccine). During 1962 U.S. Congressional hearings, Dr. Bernard Greenberg, head of the Dept. of Biostatistics for the University of North Carolina School of Public Health, testified that not only did the cases of polio increase substantially after mandatory vaccinations—a 50% increase from 1957 to 1958, and an 80% increase from 1958 to 1959—but that the statistics were deliberately manipulated by the Public Health Service to give the opposite impression.(52) It is important to understand that the polio vaccine was not universally accepted, at least initially. Despite this, polio declined both in European countries that refused mass vaccination as well as in those that employed it.

        “According to researcher-author Dr. Viera Scheibner, 90% of polio cases were eliminated from statistics by health authorities’ redefinition of the disease when the vaccine was introduced, while in reality the Salk vaccine was continuing to cause paralytic polio in several countries at a time when there were no epidemics being caused by the wild virus. For example, cases of viral and aseptic meningitis, which have symptoms similar to polio, were routinely diagnosed and recorded as polio before the vaccine, but were distinguished and removed from polio statistics after the vaccine. Also, the number of cases needed to declare an epidemic was raised from 20 to 35, and the requirement for inclusion in paralysis statistics was changed from symptoms that lasted for 24 hours to symptoms lasting 60 days (many polio victims’ paralysis was temporary). It is no wonder that polio decreased radically after vaccines—at least on paper. In 1985, the CDC reported that 87% of the cases of polio in the U.S. between 1973 and 1983 were caused by the vaccine, and later declared that all but a few imported cases since were caused by the vaccine—and most of the imported cases occurred in fully vaccinated individuals.

        “Jonas Salk, inventor of the IPV, testified before a Senate subcommittee that nearly all polio outbreaks since 1961 were caused by the oral polio vaccine. At a workshop on polio vaccines sponsored by the Institute of Medicine and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, Dr. Samuel Katz of Duke University cited the estimated 8-10 annual U.S. cases of vaccine-associated paralytic polio (VAPP) in people who have taken the oral polio vaccine, and the [four year] absence of wild polio from the western hemisphere. Jessica Scheer of the National Rehabilitation Hospital Research Center in Washington, D.C., pointed out that most parents are unaware that polio vaccination in this country entails “a small number of human sacrifices each year.” Compounding this contradiction are low adverse event reporting and the NVIC’s experiences with confirming and correcting misdiagnoses of vaccine reactions, which suggest that the actual number of VAPP “sacrifices” may be 10 to 100 times higher than that cited by the CDC. For these reasons, the live polio virus is no longer in widespread use.

        “To be sure, polio as it was known in the first half of the 20th century does not exist today. However, declines following polio peaks in the late 1940’s and early 1950’s had been underway again for a period of years by the time the vaccine was introduced.

        And with that I am done. I realize that when something reaches a “scientific consensus” that all facts and normal scientific proofs go out the window. No real scientific method style proofs are needed.

        But God Darn It; why was Polio declining before the introduction of a vaccine? (I know, but I’ll leave the question open)

      • Polio is a great example: it had NOTHING to do with ‘sanitation’ and ditto a number of childhood diseases that killed or left children very disabled. My own husband had his hearing wrecked by a childhood disease which was very common in the 1950’s.

        I remember all this stuff from back then because it was common, now it is very rare and where I lived (upper class, university professor land) it was scary as h*ll and even fanatical cleaning didn’t stop these germs.

        The fad for making excuses to stop vaccinations has been running for many years now. My father used to say, ‘Well, let them eliminate themselves from the gene pool’.

      • @markstoval

        “The way all this effects me, is I teach many of the poor people that have been damaged by something. I think it is time to find out exactly what that something is. ~ Mark”

        So I suppose that as part of ~”teaching them” and experiencing what “effects me”, you also insure yourself against the ill-effects suffered by people taking your teaching to heart and not getting or using whatever medication you ~”suspect” to be the cause of a/their malady? And merely because you will accept only those that are certified by your own personal “Gold Standard” and reject all other tests and rationales – such as those that are, and must be used 24/7 in the actual Practice of Medicine!

