At the length truth will out

By Andy May

Some will recognize the title as part of a line by Launcelot Gobbo in Act II, scene 2 of Shakespeare’s The Merchant of Venice. In plainer and much less poetic language it means that the truth will be known eventually. The film version, with Al Pacino playing Shylock, is the best in my amateur opinion. The play is considered anti-semitic by some, but is actually a carefully considered analysis of bias and prejudice and their awful effect on people. It opens the dark world of prejudice to the light, uncovering it for all to see. It does this in the same way Huckleberry Finn opens the injustice of slavery to the light of day. Sometimes we need to see all the bad out in the open, as uncomfortable as it may be to look at or discuss.

We are all seeing a shift in opinion about the so-called dangers of man-made climate change. It has taken a long time, but there is an awakening to the idea that climate changes, man’s activities may play some role in the changes, but the role of man is likely small and not very dangerous. In any case, the public believes (correctly in my opinion) it is way too early to panic.

So, with all this in mind, I’d like to share a short lecture on bias, prejudice and intimidation in climate science by Dr. Willie Soon. The December 8, 2016 lecture can be seen on Youtube here or by clicking on figure 1, the slide deck he uses can be downloaded here.

Figure 1, Dr. Willie Soon delivering his talk on bias and intimidation in climate science. Click on the figure to hear the talk at Youtube.com

The viciousness of the media attacks on the reputation of Dr. Soon are amazing, considering his long-established credentials as an astrophysicist and climate scientist. It was gratifying that Myron Ebell (Trump’s pick to lead the EPA transition) leapt to Dr. Soon’s defense when the New York Times shamefully published an unwarranted and untrue attack on him. The article was written by Greenpeace. The New York Times placed it on their front page (see Dr. Soon’s second slide) and unethically disguised it as an article by two of their reporters. Mr. Ebell’s expose can be read here. Other sources that uncover the dishonesty in the New York Times reporting can be read here and here.

As bad as the attacks on Dr. Soon are, they pale in comparison to the attacks on science itself. Dr. Soon’s talk details the complete corruption of the peer-review process in climate science. I was once on the SPWLA (Society of Petrophysics and Well Log Analysts, the journal Petrophysics) publications committee and can assure you that the actions described by Dr. Soon are far more egregious and corrupt than any I have seen in a long publishing career.

Further, even though Dr. Soon had no direct support from the Southern Company as Greenpeace and the New York Times claimed, what if he did have? Why does the government have to be the only source of research funding? Clearly, the climate change debate is political and no longer scientific. We have the proponents of dangerous man-made climate change claiming the science is settled and a “consensus” of (government funded) scientists certifying it is dangerous. Since when has science ever been “settled?” Settled issues are political issues, not scientific issues. Likewise, consensus is a political word, not a scientific one. We have politicians, pundits and environmentalists who wish to jail “deniers.” Of course, it is political, as a result one would hope that funding for climate research was not all from the government. The government is clearly biased.

Dr. Soon clearly shows the bias against one point of view on climate change and the suppression of dissenting views, no matter how well they are supported. He shows that prejudice against dissenting views exists and that dissenters will be punished, humiliated and tormented. I have no illusion that my small post will heal his wounds or repair his reputation, but I hope it brings some daylight to this issue and illuminates the abusers. The only way to confront this sort of behavior, behavior that thrives in darkness, is to force it into the light. Shakespeare and Twain knew this, we need to follow their lead.

Advertisements

113 thoughts on “At the length truth will out

  1. Dr. Wei Hok (Willie) Soon is also quite a funny guy. I’ve had the pleasure of exchanging a couple of e-mails with him (probably long since hacked), as he gracefully; excuse me that’s “graciously ” answered some questions I had after reading his book “The Maunder Minimum, and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.”

    I keep it handy for ready reference.

    G

    What the hell; gracefully works too !

  2. I saw his presentation during the conference (online streaming – couldn’t be in DC that day). I think he could have spoken on this for five hours and not covered all the material. He was well spoken, but he seemed very rushed like there was a lot more he wanted to say and didn’t have time. What he did say made me pretty angry, but did not surprise me. I have seen much of this hinted at in the climategate emails and while watching the smear of Dr. Soon unfold in the press at the time.

    • These attacks are not new.
      I defended Soon, Baliunas and others including Veizer and Shaviv in an article published in E&E circa Feb2005.
      Posting from an iPhone so difficult.
      Google “Drive-by Shootings in Kyotoville” for the text.
      Happy New Year to all, Allan

      • DRIVE-BY SHOOTINGS IN KYOTOVILLE
        The global warming debate heats up
        Energy and Environment, circa 2005
        Allan M.R. MacRae

        [excerpts]

        Drive-by shootings have moved from the slums of our cities to the realms of academia. Any scientist who dares challenge the Kyoto Protocol faces a vicious assault, a turf war launched by the pro-Kyoto gang.

        These pro-Kyoto attacks are not merely unprofessional – often of little scientific merit, they are intended to intimidate and silence real academic debate on the Kyoto Protocol, a global treaty to limit the production of greenhouse gases like CO2 that allegedly cause catastrophic global warming.
        ,,,

        But such bullying is not unique, as other researchers who challenged the scientific basis of Kyoto have learned.

        Of particular sensitivity to the pro-Kyoto gang is the “hockey stick” temperature curve of 1000 to 2000 AD, as proposed by Michael Mann of University of Virginia and co-authors in Nature.

        Mann’s hockey stick indicates that temperatures fell only slightly from 1000 to 1900 AD, after which temperatures increased sharply as a result of humanmade increases in atmospheric CO2. Mann concluded: “Our results suggest that the latter 20th century is anomalous in the context of at least the past millennium. The 1990s was the warmest decade, and 1998 the warmest year, at moderately high levels of confidence.”

        Mann’s conclusion is the cornerstone of the scientific case supporting Kyoto. However, Mann is incorrect.

        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 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.

        Hans von Storch et al further criticized Mann’s work in the September 30, 2004 issue of Science Express. Von Storch commented in a Der Spiegel interview: “We were able to show in a publication in Science that this [hockey stick] graph contains assumptions that are not permissible. Methodologically it is wrong: Rubbish.” Researchers from the University of East Anglia and the University of Utah have expressed similar concerns.

        The truth is there never has been any solid scientific evidence in favor of Kyoto. From the beginning, Kyoto has been politically driven, replete with flawed science and scary scenarios for which there is no evidence.

        Kyoto advocates should finally admit that their pet project is foolish and anti-environmental – Kyoto is a massive waste of scarce global resources that should be used to alleviate real problems, not squandered on fictitious ones.

        Allan M. R. MacRae is a professional engineer based in Calgary.

  3. My sincere hope is that the Trump administration will reverse the lunacy that has created the mess that climate science has become. I also hope that scientific facts are publicized by the new administration to counter the adjusted history which began with Mann’s hockey stick and Hansen’s adjustments. The administration will have its hands full rescinding all the regulations which are based on unproven hypotheses.

    • Re:
      “The administration will have its hands full rescinding all the regulations which are based on unproven hypotheses.”

      The overwhelming probability is that the CAGW hypothesis is false. Since 1940, atmospheric CO2 is up, but global temperatures are down, up and sideways. NO correlation. None. Done.

