The final nail in the coffin of the NYT witchhunt against Dr. Willie Soon?

I was one of the earliest writers to respond to the NYT article by hack NYT journalist Justin Gillis in which astrophysicist Willie Soon was accused of writing for hire. A quite amusing accusation when you realize that Gillis himself was doing exactly that. As always, you just have to look at what Leftists say about conservatives to see what is true of Leftists themselves.

clip

An article just up on Anthony Watts’ site does I think blow the whole nasty campaign out of the water.It points out, as I have done, that the money allegedly coming from business to Soon was in fact paid to the Smithsonian so was in no way clandestine and was part of normal academic procedures.Far from the money being “undeclared” income that the Smithsonian should look into it was in fact money given to the Smithsonian itself.If they were to investigate anything they would be investigating themselves!

Unlike what I wrote, however, the latest post has dug up the actual contractual documents and posted photocopies on the web for all to see.

Perhaps most amusing, however is the revelation about what “deliverables” meant. Gillis found that word very sinister and implied that Soon had contracted to come to a certain conclusion in his writings. The photocopies show what was really meant and it was in fact perfectly routine and innocuous. See above.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (2)

  • Avatar

    Dennis Mitchell

    |

    Your comment exactly exposes the logical and legal point that the word “deliverable” is common contract usage.It appears Gillis judged his audience as too ill-informed to challenge what could be either his own ignorance or possibly unethical position. The constant drumbeat, often reverberated by Greenpeace, is that somehow people like Dr. Soon are getting money that is actually going to some institution first for some serious reduction in size before being dribbled out to the folks that actually do some real work. How much money has Greenpeace taken from Mr.V. Putin to try to strangle Europe’s energy supplies? Has Gillis ever even thought about that?
    There’s a further implication that the really evil imps are seem to try to float and that would be these skeptics are getting money that is not being reported to the IRS and taxes are not being collected. They think they are so clever as to avoid being caught in that act. They’re not! That kind of accusation has a double edge sword. They may be able to get a politically motivated and unethical IRS goon to pursue such nonsense, but the risk of not being able to prove such an allegation, in court,( and they certainly will not be able to do so)can bring legal chaos to the lives of those that think accusations have no consequences for the accuser. Justice is blind, but not stupid.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Robert

    |

    I agree Dennis. I noticed that at the start, most likely because at one point in my career I was involved in software engineering and the word “deliverables” is common in contracts, meetings, documentation. The short version is the customer expects something, whether it is progress reports, new code, a new product design, whatever.

    Unless one looks at the actual contract to see what was spelled out claiming “deliverables” means anything else is just lying and/or ignorance.

    Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.