        And just what is your personally-acceptable risk/benefit ratio for the “safety and effectiveness” of a medication or procedure – which you apparently want to make Universal?

        And are there indeed any medications you would take? It’s your standard and teaching, so let’s all hear what these medications are, if any, and what your acceptable risk/benefit ratio is.

        In other words, beware the ill-effects of your own ~blanket teachings and standards. You are still going to be responsible for their ill-effects and maybe even personally affected by your own “teaching”. Even if you can’t be sued.

        Or else at least get a License to Practice Medicine, so you can then make a serious start at practicing what you are now preaching.

      • JPeden:

        And merely because you will accept only those that are certified by your own personal “Gold Standard” and reject all other tests and rationales – such as those that are, and must be used 24/7 in the actual Practice of Medicine!

        The best I can make out of that word salad is that one should never question the “received wisdom”. After Trillions spent on “health care” in this country — we should not do real science to find out the answer to a very controversial question??? And you would advise me to just accept Dr. Mann’s hockey stick also no doubt.

        And just what is your personally-acceptable risk/benefit ratio for the “safety and effectiveness” of a medication or procedure – which you apparently want to make Universal?

        Recall that families don’t get to make a choice anymore. The State is forcing people to vaccinate their children with scores of shots. Are these shots safe and effective? You certainty don’t want to know.

        And are there indeed any medications you would take? It’s your standard and teaching, so let’s all hear what these medications are, if any, and what your acceptable risk/benefit ratio is.

        I take nothing that I have not personally researched as to risk/benefit and that amounts to aspirin and a couple of vitamins. But why is my personal health choices so important to you as I simply want the answer to a controversy settled via the scientific method? (yes I know a propaganda technique when I see it)

        10 years ago when my doctor said I would have to take 3 blood pressure meds for life; I told him I would bring down the pressure and get off the meds. 9 months later he had taken me off all meds. Now in my mid 60s I am doing just fine. (so he says each year when I visit for my required annual visit)

        In other words, beware the ill-effects of your own ~blanket teachings and standards. You are still going to be responsible for their ill-effects and maybe even personally affected by your own “teaching”. Even if you can’t be sued.

        You are spewing forth lies. I do not force anyone to do anything with their children. I do ask that all parties act with the best information that we can obtain. Big Pharma shills like yourself love the State forcing people to vaccinate their kids under force of law and not even allow scientific studies to be done.

        Are all vaccines safe? Are they effective? Are they worth the risk? Should there be a real study done on each one or just take big Pharma’s word for it? And what about the cocktail of many vacs at one time? And what about age? Should we give a child a vaccine before her immune system is finished?

        Or else at least get a License to Practice Medicine, so you can then make a serious start at practicing what you are now preaching.

        So, stating the truth and asking for scientific studies is now preaching??? I think your paymasters will be a tad bit disappointed in you today. You remind me of the guys who say that if one does not have a degree in Climatology then he has no right to engage in debate. “Get a medical degree”??? What a joke.

      • “Since 1997, autism rates have skyrocketed in the U.S. and the Western world. In the U.S., the latest (2015) statistics show that one in forty-five children are estimated to have autism. (1) In 1995, it was estimated that autism was prevalent in one in five hundred children. That is an increase of 1,100%! If the autism rate continues to climb at its present level, some have estimated that one of every two U.S. children will be diagnosed with autism by 2025.”

        Maybe the increase in autism rates is actually because the autism spectrum is now so broad that nearly every human being on the planet potentially falls within it.

      • I am unqualified to comment, as I am 70 and have never had a flu vaccine, and rarely anything but a mild flu. I worry my hyper-effective immune system will go rogue with some auto-immune reaction, though.

      • Unfortunately it simply is not true that Smallpox has been eradicated.

        Well yes it is not running around out in the open, infecting people.

        But it is there in storage for use by the biological warfare loonies whenever they want to release it.

        Some people don’t understand the concept of “Extinction is for ever.”

        Only when the smallpox agent is extinct, can we claim it is eradicated.