      • Ignoring GISS then, here’s HadCRUT4 vrs CO2 since 1958 (since when accurate atmospheric CO2 data became available). The data show running 12-month averages, which smooths out the seasonal signal in CO2 and reduces noise in the temperature data, but does not influence the trend. The data are ‘normalised’, meaning that they are shown on a comparable scale for ease of comparison.

        http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/mean:12/normalise/plot/esrl-co2/from:1958/mean:12/normalise/plot/hadcrut4gl/from:1958/trend/normalise

        The blue line shows the trend in global surface temperatures. The green line is the smoothed CO2 increase. Note: HadCRUT4 is widely accepted as being at the low end of the surface warming scale due to its limited Arctic coverage.

      • So what do you expect the incoming administration might do in light of Obama’s recent public pout about “Russians influencing US elections” ??

        If I read between the lines; it seems that Obama is shouting out to American citizens that they have no right to have the secret machinations conducted behind closed doors to the detriment of their pre-election knowledge base; a job normally carried out by investigative journalists carrying out their duty to satisfy the Americans’ right to know, revealed to them in time to vote intelligently.

        The information supposedly hacked by the Russians, was presumably already in the public domain (same as MY e-mails are). Oh yes I am going to believe that NO USA MSM “news” source was even vaguely aware of the sordid details that came to light.

        The “media” saw fit to make public, “The Pentagon Papers” stolen from top secret sources; but evidently don’t think they should be revealing democrat (or republican) skullduggery that they become aware of.

        Yes Obama’s purely party political pout, it just another act in his venomous scorched earth get out of town program.

        We still have more than three weeks, for this madness mayhem to continue, before the people’s choice (through their State Electors) replacement for the past eight years of corruption gets a chance to start recovery.

        In the end, the big losers are going to be the Democrat party, once Americans learn just how badly they have screwed up the system over the last eight years.

        I do hope that POTUS2B has his US Marshalls all primed to drain the swamp; come Jan 20 or whenever the change is made.

        G

      • “””””…..
        DWR54

        December 29, 2016 at 1:41 pm

        Ignoring GISS then, here’s HadCRUT4 vrs CO2 since 1958 (since when accurate atmospheric CO2 data became available). The data show running 12-month averages, which smooths out the seasonal signal in CO2 …..”””””

        You want to run that by one more time.

        The ML CO2 data gathered since IGY 1957/58 shows in exquisite detail the full atmospheric CO2 change due to climate throughout the year at Mauna Loa. There is NO 12 month running average of it.

        Nor does ANY reputable claimed substitute for global Temperature data show any imaginable linkage of any kind to that ML data.

        Now ML CO2 is just a single point one location observation, so it is not ANY kind of proxy for global atmospheric CO2 molecular abundance; but it shows an almost daily fluctuation that is quite distinct, and is similarly found anywhere else where CO2 is accurately measured.

        But absolutely NOWHERE on planet earth does any kind of Temperature or proxy for same, appear to be influenced by the very clear and very large (6-20 ppmm) yearly cycle in CO2.

        Yes we DO know that CO2 is a so-called GHG and DOES absorb for a short delay, outgoing LWIR EM radiation. That is well understood. What is not apparent, is how that results in changes in climate temperatures, which seem to be far more influenced by cloud changes than anything else (besides seasons)

        G

      • To: DWR54 December 29, 2016 at 1:41 pm
        Nice to have a huge el-nino to pull it back into the pattern isn’t it? Oh but el-ninos have nothing to do with CO2. So here is the test, come back in 2 years once the la-nina runs it’s course and see how your graph looks.

      • DWR54: “The blue line shows the trend in global surface temperatures. ”

        There is no global temperature. It’s a fantasy.

      • Jeff Alberts:

        There is no global temperature. It’s a fantasy.

        Well said. In the same way that ML CO2 is not global; nor will the average of all the lottery numbers drawn give me any indication as to the trend in lottery draws.

      • “Nice to have a huge el-nino to pull it back into the pattern isn’t it? ”

        Not especially “nice” – just normal as that is what a cycle does, -ve PDO/ENSO > +ve PDO/ENSO > repeat.

        “Oh but el-ninos have nothing to do with CO2.”

        Correct in that the cycling remains the same … however there is more energy to be rleased by EN waters due the ongoing OHC build-up.

        “So here is the test, come back in 2 years once the la-nina runs it’s course and see how your graph looks.”

        Unlikely as they don’t do that anymore.
        So the graph will prob be a continuation of this ……..

        Notice how (generally) EN’s and LN’s are following a rising trend?
        Now why would that be?

      • And to add my “2-cents” to all the above “nit-picking”, ….. to wit:

        There sure as ell isn’t any such thing as a global average body temperature of 98.6°F for humans, …… and there sure as ell isn’t any such thing as a global average pulse rate of 60 to 100 beats per minute for humans, …… and there sure as ell isn’t any such thing as a global average blood pressure of 120/80 mm Hg for humans, …… but those globally recognized non-existent global average references that are denoted above …… are sure as hell mighty important reference information for/to Health Providers and Doctors that are trying to diagnose health problems of earth’s human populations, …… that is iffen they understand the significance of said “reference data”.

        And likewise, globally recognized non-existent global average Mauna Loa atmospheric CO2 ppm quantity/quantities that are denoted in the 58 year Mauna Loa Record…… are sure as hell mighty important reference information for/to scientists studying the “causes and effects” of earth’s changing climate, …… that is iffen they understand the significance of said “reference data”.

        Cheers

    • It’s already happening. Suddenly, before our eyes, in the space of just a few weeks it is suddenly socially acceptable to question the “97% consensus” on AGW. Openly. Trump is leading from the front by doing it himself, and his Cabinet appointments speak for themselves. “We will have the cleanest air, the cleanest water, in the United States . . . ” BUT U.S. funding of the UN’s “climate” fiction factory is at an end. This is only one issue causing Trump Derangement Syndrome on the Left; because they’d not only taken the bait for the last 30 years, they swallowed the hook and got it lodged in their gut! Stand strong, everyone–and pull away the curtain to show the Mann behind the levers of that smoke-and-mirrors machine. MAGA!

    • Wrong, Sam Cogar. There are no such things as globally averaged body temps or pulse rates. They are just the norms of a physical condition. GAT is a different animal altogether – like a unicorn, it does not exist.

      • Well the GAT is the same all over the planet, and it is somewhere between -94 deg. C and + 60 deg. C as determined by surface measurements; surface being here defined as an air / non-air interface.

        And every place on the planet, totally ignores the average planet temperature, so they don’t care what it is, since it is seldom their temperature.

        G

      • There are no such things as globally averaged body temps or pulse rates.

        WHOA there, Harry Passfield, …. are you telling me that those “average body temps and pulse rates” are different in every country around the world ….. and that those “Doctors Without Borders” hafta carry a “fact sheet” with them that defines the body temps and pulse rates for the resident population of the country they are doing their doctoring in?

        Surely you jest, Harry.

        And Harry, iffen you think/believe that human body temperatures …. “are just the norms of a physical condition” ….. then pray tell me just why it is that you actually think/believe that the earth’s near-surface air temperatures …….. “are NOT the norms of a physical condition”?

