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.
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
Stupid typo “He should sue” lol
Try reading the article, make sure you have your eyes open.
Above post is to Forrest Gardener … It jumped to bottom of thread..
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
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/
It’s a rehab of the word “indict”.
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?
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.
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.
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
And then there’s the Supreme Court…
http://americandigest.org/sidelines/acandidate.jpg
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
When it comes to the RNC, I have even less faith in them than I do Trump.
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.
Who knows what will go on in Hillary’s bunker. It could be a token topic out of sight and out of mind, or a good place for Bill to hang out.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/jeffmcmahon/2016/05/08/hillary-clinton-plans-a-climate-map-room-in-the-white-house-podesta/?ss=energy#61410bd11912
Code of Ethics in Journalism? About as binding as the Oath of Office to most politicians.
Willie Soon is a scientist, unlike the cowards tormenting him
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.
Mr. Gardener:
Please count me among those impressed by your lapidary statement of the head post’s problem.
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).
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.”
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.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=45m46s
This is what started it all, thirteen years ago:
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/news/archive/pr0310.html
That put Drs. Soon and Baliunas in the Left’s sights. They told the truth: the MWP was warmer than the present.
Can’t have that.
“In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.”
~ George Orwell
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 😀
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.
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)
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/
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.”
**************************
Full article at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/11/28/the-team-trying-to-get-direct-action-on-soon-and-baliunas-at-harvard/#comment-811913
http://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
Our government has long since sunk into the pit of far-left Lysenkoism. Stalin would approve wholeheartedly.
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?
“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.