        Preservation of some species so destructive; is for the criminally insane.

        G

  5. It is about time people like these 2 journalists (or should i say “journalists”) been challenged in the judiciary system for their bias and wrongdoing.
    We need some deep pockets for liable suite against them. Soon really deserves this help.

  6. I am happy for Dr Soon that he has been cleared.

    Where does he go to get his reputation back?

    I was curious as to what the ‘Loyalty to the Smithsonian’ clause entailed and located a copy of the latest version of the Standards of Conduct (SD 103, 7 March 2016) https://www.si.edu/content/OGC/SD103.pdf

    Sure enough para 2, “Loyalty and Conflict of Interest”, states that, ” Employees must maintain high standards of honesty, integrity, and loyalty to the Smithsonian.”

    It is interesting to me that nowhere in the document is the concept of what constitutes ‘loyalty to the Smithsonian’ defined, nor are any examples provided of actions that would constitute ‘disloyalty’. Where I an employee of the Smithsonian I’d certainly want to better understand actions that may or may not be ‘disloyal’. This gives the Smithsonian carte blanche to deem whatever action they don’t like to be ‘disloyal’ and punish the employee for it or influence their work. How very 1984/Soviet Gulag of them. I wonder what the media reaction would be if Exxon or any private corporation included an undefined ‘loyalty’ clause in it’s employee Standards of Conduct and made it a ‘punishable’ offense as the Smithsonian has done.

  7. Ron, this was well written and succinct. I agree. If interviewed on any of these subjects one question to pose to the interviewer is, “Were you one of the reporters involved in the smearing of Astrophysicist Willie Soon?”

    “Are you working with any of those who did?”

    “Have you or your publication distanced themselves from these individuals?”

    The tactic is to isolate these lying snipes from their peers. They rely on the anonymity provided by a crowds of parrots. Remove it. Single them out. Hold them accountable.

    • I agree Crispin. We all have a duty to find out who these people are and contact them and their employers by whatever means available asking for explanations. They have to be made aware that we are not just going to sit back and endlessly take the abuse. It’s well overdue for these corrupt liars to feel some hostility coming back down the line in their direction.

      • The problem is that for most of them, their employers would not be upset by this behavior.

      • As Instapundit routinely says, just think of journalists as Democrat operatives with bylines and you’ll never go wrong.

  8. As an aeronautical engineer, Dr. Soon has the engineering science skill to grasp the emergent structures analysis which demonstrates, using the first law of thermodynamics, that CO2 has no significant effect on climate.

  9. The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.

    This may be true, but a link to the underlying facts would have helped a critical reader decide for himself the extent to which, for example, the provision in question could fairly be characterized as a “‘Loyalty to the Smithsonian’ clause.”

    Similarly, the following passage would have benefited from a link enabling the reader to judge the writer’s characterization for himself:

    In March and April 2016, two outlets published stories scurrilously demonizing Soon, relying heavily on bogus claims. The two activist-writers, David Hasemyer, who worked for the controversial InsideClimateNews, and Paul Basken, who worked for The Chronicle of Higher Education, seem to have forgotten journalistic ethics and the facts.

    Although I was able to find a link to the Freeman Dyson quote, the post should not have left the reader to his own devices.

    Finally, although Mr. Arnold may not be responsible for the headline, I found it misleading. Yes, it says only that it was “Facts,” not some body convened to assess Dr. Soon’s behavior, that cleared him. But I suspect that I am not the only one who was disappointed not to find a report of the latter in this post–and to find precious little of the former.

    Am I the only one to whom this site seems increasingly a platform for cheerleaders rather than a channel for facts from which thoughtful readers can draw their own conclusions?

    • Indeed Sir, where has Dr. Soon been cleared? The facts have always been out there in plain view, but that didn’t stop Dr. Soon from being buried under the rubble of truth, nor has any rescue party carried him into the light.

      When the likes of Andrew Revkin and the NYT bring Oxygen to Dr. Soon, then you’ll know that truth has triumphed over agenda.