      • Samuel Cogar: You need to understand what is a norm and what is an average. Freezing point and boiling points are defined and set as norms; man’s body temp of 98.6F (37C) is the norm, not an average. You then aske me:

        […]why it is that you actually think/believe that the earth’s near-surface air temperatures …….. “are NOT the norms of a physical condition”?

        But that’s a different argument. I was saying that GAT is a nonsense: that’s Global AVERAGE Temperature. It seems to me you mistook it for global air temp.

      • Harry Passfield, you really need to cease with your “digging” ….. because the hole you are in is just getting deeper.

        And unless you are just “funning me” for the sake of argument to give you a reason to “post” your commentary ……. then it is you who needs to better educate yourself on the origin and accepted usages of the words “norm(s)” and ”average(s)”.

        And Harry, the 1st thing you need to learn is, …… one cannot define the “norm” or normal happening/occurring of an “event” …… unless one first calculates the “average” of the recorded “number-set” of said “events”. Therefore, the “average” defines the “norm” …… and one cannot define a “norm” without first calculating the “average” number of the “number-set” in question.

        And Harry, the 2nd thing you need to learn is, …… “Yes”, freezing points and boiling points of different substances are defined and set as “norms” ….. but in those cases the “norm” implies “at standard temperature and pressure (STP)”.

        Also Harry, the human body temp of 98.6F (37C) is a calculated “average” that the medical field recognizes as being the “normal” temperature of a healthy person.

        And “YES”, Harry, I agree that GAT is “junk-science” nonsense, ….. which brings up the 3rd thing you need to learn, and that is, unless otherwise specified, …… all GAT (global average temperatures) you read or hear about are, in ACTUALITY, the recorded, assumed and/or guessed-at …….. temperature of the earth’s near-surface atmosphere, ……. or TECHNICALLY, the temperature of the gas molecules that are resident in earth’s atmosphere (no gases, ….. no atmosphere).

    • My sincere hope is that Mr Trump has some good, solid people around him who will point out the susurrations of the alarmist crowd are simply misinformation and for him not to be distracted.

  4. Funding by an energy company is funding by an interested party, and hence raises questions about the objectivity of the research. But as we know, governments are interested parties too, so a history of funding by government grants is equally a warning flag about potentially biased research. This path lead us to the point where only truly independent researchers, like McIntyre, Eschenbach, and Nic Lewis, can be taken to be offering unbiased research.

      • I thought the funding was to his University rather than Dr Soon direct. I hope that somebody else with closer knowledge can put Nick Stokes right on this.

      • All funding went to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. All funds Dr. Soon received were from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center. He disclosed his funding. The big lie from Greenpeace, NY Times and even the center itself, was that he received funding directly from energy companies, which was never true. It was just made up in an attempt to discredit him. There is no way to sugar-coat this.

      • as i recall it was a deal with the smithsonian that required non-disclosure.
        also, as i recall, it was the smithsonian that cashed the check from Southern.

      • “I thought the funding was to his University rather than Dr Soon direct”
        All such funding is always to the institution, and should always be disclosed. For that we have the authority of Willie Soon himself in 2008:
        “The rules of the leading journals in which my research is published are clear: the sources of funding must be openly declared in the paper, so peer reviewers can take them into account when deciding whether the scientific analysis has sufficient merit to justify publication.”

      • “All funding went to the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. All funds Dr. Soon received were from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center. “
        The events were hardly unconnected. Dr Soon sought out the contracts with Southern and other firms. He wrote reports to the firms on what was done with the funding. He described the papers he wrote as deliverables.
        If you argue that funding to the institution is unconnected tot he researcher, then funding would never need to be disclosed.

      • ‘“Funding by an energy company is funding by an interested party”
        The issue wasn’t the funding, but the non-disclosure.’

        Right, Nick, the failure of the NY Times to disclose that their “article” was a Greenpeace hit.

      • Nick,

        you are full of it here,since your RED HERRING is stupid!

        Stop trying to keep alive the attacks on Soon,who didn’t break any laws or intentionally deceive anyone.

      • “Right, Nick, the failure of the NY Times to disclose”
        No one has suggested that Greenpeace funded the NYTimes article, which was written by two well-known NYT journalists. They disclosed Greenpeace as a source:
        “The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week.”

      • Nick Stokes December 29, 2016 at 2:00 pm

        Hello Nick, first hope your Christmas was good.

        Now it seems that Dr Soon maintains that the papers in question were done on his own time.
        Now unless it can be proven that he was on the clock and used Smithsonian equipment to create said documents the whole escapade is merely a unsophisticated attempt at character assassination.

        In point if Soon wrote a live letter or op piece would he have to declare the funds granted to the Smithsonian?

        And you Nick, Does your employer have similar requirements? If so by your own observations you should be making “conflict of interest statements” every time you post here. Such a stand is ridiculous, all of us know that.
        Dr Soon should not be held to a unique standard.

        michael

      • So, Soon received funding, indirectly, through his institution, by normal channels, on at least one occasion, from Southern. Wow.

        In his video, linked above, Soon points out that he was being criticised for a mere letter to an editor, that he says he wrote easily in his spare time. A letter that required no research or funding.

        You are up to your usual tricks here, Stokes Shift.

      • In most research papers, funding sources are declared not due to real or perceived conflicts of interest but because the funding agencies expect it. If the donors do not demand it, then the funding needs to be declared only if it creates a potential conflict of interest.

        If Soon indeed described future research publications as “deliverables”, he simply acknowledged that he is going to use the funds for performing research, as opposed to furnishing his office, laboratory, or private garage. Accepting an obligation to use research funding for research purposed does of course not create a conflict of interest.

        It is only when there are strings attached to the funding, i.e. an agreement that certain potential findings would be suppressed because they would harm the economic interest of the donor, that such a conflict might arise. Say, I accept funding from Bayer for a clinical trial on some Magic Blue Pill, and I sign a clause that prevents me from publishing any findings of significant side effects. THEN I need to declare a conflict of interest.

        What we are looking at here, however, is not a paper on lung disease funded by Big Tobacco. It is absurd to posit that a paper which compares the changes in albedo in the tropics with those in polar regions would intersect with the commercial interests of any private donor, wherever their particular economic interests may lie. As such, the “non-disclosure of conflict of interest” is just nonsense.

      • Soon unfortunately didn’t state his own case very effectively, thus leaving the door open to the sort of sophistry and innuendo that Prosecutor Stokes is offering up here. It is perhaps unsurprising that someone who shows little common sense in scientific matters fares no better in legal ones. The longer I observe this debate, the more strongly I feel the one trait all warmists share — old and young, slim or fat, bald or hairy, educated or not — is their profound lack of common sense.

      • @Mike the M
        “Now it seems that Dr Soon maintains that the papers in question were done on his own time.”
        No, they were done subject to contracts between Smithsonian and Southern (and Donors Trust). Contracts which Dr Soon iniated and reported on. But in any case, the issue is reporting the funding to the Journal.

        “And you Nick, Does your employer have similar requirements?”
        I don’t have an employer, at least, not one that pays me. But it isn’t a matter of the employer’s requirements. The issue is Dr Soon writing scientific papers in Journals, and the disclosure requirement that goes with that.

        @Michael Palmer
        “It is absurd to posit that a paper … would intersect with the commercial interests of any private donor”
        If absurd, then why are they funding it? A reasonable question, which you can ask if the funding is disclosed.