    • It’s kind of like driving on the freeway. No matter how fast you go, there’s always some guy on your tail trying to get you to go faster. If you’re a writer, no matter how much documentation you throw in, there’s always someone who wants more. Until you put in so much that they complain that you’re tedious.

      Ron, thank you for your comments. The references you give are more than enough for anyone who knows what a search engine is, to verify.

    • @ Joe Born: “only … facts” …. — What an ignoramus you are. As Alan Robertson indirectly points out, because the facts exonerate and have always exonerated Dr. Soon, there was never a real need to “clear” him. He stands innocent, established and vindicated by the facts.

      That you need an authority’s pronouncement to feel okay about what the facts clearly show demonstrates that you are a small-minded “cheerleader for the fallacy of argumentum ad verecundiam.”

      • The question as to “who” cleared Dr Soon is found in this line from the article. As to whether or not the statement is accurate I know not. We would have to obtain copies of the I.G. Smithsonian’s report on the issue.

        “Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists.”

        hope this helps (odd I wrote kelps first, wonder if it would be better)
        michael

        [It does kelp separate the loose strands of seeweed from the trees that surround the forest wrapped around these dens of inequity. /Churchill .mod]

      • What an ignoramus you are.

        Isn’t that a little harsh?

        We’re all products of our experience, and perhaps yours leads you to conclude that the facts you already have are dispositive. But surely it doesn’t make one an ignoramus that his experience is different, that in his experience facts out of left field all too frequently topple seemingly foregone conclusions. And for me caution is particularly warranted in this case because much of my previous information on the subject came through Christopher Monckton, whom I have not found reliable.

        In light of that experience it would have been of interest to read a decision rendered in Dr. Soon’s favor in the face of evidence marshaled by advocates hostile to him. However devastating your gratuitous use of Latin against such considerations may be, both such a decision and its basis would have been ammunition in support of Dr. Soon in the court of public opinion.

        Unfortunately, the head post provided only a conclusory statement that the Smithsonian’s inspector general had exonerated Dr. Soon. Again, your experience may differ, but mine has not been kind to conclusory statements so bereft of supporting detail.

        I consider at least that aspect of the post thin gruel.

      • Joe Born May 9, 2016 at 2:22 pm
        Joe, I swiped this from the link Sunsettommy May 9, 2016 at 8:55 am posted up thread. READ IT.
        The Smithsonian is employing Dr Soon. Even seems to be ah, paying him. Read the full link provided by Sunsettommy

        Hasemyer’s April 5, 2016 piece, “Smithsonian Gives Nod to More ‘Dark Money’ Funding for Willie Soon,” bewails the fact that Soon’s employer didn’t follow their playbook but approved a $65,000 grant from the non-profit Donors Trust, which is despised by greens because it uses anonymous “donor-advised-funds.” Such “dark money” grants are an IRS-approved shield pioneered decades ago by the far-left Tides Foundation for its $1.1 billion worth of grants to radicals, much of it “dark,” which Hasemyer didn’t seem to recall.

        I hope that “kelps”
        michael

      • Mike the Morlock:

        Thank you for your attempt to help, but it rather misses the point.

        Actually I know all or most of the facts that supposedly support the contention that Dr. Soon was blameless in the matter, and I’m inclined to believe he was. But this post is as though I had written one that said simply, “CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere is a net benefit.” I believe it is, and you may agree with me, but you’d still be disappointed with my post if it provided no new facts to back up my (and potentially your) belief. That”s how I–and several of the more-critical thinkers here–feel about the head post; to a great extent, it’s merely conclusory.

        But the Eloi at this site blindly follow the siren to the conclusion that our criticism of the post means we don’t understand it or are hostile to Dr. Soon’s position.

        I, personally am not hostile to it, at least in this case. (It happens that I’m aware of a case in which I do think Dr. Soon’s behavior fell short of exemplary.) I merely wish the contributors would tighten up their games.

      • Joe Born says:

        It happens that I’m aware of a case in which I do think Dr. Soon’s behavior fell short of exemplary.

        Joe, I usually agree with your comments. Not this one, though.

        First, that’s innuendo. What ‘case’?

        Next, I think everyone would agree that Dr. Soon doesn’t walk on water. Like everyone else, he’s probably not perfect.

        But what does that have to do with anything? He was attacked for being perceived as being skeptical of the alarmist narrative. THAT is what’s wrong.

        Put yourself in Soon’s place. Would you want people to imply that you had done something wrong, without explaining what it was? And was it directly related to this issue? Would you want to be attacked for simply having a point of view that you believed? I don’t think so.

        Those doing the attacking should have to lay out their case, chapter and verse. And later on they can’t have the right to add anything to it. That’s just basic fairness.

        You say you think Soon is blameless in this matter. That should be the end of it. Those making the accusations have the onus of proof, but as we see, they’re unable to make a credible case. Therefore: case closed.

      • dbstealey:

        The other case I referred to is Dr. Soon’s denial of the Monckton et al. paper’s errors. When I said above that I knew most of the facts about the Smithsonian case, it might have been clearer only to say I knew the ones that folks at this site had rehearsed; I’m not confident that I’ve heard both sides, which is why to me the case is not closed. Call it a result of my profession, but I feel I’ve heard only one side.

        I don’t feel that way with regard to the case of the Monckton et al. paper, on the other hand, because I know the technical facts, and they are not in doubt. I don’t view the paper’s (quite fundamental) errors as reflections on the authors’ characters; in science most people make mistakes most of the time. But–and if my experience with this site’s other denizens is any indication you wouldn’t recognize this–the errors were of a sort that should have been clear even to an undergraduate engineer once they were pointed out. And I did point them out in posts on this site. Yet Dr. Soon joined his colleagues in a response post that brazenly denied those errors.

        I’ve had many decades of experience in dealing with scientists and engineers, and I know that even the brightest guys can make some of the dumbest mistakes. But the response post in which Dr. Soon joined was ostensibly a collaboration of four authors, of whom three had PhDs. So it strains credulity that none of them recognized even one of the several errors in undergraduate physics, logic, and math that I pointed out.

        Consequenly, the Monckton et al. paper is the case in which I insist that Dr. Soon’s behavior fell short of exemplary. That’s not just innuendo.

        As I say, I’m inclined to believe despite the Monckton et al. paper that Dr. Soon is in the right with regard to the Smithsonian controversy. But I also believe I’m justified in withholding judgment. And I remain disappointed that the head post provided me little help in making that judgment.

    • Cannot see the forest because of all the trees.

      Cannot define a beach till all the grains of sand are counted.

      etc

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • Joe Born says “But I suspect that I am not the only one (*) who was disappointed not to find a report of the latter in this post–and to find precious little of the former.”

      * A reasonable assumption on a planet with 7 billion people.

      I suspect regular readers have been following the Willie Soon saga for years and a heap of links to things would seem to be unnecessarily pleading, “protesting too much” in a manner of speaking. But I see that someone adversarial coming here would want something more substantial to argue about. Links are not proof but can help the 13 people on Earth (**) that haven’t made up their mind and WUWT *is* apparently the most widely read climate blog in existence. So I reluctantly concede the point that citations are appropriate.

      ** That’s a guess made for illustrative purposes.

  10. I miss the open mindedness that once characterised this site and scepticism as a whole.
    The narrow political focus has spread.

    It’s now very narrow-minded.
    A pity.

    [??? .mod]

      • If I understand MCourtney’s comment correctly (and I suspect I don’t), I sympathize with the sentiment that gave rise to it. Yet it moves me to put my own in perspective.

        Specifically, I try not to lose sight of the fact that this site’s comments policy is more open than the typical catastrophist site’s. And I don’t think enough of us appreciate how hard it is to do what this site pulls off: providing new content frequently enough to attract as large an audience as it enjoys.

        Moreover, I not only want, but am also inclined, to believe that basically Dr. Soon is as earnest and principled a young man as this site portrays him to be. This despite his not only (1) failing to acknowledge the fundamental, undergraduate-level errors I brought up in the Monckton et al. paper he co-authored but also (2) actively denying them.