      • Nick, you need to ask them, not me about the guiding principles of their science funding. It is, however, quite common for industrial companies to fund research within the general area of their interests, and sometimes beyond. The seem to do it for building general goodwill and to show off their success.

      • N1ck St0kes: Your statement (they were done subject to contracts between Smithsonian and Southern (and Donors Trust)) at 3:49pm, today is, per Dr. Willie Soon’s eyewitness testimony in the above video, wrong.

        If you knew that to be the case, you are a liar. I do not know that. The burden of proof, nevertheless, is on you to prove that you did not know was a lie. That is, unless you can prove that someone deceived you about your false statement about Dr. Soon, your reckless** assertion is libel.

        ** The mens rea for “reckless” is knowing that, while it was not certain, there was a great likelihood of harm being caused by your intentional act.

      • “…The documents were obtained by Greenpeace, the environmental group, under the Freedom of Information Act. Greenpeace and an allied group, the Climate Investigations Center, shared them with several news organizations last week…”

        FOIA? In climate science, that’s an “attack” and “harassment!” Surely Mann, the Climate Science Legal Defense Fund, and a number of Nick’s pals came to Soon’s defense and spoke-out against Greenpeace?

        So the problem is a lack of disclosure…but the paper is solid? Soon is solid except for this possible indiscretion? Let’s hear it, Nick.

      • “today is, per Dr. Willie Soon’s eyewitness testimony in the above video, wrong”
        As usual, nothing in writing. So why do you think it is wrong? And a lie??? I think it is perfectly obvious. Here the contract is displayed at the head of a WUWT thread:

      • “FOIA? In climate science, that’s an “attack” and “harassment!””
        I think it can be used as harassment. But seeking contracts binding public bodies, and reports made under them, seems like what FOI was intended for.

      • Nick Stokes: One only needs to reads through this thread to realize how political and non-scientific this has become. Had Dr. Soon disclosed that the Southern Company had contributed money to the Smithsonian-Harvard Center, that paid his salary would we now be debating why he did not disclose every utility customer of the Southern Company as an indirect funder of his research? Why, I bet Coca Cola is a customer, that’s a HUGE conflict of interest! Forget the politics and look to the science, Dr. Soon was correct and MBH was wrong, period. We all know that. This BS about disclosing funding of funding is a smoke screen, like nearly all of the alarmist arguments I’ve seen. They are wrong on the facts so they grab anything (true or not) that might distract the public. Problem is, it is no longer working. You will be able to separate the scientists from the politicians though. The politicians will never listen to the data or analysis, they will never admit they are wrong. The true scientists will have the intelligence to admit when they are proven wrong by data or good analysis.

      • Nick Stokes December 29, 2016 at 5:20 pm
        Hello Nick.
        “No, they were done subject to contracts between Smithsonian and Southern (and Donors Trust). Contracts which Dr Soon iniated and reported on. But in any case, the issue is reporting the funding to the Journal.”

        Again I submit as did Janice that Dr Soon has stated that he created the documents in question on his own time. Can you prove he was on the clock and used Smithsonian equipment, to create and publish said documents.
        Does the contract you presented require or suggest he create specifically the documents in question?
        Nick Dr Soon as well as anyone else has the right to Publicly engage in in debate and discussion..
        You don’t surrender your civil rights upon signing a contract (at least not in the United States).

        michael

      • @Mike the Morlock
        “Again I submit as did Janice that Dr Soon has stated that he created the documents in question on his own time”
        But again, nothing in writing. And no specifics. What are the “documents in question”?

        I see looking that the slides that Dr Soon’s rambling presentation has the effect of a bait and switch. He starts pointing to the front page of the NY Times. But then he nominates three separate issues (Soon&B, 2003, cancellation of something at AGU, and PNAS 2015) which are nothing to do with the NYT article. Meanwhile, such a deluge of special pleading and indignation here that no-one knows any longer what they are talking about.

        The documents in question for the NYT article were a series of articles written with funding from Southern and Donors trust. Again, here is the main WUWT thread in issue. It doesn’t help that Kip Hansen says he’s so emotional about it that he can’t bring himself to say what the NYT actually said. But you can read his links.

        “Does the contract you presented require or suggest he create specifically the documents in question?”

        Yes. Here is just one extract from the regular reports he provided, in this case to Donor’s Trust:

        If you look through the NYT docs, you will find numerous files showing his accounting, charging donors for hours spent on the designated project, of which the papers were the deliverables.

        “You don’t surrender your civil rights upon signing a contract”
        Of course not. But if you publish in a journal that requires funding disclosure, you are breaking the rules if you don’t disclose. And it’s a feeble excuse to say that you promised the donor not to disclose. If you did that, you can’t publish in such a journal.

      • Nick Stokes December 29, 2016 at 8:35 pm
        Hi Nick, I know I am running you through the wringer but lets clarify some stuff. First is Southern Donors Trust a stand alone account within the Smithsonian or are there multiple donors with the funds from various donors mixed.
        Simply, can an audit show that the funds from “Southern” were used. Can it even be proved that such funds from southern remained in its own account at the time soon sent in his “final report”?
        Nick I have not checked myself, I don’t know how Smithsonian’s accounting works. If the funds are mixed then Soon is payed by the Smithsonian. Not Southern.
        Now I bid you good night I am off to play “Master of Orion” and destroy some civilizations

        michael

      • Mike,
        “can an audit show that the funds from “Southern” were used”
        Here’s how it works. Dr Soon goes to Southern with a proposal:

        These docs are extracts from the FOIA dump. The proposal has a budget section itemising costing, of which the biggest item is Soon’s salary.. What happens then seems to vary. Sometimes there is just an upfront payment, as with Donor’s Trust here

        And sometimes there is a kind of billing, as with Exxon here:

      • Nick still doesn’t get it.

        While research papers often declare their funding sources, this is usually not because of “conflicts of interest” but because the donor expects to be acknowledged. There is NO general, blanket obligation to disclose one’s donors.

        If Soon had indeed intended to pass this particular paper off as a “deliverable” to the particular donor in question, he would in all likelihood have acknowledged them explicitly in the paper. That he did not do so supports his claim that he considered this paper not to be relevant to his relationship with this donor.

        It is completely outlandish for the PNAS editors to first decide for him whether or not this paper should be considered funded by Southern, and then further to decide that the assumed relationship constituted a conflict of interest that would have to be disclosed. Whether or not malice was involved here, it was certainly gross malfeasance.

      • Michael Palmer
        “There is NO general, blanket obligation to disclose one’s donors.”
        We plodded through the rules of Elsevier etc on a previous thread. There are explicit on the requirement to disclose. But for now, it’s enough to again quote Dr Soon himself, writing in the Guardian, 2008:
        “The rules of the leading journals in which my research is published are clear: the sources of funding must be openly declared in the paper”

        “That he did not do so supports his claim …”
        He says his reason was that the agreement with the donor said they must not be named.

      • Nick, I have published in Elsevier journals many times. Sometimes I named the sponsors, sometimes I didn’t. I have never had an editor (Elsevier or not) go after me when I didn’t.

        If Elsevier or some other publisher stipulates that all authors declare their funding, this is purely their own choice and can only be considered a contractual obligation; it is not a general legal or “moral” one. If the editors in question find it important that this rule is complied with, then the ONLY occasion to enforce this is immediately after the article in question has successfully passed peer review, but BEFORE actually accepting and printing the final version. It is at THIS time that the editor must decide whether they accept the authors’ statement that no donor was involved; or else, if the authors declare that a donor was involved but can’t be named, they must decide whether or not to waive their rule and still proceed with publication. If they do not find the authors’ declarations satisfactory, they must refuse the paper at THIS time.

        Accepting the paper, and then belatedly deciding to out the authors’ presumed “dishonesty” and printing a “correction” without their consent remains gross malfeasance. Like Willie Soon, I would be outraged if someone did this to me. Go on, put more lipstick on this pig, but the stench won’t go away.

    • Energy companies have a vested interest in knowing about climate. It affects their business operations, and hence their bottom line profitability. But in the case of energy companies (and other companies too), they want to know what the real climate is and what it is doing. That is what affects their business, not what a terra computer, diverted from its inaugural task of evaluating the stability of US nuclear weapon stockpiles is; to political posturing, says.

      So yes; energy and other companies have a vested interest in knowing about the climate.

      G

    • Government in Australia was certainly concerned about it’s funding when Dr Garth Paltridge had the temerity to disagree with the IPCC’s findings. See Page 19.

  5. Tip:

    Skip the intro and GO TO 6:18 where Dr. Soon begins. (Intro was nails on chalkboard worthless waste of time.)

    Okay.

    Now, I’m going to go back and listen to Dr. Soon.

    • Thanks, that’s par for the course with this sort of presentation. Excessive puff talk by some one who invited an interesting speaker.

  6. Dr Soon behaves with dignity and has every right to refute the disgusting slanders and libels that have been thrown his way by low grade, rent-seeking “scientists”. If he needs someone to carry his coat while he lifts rocks to let in the daylight of logic I’m happy to volunteer.

      • To lead a process in this Obama climate in the USA was very difficult. But now the signs have turned. I think that even a lawsuit against journalists of the NYT or other press bodies would be conceivable. Trump would probably be grateful for a reason. From 20 January blowing an icy wind, I have the feeling …..

      • I don’t think Dr. Soon has the means to do so. Did you watch the video. So your point is mute.

        Look at the anonymous funding Michael Mann has received to attack his opponents and ask that question again.

  7. This just in – Truth happening in Wisconsin. Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has erased causes of climate change from its web site.
    https://host.madison.com/users/profile/steven%20verburg/
    The Wisconsin Department of Natural Resources has removed information about human activity being the main cause of climate change from its public website. The department substituted a statement contradicting the broad scientific consensus on the matter.

    Despite a series of surveys showing 97 percent or more of working climate scientists agree humans are causing the dramatic changes in temperature and weather, the DNR revised its website on the grounds that the issue “is still being debated,” a spokesman said.

    • “Despite a series of surveys showing 97 percent or more of working climate scientists agree humans are causing the dramatic changes in temperature and weather,”

      The alarmists have gotten a lot of mileage out of that “97 percent” lie.

      • A very powerful persuasion filter as Scot Adams has pointed out. Facts? We don’t need no stinking facts!
        Humans are such a fun bunch to mess with – Marvin the Martian

  8. >>
    As bad as the attacks on Dr. Soon are, they pale in comparison to the attacks on science itself.
    <<

    But these attacks all have a goal that can be seen by condensing them down to see what their common point of convergence is. Surprise! The goal is to impose socialistic government policies and the more socialistic the better. Those attacking the truth that is sustainable on its own merits want to replace it with ideologically pure narrative that can only stand by continual support and destruction of anyone who dares to speak too loud about its flaws.

    "Climate science" is the 21st Century version of the genetics and agricultural science advocated and then enforced (by compulsion) by Trofim Lysenko in the Soviet Union. That madness became known as Lysenkoism. When the dust settles we can hold a context for who the current climate science madness should be named for. Mannism?

  9. Well, sometimes the truthh takes a long time. Espercially when people a have a personally vested motice to not know. Witness the reputation of Abe Lincoln. By all rights, he should be rated the absolute worst President ever and, for that matter, the worst American who ever lived. And for a multitude of reasons. Not oddly, Northerners don’t accept this certifiable fact. But then, they thought
    insane mass murderer would-be John Brown was a hero also.

      • He unconstitutionally launched troops on his own citizens, killing as many as 750,000 in the process, more than any other war in our history. He is arguably the largest mass murderer in US history.

      • hunter December 29, 2016 at 4:28 pm
        dnftt

        I had to look up “dnftt”. Noted.

        I’m an old guy. I don’t even have a cell phone. I’ll refrain from asking “Mark T” just where in the hell he got his 750,000 number from. Perhaps he’s a “climate scientist”?

        (Forgive me for throwing him a bone.8-)

      • Gunga,

        It has rapidly become the new best estimate, but still overlooks civilian deaths:

        That Lincoln was a statist tyrant is a fact. He shredded the Constitution and Bill of Rights. That in so doing he preserved the Union and helped end slavery elevates him to sacred monster status.

  10. I’m sorry. I don’t get it. CO2 was below 300 ppm for a million years. In the last 150 years it has risen to 400 ppm. Sea level is rising faster than any time in history with coastal communities flooding on sunny days. Glaciers and sea ice are retreating at far above any preindustrial baseline. What else do we need to know? While we argue about details, the 6th great extinction is on. Time to admit we are fouling the climate with our fossil fuel driven economy and move on to finding solutions.

      • So the sea level graphs show sea level rise in the last 20 years as more than double the average rate of the last 145 years. The fact that arctic ice started to recede in the 1920s before the natural cooling cycle that lasted until the 70s does not alter the fact that it is receding steadily. Does anyone really think this is all going to naturally go back the other way? Where I live in New England all our lakes have an average of 6 weeks less ice than they did in the late 1800s, with a leveling off between the 1920s and the 1970s. The only 4 times they have iced out in March in the last 150 years have been in the last 10 years. The rapid trend is toward warmer winters—no questions asked, and it corresponds completely with CO2 levels. It all seems quite obvious. Corresponding to the warming trend, we have more extreme weather events/year, up around 50% since 1970. You can argue the details all you want, but the reality is very real for coastal communities that were stable for centuries that now are experiencing 100-year-floods and -extreme-weather events every few years, and for anyone trying to fish or farm up here. You can keep the debate and confusion going. I’d rather focus on adaptation and mitigation. This is about to get real.

      • “The fact that arctic ice started to recede in the 1920s before the natural cooling cycle that lasted until the 70s does not alter the fact that it is receding steadily. ”

        Never said it wasn’t. But it isn’t a first, as alluded to. You do understand glaciers have advanced an retreated many times. Revealing old Roman mines, higher tree lines etc when glaciers were far smaller.

  11. There is a BIG difference between “piling on” an idea you think is wrong and “piling on” the person who expresses that idea with the intent to keep anyone else from hearing it.

    Dr. Soon seems to an honest man. If someone presented evidence and (unadjusted) data that showed he was in error on some point, I think he’d accept it. Maybe welcome it to clarify his understanding.

    Someone please tell me when The Mann has manned up and accepted or admitted to anything he got wrong or upside-down? (Maybe he spelled his name wrong, at least once?)