        Still, I don’t think it’s a coincidence that ever since that denial Mr. Watts has spiked each and every proposed head post I have submitted. To me this suggests a problem that prevents alternate points of view from being fully aired.

        The problem it suggests is an inability on Mr. Watts’ part to make necessary technical judgments. This problem seems in that case to have led him blindly to accept Monckton et al.’s position that whatever I said about their paper was either false or largely irrelevant. Even an undergraduate mastery of the relevant subject matter would have enabled him to recognize that what I said not only was indisputably correct but also went to the heart of the matter—in contrast to the authors’ responses, which, to the extent that they were relevant at all, were technically incoherent bluster.

        The result is a bias that, although no doubt unintentional, does exist and significantly impairs this site’s quality.

      • I love the way liberals assume that the only possible reason why they aren’t getting what they want, is due to political bias.

    • The history of the Climate Wars shows that the blame for where we are now lies squarely on the Alarmists. And things could get even uglier before the CAGW Beast is slain. The fight against lies is an all-out one. It has to be.

    • Open minded liberal have a tendency to be very narrow minded about people who disagree with them.

      In fact, “open minded liberal” is an oxymoron.

      Eugene WR Gallun

    • My point was that this article (like many recently) just asserts that something is proven, instead of discussing it.
      I think Soon is entirely not guilty of the allegations. I think that because I’ve looked into it online.
      But this article is just rabble-rousing / cheer-leading waffle in his cause.

      That’s not helpful

    • Imagine you park yourself on a chair in the middle of a herd. The herd moves left. You are no longer in the herd, in fact, you are conspicuously to the right of the herd. Your choice, to a certain extent, is made for you and you need not do anything to have that choice made for you.

      It is not clear to me what is the indicator of an open mind or why that is automatically preferable to a correct mind. Open is useful in the learning stage; but at some point a thing is learned and then you start using what you have learned. You can always learn something else of course; perhaps study multi-layer interference filtering used in Enchroma sunglasses.

      My mind is not open to new values of “Pi”. It may be open to how exactly that value is calculated. Well, it’s open but it is like a sieve, it goes right on through. Something about a Taylor Series (if I remember right).

  11. I found no reference in the article about who is ‘indicting**’ the ‘journalists’ who are ‘covering the climate debate’.

    Please advise, does anyone knows of the indictment**? It would be important news.

    ** indict ::= formally accuse of or charge with a serious crime.

    NOTE: Great analysis of the Smithsonian’s processes for fund seeking/approval/control.

    John

    • John Whitman

      Legally “charge” is a sub meaning of “formally accuse”. “Formally accuse” implies a planned accusation made in a public format. You can formally accuse in a speech, in a newspaper article, on TV, etc.

      Eugene WR Gallun

      .

      .

  12. To a liberal, the only unethical behavior is not doing what ever they can to advance the cause.

  13. Anthony Watts: A suggestion for this site. I recommend that you institute a WALL OF SHAME title, which includes the names of those who make baseless and scurrilous accusations against honest scientists like Willie Soon and others, and provides details of these smearing individuals; their lack of science, their affiliations, their qualifications.
    Mr. Arnold’s article gives you some of those names. They need to be named and shown up to be the charlatans that they are.
    Bravo Willie Soon.

    • We also need a list of organizations, institutions, and media outlets for when the long term cycles are more obviously in down cycle mode along with global warming scare. There will be a lot of hiding and rewriting of history and vanished webpages in that process but the degree of manipulation needs to be documented for all time.

    • maybe some hilarious Alarm rating system, like Chili has, Hansen 2015 was certainly 5 alarm bell chili :D

  14. Thanks for this information guys… nice post, i really worry about global warming.. cz it’s make extreme seasons…

  15. The establishment torch & pitchfork persecution of Soon is without doubt the single most significant factor which makes me sometimes jam a fork in my leg in order to assure myself that I’m not in fact asleep or hallucinating. A brilliant and respected astrophysicist has the outrageous temerity to forward his scientifically arrived at position with respect to the effect the Sun – that’s this planet’s near neighbouring star – has on climate and global temperatures and he is subjected to treatment more usually reserved for extreme seditionists. The Dark Ages are beginning to resemble a time of tolerance and enlightenment in which science and the arts flourished unfettered.