    What was Al Gore’s response to the UK court ruling that he got a bunch of stuff wrong in “An Inconvenient Truth”? “What’s in it for me if I admit I was wrong?”

    I’m sure Dr. Soon hates to be in middle of “political-science” what all he wanted to do promote is “science”.

    Hat’s off to you, Dr. Soon.
    You’ve more of what … uh … identifies a man as a man than The Mann does.

  12. It was a paper co-authored by Dr. Willie Soon along with Arthur B. Robinson that first exposed me to the skeptical point of view of the global warming frenzy that was sweeping around the turn of century. In the years that followed I was honored to meet and talk with Dr. Soon several times at climate conferences sponsored by the Heartland Institute. He was always very enthusiastic, well informed, open and pleasant. At the last conference I met his wife and lovely young children. It became clear that his family was feeling the stress from the horrid abuse he was taking at Harvard and in his field of expertise because of his skeptical papers and talks and the never ending harassment about the funding by fossil fuel companies and conservative political sources. Clearly his career has greatly suffered. It is my hope that the Trump administration will offer him a position at the EPA or fund his work independent of Harvard. He is one of my leading heroes. I feel his pain everyday yet have no way to help.

  13. Dr. Soon is an admirable and brave researcher. I am impressed that someone do close to President elect Trump understood the issues involved with the treatment of Dr. Soon and was willing to stand publicly on the right side of it.

  14. A bit late (it just took that long! — “subtitles” kept coming to mind…. (smile)) but, here, in case it might help Dr. Soon better communicate his EXCELLENT, powerfully (if a bit cryptically, at times…) spoken, message, is

    Notes with Edits (direct quotes of Dr. Soon are usually in italics, minor editing within those, too) on Dr. Willie Soon, Dec. 13, 2016 video, “A Conversation {About} Climate Intimidation”

    (video times approximate)

    6:50 – On February 22, 2015, the New York Times Sunday edition …

    7:00 – By December, 2009, several climate realist scientists including David Legates had been the subject of FOIA (Freedom of Information Act) fishing expeditions by: Greenpeace.

    Greenpeace asked our academic institution employers for copies of all our e mails. Their simpleminded justification: because of the November, 2009 release of the AGWer’s e mails, Soon, et al. should have their e mails released too.

    7:30 – Dr. Soon’s institution (the Smithsonian with Harvard’s imprimatur) acquiesced. This disappointed Dr. Soon. He had nothing to hide, but, there was no good reason to grant Greenpeace’s unreasonable demand.

    7:50 – As my mom taught me, one must forgive bad people, but do not forget. The reason you do not forget is so that they can be stopped from hurting someone else. That is why I am talking to you today. Such a thing is terrible and must not be repeated.

    8:41 – Slide: Three incidents of academic intimidation of Dr. Soon:

    1. 2003 — Climate Research and its Editor Hans von Storch
    2. 2009 – AGU (American Geophysical Union) Fall Meeting last minute cancellation
    3. 2015 – PNAS (Proceedings of National Academy of Sciences)

    9:00 — I’m going to spend a few minutes explaining what is really behind the scenes.

    9:05 – The first case is a paper I published {Climate Research} in 2003, a 1,000-year climate history.

    9:25 – AGU at the last minute cancelled my scheduled session and gave out all kinds of very strange excuses which I will detail later in my talk and you can decide whether it was justified or not.

    9:50 – Finally, the PNAS pulled a stunt which I hope will not happen to anyone, not even to my worst enemy.

    10:05 — First case: In 2003, I published a paper on climate history of about the past 1,000 years by examining all the “indirect” measurements of climate. I examined archived data of such things as tree rings and lake sediments.

    10:37 — Actually, I really did not want to write this paper. But, as a professional scientist, the phenomenon that happened between, say, 2001 to 2003 was highly strange. When you tried to publish a paper at that time, if you did not cite a famous paper, such as the “hockey stick” paper, “properly,” you were taken to task. Do this or else “your paper will be rejected.”

    11:05 — This kind of coercion should not be allowed in open science.I decided to do something about it. So, I wrote a paper.

    11:15 – Five {Climate Research) editors resigned.

    11:18 – If this were an isolated case, just one guy, Aaa, who is Willie Soon?, who cares…. but, it happened to quite a few people. The first guy is Dr. Roy Spencer … there were people who resigned over his paper, so it is not only me who is “bad.”

    11:32 – Then, there was Syun-Ichi Akasofu

    {See WUWT article about him here: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/09/01/dr-syun-akasofu-20-points-of-context-on-global-warming-politics-and-the-economy-of-the-world/ (“…the IPCC regards those who criticize them as “skeptics”, or “deniers”, etc., and brought this newborn and immature science to the international stage. They stated in 2007 that scientists have done all they can and that the science is settled, and the rest of the task should be in the hands of policy makers. Such a statement is very irresponsible. … We should bring back the science of climate change to a basic science, avoiding interferences by policy makers …” )}

    11:40 – Dr. Akasofu worked with Al Gore to create the National Arctic Research Center (University of Alaska, Fairbanks). At UA Fairbanks, there is a Syun-Ichi Akasofu building. He mastered the science of aurora. He is a highly regarded scientist.

    12:12 – Yet, when Dr. Akasofu wrote a paper explaining that the climate varies naturally – the editor resigned! This is the kind of treatment you get.

    12:22 – About my own paper. Here is a slide of an e mail from the publisher of Climate Research about my paper. It says:

    1) the reviewer was consulted about my paper;
    (By the way, in terms of the peer review system, this is really unprecedented … it was very bad form; they never informed me that they would look at this background stuff. … This is just not done.)
    2) that the reviewer had a detailed discussion;
    3) the editing was properly done;
    4) the author has revised the manuscript accordingly; and
    5) therefore, it was subsequently published.

    13:05 – 48 co-editors were cc’d — Who will stand up and tell the truth?

    13:15 – Quote from Hans von Storch, Editor, Climate Research (see slide) on July 24, 2003 – accusing Dr. Soon of violating CR’s rules of publication by publishing in another publication, EE (Energy and Environment) I will explain that of course, in a minute.

    14:00 (you can find this in the 2009 Climategate e mails) Von Storch was under pressure from the late Senator Jeffords of Vermont to clarify the stuff on publication and review …

    14:18 – So, von Storch wrote an editorial to denounce/explain how Soon’s paper got slipped through the process …. Von Storch asserted that Soon’s paper had no scientific value

    14:35 – Here is my 2003 paper. Yes, I also published it in EE. I will say something now which I have never before said in public,

    14:50 — The version published in Climate Research was a h0ax. … To get published, CR demanded Soon remove all direct criticism of MBH{M. Mann, Bradley, and Hughes}99; CR removed about 40 pages of text.

    15:30 — I am sick and tired of this system of collusion and coercion.

    15:35 – Why did they need to attack me? The answer is: {quote from slide about Mark Eakin/ David Halpern, NASA JPL e mail}

    “Since the Whitehouse has shown an interest in this paper, The Office of Science Technology & Policy really does need to receive a … discussion of flaws in Soon and Baliunas’s methods

    16:12 – Cc’d on the above e mail was the climate Hall of Shame, Wigley, Phil Jones, Hulme, Briffa, Hansen, Santer, Trenberth …

    16:22 – The most important name I want you to remember is Ellen Mosley-Thompson. Editor of Eos (Earth and Space Science News – Eos is the Greek goddess of the dawn – it is an AGU publication)

    16:40 – Mosley-Thompson made sure that Mann, et al.’s rebuttal to Soon & Baliunias appeared in the AGU publication within 10 days – rushed to appear in time for a July 29, 2003 hearing chaired by Senator Inhofe.