  16. Holy clickbait Batman!.

    Nowhere in the article do any facts that cleared or indicted anyone actually appear.

    • Christopher Paino on May 9, 2016 at 7:45 am

      – – – – – –

      Christopher Paino,

      In the article there is a statement that the Smithsonian’s Inspector General investigated and found no wrongdoing by Dr Willie Soon. But there is no statement in the article about an indictment of ‘jounalists covering climate debate’, there is only the ‘indicting’ claim in the article’s title.

      John

    • That is what is missing is an actual statement from the Smithsonian that it cleared Dr. Soon,but I long knew he was innocent because of the provided documents posted none other than the NYT newspaper.

  17. I appreciate the clear explanation of how their grant process works and the separation safeguards they have in place. That was not clear in previous attempts to defend Dr. Soon.

    • Monckton stated the reality from early on in actual fact, in detail. harvard let Soon take all that flak knowing damn well the details of financial procurement, one press statement would have ended the false accusations, now I hope that Dr Soon’s lawyers will be busy in the coming months. She should sue the Granuiad because they ran a bogus story on him that was based on lies.

      Nothing would be sweeter than seeing that liberal rag have to hand over a cheque for a few hundred k

  18. They say that best revenge is living well. If Mr Trump does manage to get elected President perhaps he might be encouraged to appoint Dr Soon as his Science adviser.

    michael

      • When asked for an example of who would make a good SC Justice, Trump cited his sister.

        His sister is about as far left as jurists come.

        Anyone relying on Trump to appoint conservative justices, is fooling themselves.

      • MarkW May 9, 2016 at 9:48 am

        There will be a lot of horse trading between Mr Trump and the RNC for its support. I believe S.C.J. will be near the top of the list.
        Lets see what happens.

        michael

  19. To: Greenpeace agent Kert Davies,

    Copy: The two activist-writers, David Hasemyer, who worked for the controversial InsideClimateNews, and Paul Basken, who worked for The Chronicle of Higher Education

    Regarding: Unjustified ‘Conflict of Interest’ Claims

    – are by all means bad ending.

  20. Code of Ethics in Journalism? About as binding as the Oath of Office to most politicians.

  21. The famous quote from Robert A. Heinlein still applies: “Political tags – such as royalist, communist, democrat, populist, fascist, liberal, conservative, and so forth – are never basic criteria. The human race divides politically into those who want people to be controlled and those who have no such desire.”
    It is the nature of those who seek to control others to pursue careers in politics, and it is the nature of those who wish to have others think for them to support the would-be controllers. Those who neither want to control nor be controlled often remain on the sidelines – until their toes have been trod upon one too many times.

    • That sidelined body have had their toes continuously run over by an endless procession of road rollers for the last several several decades now. Slowly and painfully they are at last starting to move – and they really aren’t very happy about what the incumbent dug-in liberal ticks have been doing to them and their cultures. It isn’t going to be pretty.

  22. So Dr. Soon produce a research paper or papers that I ndicated that perhaps some of the force behind global warming was a function of solar energy. A lot of individuals who are climate deniers ( not conservatives, Republicans, gun lovers, Southern Good ol’ boys, or any others as a group) leapt up on Dr. Soon’s research to try and build a case that anthropogenic climate change was a fraud. As best as I understand it, Dr. soon never took the position that anthropogenic climate change was a fraud nor did his research support that conclusion. So then individuals who are climate change ideologists, (not liberals, east coast Ivy League Snobs, Democrats, or any others as a monolithic group) went set off to prove that Dr. Soon’s research was not objective. It turns out that the research was not biased. Essentially two groups formed out of the general scrum of idiots and fought over research data for their own emotionally based agendas. Its almost as if someone wrote a list of street names and two street gangs got into a fight over which street were in their respective turf. “Against stupidity the gods themselves rail in vain.”

  23. If you haven’t already see it, Dr Soon was a major contributor to the documentary The Changing Climate of Global Warming. He is an extremely honest and ethical man, and his comments convey that.

  24. Ah, now after six hours i see it

    “Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists”

    Would that have been so hard just to point out instead of being stroppy?

    Still vague though unlless the decison is available tp the public

    • Lawrence13 May 9, 2016 at 5:17 pm
      Well, give the man a cigar.
      Six hrs,, well cheer up despite a few people’s efforts there are still some out there who have not caught on.
      read once read twice. and still you can miss something vital. Me included, especially me!

      michael :-D

      • Yes but it was hidden in one line and its fairly vague with no back up, so why are people so fast to insult . I was very tired when I read it and to be honest it was almost buried in the author’s opinion.

  25. In order stem the tide, we must wrest control of educational institutions and the media from the social regressive statists. There is no free media and there is no free speech left. It’s all controlled by the statists. C6 is first, last and always a statist endeavor. (C6 = Catastrophic Caucasian Caused Carbon Climate Change)

  26. Generally facts are only occasionally relevant in politics, and climate science is political. But there is an alarming trend in America of shutting down speech. It is extraordinary, something Chairman Mao would be proud of. As this article attests expressing facts and/or opinion concerning climate is equivalent to fraud and I guess warrants being sent to the re-indoctrination camps.

    http://www.thenation.com/article/note-to-exxon-lying-about-climate-change-isnt-free-speech-its-fraud/

  27. Here is further evidence of deplorable behaviour from the warmist camp, excerpted from an article I wrote circa 2005 and published in Energy & Environment:

    “Mann eliminated from the climate record both the Medieval Warm Period, a period from about 900 to 1500 AD when global temperatures were generally warmer than today, and also the Little Ice Age from about 1500 to 1800 AD, when temperatures were colder.

    Mann’s conclusion contradicted hundreds of previous studies on this subject, but was adopted without question by Kyoto advocates.

    In the April 2003 issue of Energy and Environment, Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and co-authors wrote a review of over 250 research papers that concluded that the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were true climatic anomalies with world-wide imprints – contradicting Mann’s hockey stick and undermining the basis of Kyoto. Soon et al were then attacked in EOS, the journal of the American Geophysical Union.

    In the July 2003 issue of GSA Today, University of Ottawa geology professor Jan Veizer and Israeli astrophysicist Nir Shaviv concluded that temperatures over the past 500 million years correlate with changes in cosmic ray intensity as Earth moves in and out of the spiral arms of the Milky Way. The geologic record showed no correlation between atmospheric CO2 concentrations and temperatures, even though prehistoric CO2 levels were often many times today’s levels. Veizer and Shaviv also received “special attention” from EOS.

    In both cases, the attacks were unprofessional – first, these critiques should have been launched in the journals that published the original papers, not in EOS. Also, the victims of these attacks were not given advanced notice, nor were they were given the opportunity to respond in the same issue. In both cases the victims had to wait months for their rebuttals to be published, while the specious attacks were circulated by the pro-Kyoto camp.

    Scientists opposed to Kyoto have now been vindicated. As a result of a Material Complaint filed by Ross McKitrick of the University of Guelph and Steven McIntyre, Nature issued a Corrigendum in July 2004, a correction of Mann’s hockey stick. It acknowledged extensive errors in the description of the Mann data set, and conceded that key steps in the computations were left out and conflicted with the descriptions in the original paper.”

    **************************

  28. https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/01/27/midgets-try-to-bite-dr-willie-soons-ankles/#comment-1846678

    Thank you Willis and Tim.

    Sallie’s withdrawal from the scientific community was a tragedy for the USA and the world – she IS that competent.

    Willie Soon is obviously a very capable and principled individual who has withstood extremist persecution and has carried on.

    I admire Sallie and Willie very much, and appreciate that you have both shed light on some of the odious vermin who have persecuted them.

    Again, thank you Willis and Tim.

    Best, Allan

Comments are closed.