    17:12 — You can see that it was not about science. … One of the Mann rebuttal’s co-authors, Ray Bradley urged Mann to leave out some of the “crap” and “rubbish” science included in the rebuttal. Mann refused.

    17:40 — Mann essentially said, “Just give me your signature.” And they did. And it was published. That’s how “science” works.

    18:00 – Mann asserts that Soon had taken over the Harvard press office. What a joke.

    18:12 – Finally, a quote from Tom Wigley. Wigley is pretty senior guy from UEA (University of East Anglia) Climate Research Group (took over from Hubert Lamb). {Soon paraphrasing a bit, I think}:

    ”You know, Mike, by chance, this Willie Soon and those guys, they may have gotten this thing right, but, we don’t want to let anybody know that. Don’t want them to be able to claim anything.”

    I don’t need to claim anything! I just want to publish what I learn … if I’m wrong I’m wrong.

    18:52 – And then you have this fax. It is covered by Steve McIntyre of Canada. Re: AR5 (2013) actually agrees with Soon, et al., but, don’t let anybody know.

    19:00 – We now move to Big Bully AGU. In 2009, we came up with a program. We invited many highly regarded scientists including Richard Lindzen and Christopher Essex to come to AGU’s Fall meeting to discuss climate science. We included the idea of “aerial? climate” (I’ll discuss this in a minute). We called it “Diverse View from Galileo’s Window.”

    19:50 – Timeline for AGU approval of our program. On September 29, 2009, it was summarily rejected. The AGU said that the subject was too “dangerous” for the union.

    22:22 – Quote from AGU rejection letter. Obvious that its author was completely ignorant, for he claimed that their program was rejected because none of the presenters had a paper actually studying Galilean moons on Saturn. lol And this letter author worked (s?) at NASA – a chief scientist.

    22:40 – Climate is a complicated subject. I want to remind you of what kind of expertise is needed to study climate. If you want to study climate just based on CO2, I’m sorry, but it is not enough to study only the atmosphere. You need to know all of this stuff {list of many disciplines}. This is why the answer is so hard. We many never KNOW the answer.

    We must just keep trying, but please follow the scientific method.

    21:30 – Since 2004, I did not want to take any federal government funding. I stopped applying to NASA and all those agencies. I quit.

    21:45 – By 2012, however, this reality sunk in. I could no longer do Sun-climate research from only private funding. Sun-only was all I could do. This sort of restriction, especially for scientist like myself, is surely not heaven.

    22:17 – Now, for the Big Time Bully, the National Academy of Science. In 2015, we were writing a small note, correcting a thing we thought was not right. The content is not essential. …

    22:42 – We claimed this as free time, i.e., volunteer, work; it took less than a day. It got published.

    22:50 — THEN, you have this Editor in Chief of PNAS sending me some kind of warning: “You didn’t tell the truth.” …

    23:00 – PNAS accused Soon of not disclosing a “conflict of interest.” That Soon had received funding from Southern Company.

    23:15 – I repeatedly told him this was not true. {July 21, 2015 attorney’s letter copied in slide} “Your proposed statement is factually incorrect. Dr. Soon has never received any funding from Southern Company. To the contrary, Dr. Soon draws his salary from the Smithsonian Institution. …”

    24:00 – Re: Unequal Treatment of Soon

    Kerry Emanuel of MIT did not have to disclose his board memberships to PNAS. Clearly biased according to how they read “their book.”

    24:35 – David Legates realized that Mann and Gleick had published in PNAS despite clear conflicts of interest in terms of: the subject and their source of funding. Gleick is the guy who used a stolen identity to gain access to the Heartland Institute.

    25:10 – Soon wrote to PNAS – please retract your accusations, stop pointing your “loaded gun,” at me. PNAS refused to give Soon the courtesy of a response. The letter threatening Soon is still out there.

    25:32 — This is a paper I published with a group of colleagues. Distinguished colleagues, from China, { } from everywhere, Germany … in 2009.

    25:40 By 2015, they couldn’t handle the heat. AMS insisted on publishing a note. The note was a not true. It said that Soon was funded by Southern Company in regard to that VOLUNTEER, one-day note Soon and Legates wrote.

    26:07 – That note is still there. It is a yellow star on my jacket.

    26:10 — Let this be known: If AMS wants to talk to me, please come. They just don’t want to listen.

    26:15 — Never mind these journals, Michael Mann himself is in charge of Southern Journal, by the way.

    26:22 – Then, in 2004, David Legates and I realized that there is something seriously wrong with Michael Mann’s work. Another aspect of it, the instrumental temperature record, i.e., how he smoothed the data.

    26:35 — So, we got that critique {accepted for publication}. He promised me that January 29th, it would be printed. January 29th came and went. … Weeks passed. Not printed. “Copyright issues,” the publisher claimed. In the end, they said, “We should not have taken Michael Mann’s word for it.” Climategate e mails provide the evidence to back up Dr. Soon, here, i.e, “proof that Michael Mann did that.”

    27:00 – The warming trend in Mann’s 2002-3 papers is physically impossible.

    27:20 — Science is all about replication and open data access and things like that. …

    27:35 – In the end, Mann had the temperature rising by a rate of 10 to 25 degrees Celsius per century. … Completely made up stuff. And they still let those results stand. … We caught him! …

    27:56 – Here is the proof: Michael Mann boasting about stopping publication of Soon.

    28:10 — But, by this time, I was smart enough to know to get the copyright to all those graphs ahead of time. So, the matter was resolved very, very, quickly.

    28:21 — Very bad things have happened to me. But, it’s okay. I’m still around, right?

    28:26 — So. My basic conclusion is very simple. You have this dark cloud of censorship and intimidation which has really inundated climate science for a long time now. And climate science as we know it has been dangerously corrupted by “Scientism.” All these bullies of censorship including the scientists, the scientific institutions, even the funding agencies, continue to hijack science for their own gain. They must be stopped. I hope we can stop them, of course. Hopefully, with the political wind, {shifting} we can do something about this.

    And one final thing. I really think that science is in serious trouble. This final case is to show you that our funding agencies, instead of focusing on your science are focusing on your font size. Recently, a particular institution got 9 of their proposals rejected because they did not do their font size correctly. Laughing aside, this is really a very sad state. How could it be?! It’s just out of this world. I’m sorry about airing dirty laundry, here, but you really need to clean this stuff up before you can really correct yourself.

    Finally, for “what to do next,” I highly recommend work by Scott Armstrong of Pennsylvania and Kristen Green. “Guidelines for Scientists,” (2016) a group of checklists (for scientists, politicians, policymakers) to evaluate whether a given proposal/paper is truly scientific or not.

    End.

  15. Anybody else get a message like this when viewing the video at U-tube … ”
    This video is unlisted. Be considerate and think twice before sharing.”

    What is the meaning of this?

    • it only means you need to have the link to find it.
      it won’t be on the search engine or show on the user’s upload list
      there is public- what you’re used to – anybody can find and watch it
      unlisted- so you can share the vid without making it public
      private- so only people you have approved may view it

  16. @DWR54. You don’t immediately see the dishonesty of this graph? The parameters of the CO2 rise and temperature rise on the X and Y axes have been set in such a manner that they assume the same angle, giving a false impression to the uninformed observer that there is some kind of correlation. This is the oldest trick in the book, often used by sales managers to make their sales look better than they actually are.

    • Also, he didn’t include the collapse in temperature since the peak of the recent El-ninio – the fastest collapse in history. Very dishonest!

  17. This smacks like a wet red herring. Is the downplay of human caused climate change a ploy to disengage the skeptical hounds of war while work goes on as before or are they seeking to lay below the incoming administration’s climate radar so as to not draw attention to their pet projects?

  18. … no direct support from the Southern Company as Greenpeace and the New York Times claimed …

    Dr Soon may not aware of the fact that Greenpeace gets funding from the Rockefeller Bros.

    Makes a great reposte if some communist accuses one of being funded by “big oil” or the like.

    How do I know this?

    Easy Peasy just search for GreenPeace on the Rockefeller website.

    In fact I’ve written about it on my blog. https://thedemiseofchristchurch.com/2015/08/15/the-rockefellers-who-they-fund-from-their-web-site/?iframe=true&theme_preview=true

    Can someone make sure Dr Soon knows about this?

    Cheers

    Roger

    http://www.thedemiseofchristchurch.com

    • Thanks, I don’t know about Dr. Soon, but I didn’t know this. I think questioning fossil fuel funding of research is wrong. Fossil fuel companies should be able to fund any research they want to and the research judged on the quality of the science, data, reproducibility and analysis. What is wrong is to say only governments can fund research, as if they have no vested interest. They do not pick who to fund or who not to fund without considering the bias of the researcher. They are seeking particular conclusions, is he investigating man-made GW or natural? If the fossil fuel bias is seeking different conclusions, that is a good thing. They might well fund important research that would be rejected by the government. You cannot know ahead of time how a project will come out, but ignoring avenues of research that might conflict with your goals (government goals or private) hurts science overall. We need multiple sources of funding with different goals for the process to work.

      • One of the few outcomes of age is that you have been there if you can remember it. I have gotten checks from energy companies, academia, government agencies, attorneys and others I currently cannot recall. Energy companies had better controls on defamation than the others. Check out the research done by energy companies, for example, as published in the Transactions of the Gulf Coast Association of Geological Societies or the Bulletin of the American Association of Petroleum Geologists. Quite an education.

  19. Gentlemen. There is a war on. As vicious and unpleasant as any war has ever been, between those that are or see themselves as currently in control of nearly everything, and the people who are not getting a cut of the global wealth.

    Those who one might have thought would be on the side of the little people, have been bought lock stock and both smoking barrels, by those in control: Their missions? To deliver the working classes and the half educated liberals, to the slaughter without recourse to force.

    Why should we care? After all we are well educated, and probably quite liberal too. What do we owe to the ignorant masses?

    Perhaps nothing, but what we do owe is to our own, and their futures. It’s not so much that the usual suspects, a bunch of psychopathic wealth grabbers, are engaged in grabbing wealth, it’s that the means by which they are doing it actually endanger civilised society, and they are actually too stupid to have noticed.

    The effects of that stupidity are felt first in the actual real working class – the place where real wealth is created, by miners, farmers, oil drillers etc.

    And Trump has capitalised on that to win an election.

    Why would he care?

    That, is the $64,000 question. Does he, and why?

    Climate change is simply another piece of agitprop, employed to exert and justify he exertion of, control.
    NO one cares whether its true or not, except a few here: This the faux news post truth world, where what matters is only what people believe, so they can be manipulated into purchasing and voting the right way. whilst the illusion of free speech and democracy stops them getting violent.

    However, there is catch here: truth may be unknowable, but that doesn’t mean it isn’t there, and bad decisions based on ideas that don’t work like renewable energy, won’t power nations no matter how much people believe they will.

    And that’s where the plain common sense of the small people’s innate conservatism, is of such value.

    The elites would do better to listen to those voices, rather than suppress them. It’s actually in their interests, too.

  20. “…It does this in the same way Huckleberry Finn opens the injustice of slavery to the light of day. Sometimes we need to see all the bad out in the open, as uncomfortable as it may be to look at or discuss.”
    Indeed but according to the UK’s Daily Telegraph 06/12/16: A US school district has banned ‘To Kill a Mockingbird’ and ‘The Adventures of Huckleberry Finn’ after a parent complained about the use of racist language. The books were removed from classrooms and school libraries in Accomack County, Virgina.
    And.. in the UK’s The Times 27/12/16 Oliver Moody writes about the tendency for younger generations to not be able to distinguish between fact and fiction. “…The researchers found 80% of middle-school pupils could not tell an online news story apart from a piece of native advertising that had been sponsored by a bank.”

  21. A grossly flawed underlying premise in many arguments is the assumption that any scientist who receives funding from a fossil fuel or other related company is AUTOMATICALLY corrupt and working for hire to distort information as an expectation of such funding. This is another embodiment of the foregone conclusion that the products of such companies are the evil.

    Ridiculous ! … I think that most scientists believe what they believe, and they want to find a way to perfect and publicize what they believe, but THIS TAKES MONEY. … If a scientist’s beliefs and research happen to look benevolently on some aspect of some money-making industry, then is this not a perfect organization from which to seek funding ? Orthodox sources sure-as-heck are not going to give such scientists the time of day, let alone one penny of funding to research and publish positions going against their own positions.

    And what about the orthodox researchers in climate change ? — Do they somehow exist magically in an alternate universe where no money is required to pursue THEIR beliefs ? If you believe in human-caused CO2 global warming, then you can magically pursue this … scientific research for free, right ? Or researching the RIGHT theory uses only squeaky clean money, perhaps ?

    Well, guess again, …. because ALL research costs money, and all money has to come from some favorable source. Scientists seek funding sources that favor their research, NOT the other way around.

    The orthodox climate alarmist religion has huge funding sources, and their money is no cleaner or more noble than the money that some fossil fuel company might grant a researcher who really believes what he/she believes.

    • I think the crux of the matter is found in your phrase “favorable source” and close examination is required to determine if “favorable” means the source has a political agenda apart from being absolutely objective, which is the hallmark of true science.

      So-called “scientific study” that supports a political agenda simply to receive funding or control public opinion or policy is seldom accurate or objective; it must be exposed along with the perpetrators.

      Propaganda has been used by a number of ill-conceived regimes by perpetrating assaults against Nature’s Law and Nature’s God; notable examples include the Third Reich and Obama’s administration (and why current references to Trump as Hitler are so insidiously funny since he appears to be the anti-Obama/anti-Hitler)!

      I find Trump’s statement regarding climate that “We just don’t know” to be refreshing and safe: It appears to be scientifically accurate and at the same time dispels the notion that we should be expending precious funding on a non-problem. Certainly, it would be insane to take additional steps at this point to alter our climate one way or another given the measure of our understanding.

      Fear alone isn’t a viable argument and neither is political control; the first is a tool of propagandists while the second is their nefarious intent.

Comments are closed.