The Vicious Politics of Global Warming Research

soon wHardened as I am to political correctness, I still cannot believe that the Chronicle of Higher Education would direct such a vicious and unwarranted attack against a scientist for being on the wrong side of the climate-change issue as it did this morning.

The Chronicle article by Paul Basken is dripping with arrogance and disdain for someone who doesn’t go along with government-paid “experts.” He writes: “Years of using a Harvard nameplate to flog his insistence that polar bears are doing fine, and that sunspots might explain planetary warming better than the Industrial Revolution does, may finally have caught up with Wei-Hock Soon.”

What did Dr. Soon do to receive this ugly sneer?

First, he described himself as an affiliate of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics—which he is! “In a series of scientific-journal articles over the past decade, Mr. Soon has routinely listed himself as representing ‘the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics’” writes Basken. According to Basken, the center is mostly just a “shared set of physical facilities” and Soon is employed by the Smithsonian part of the center, not the Harvard part.

Strangely, though, this minimization of Harvard’s role does not appear on the first-page description of the website of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, which says: “The CfA is a collaboration of Harvard College Observatory (HCO) and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) and home to Harvard’s Department of Astronomy.” 

But Soon’s supposed overreach is only the beginning of his sins. Even worse, he obtained money from private groups that included “the energy conglomerate Southern Company, the Charles G. Koch Foundation, and Donors Trust, a fund for anonymous contributions identified by a 2013 Drexel University study as the largest single provider of money to political efforts to fight climate-change policy.”

Yes, he did. He  received from private funders $1.2 million over 10 years (that’s, on average, $120,000 a year, right?) And more than half of it went to the Smithsonian’s overhead. This should be compared to the estimated $8.7 billion that the government spent on global warming in one year (2010).

How can the Chronicle publish this stuff?

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (31)

  • Avatar

    anne

    |

    It doesn’t matter how many times it is proved that AGW is a myth because everyone in power in every single country knows that it is. The purpose of the myth is to destroy the working and middle classes until they are back to being surfs for the elite. The only regret the elite will ever have is allowing the education to take place of mere plebs and allowing them to climb the social ladder. Talk to any real climate scientist who you know well and who supports AGW, even a student will do, they will wink and tell you, off the record of course, they don’t want the money to dry up.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Hey anne! I think it is best summed up by Mr Wirth…

      [i]”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”[/i]
      – Timothy Wirth, President of the UN Foundation

      To Hell with facts, they have an agenda.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        anne

        |

        Hi Gator, just catching up with the site quickly, have been working in New Zealand for a few months and in 2 weeks back to South Africa for 3 months, hope you are happy and well, very best wishes

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Hey anne! Good to hear from you again, even if you are making the rest of us look like lazy and self centered. 😉

          Have you heard from Joker lately? Please be safe in your travels and work, the world needs more annes, not less.

          All the best!

          Reply

          • Avatar

            anne

            |

            Aaaw, thanks Gator, no haven’t heard from Joker or Mrs Joker, I hope they are both ok, xx still love your very reasoned and true comments, Take Care 🙂

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Dr. Soon is an honest man and that cannot be said for the promoters of the Global Warming scam .

    I salute his effort and other scientists that
    are not afraid or financially compromised .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    You did not quite express the flow of funds correctly, the grantor concluded a contract with Harvard-Smithsonian to employ Dr Soon in a study.

    The grantor paid the funds to the institute which in turn paid Dr Soon less than half what it received from the grantor.

    This is how I have worked during most of 40 years under projects financed by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Rarely have I experienced a situation when I have felt that either institution is paying me to express a certain opinion as my own professional opinion.

    The fact that certain grants finance research does not necessarily mean there are strings attached.

    But what may surprise most readers is that the specific paper that Dr Soon is being attacked for now was not supported by any external funding from anywhere.

    This storm of abuse has arisen over a paper written some time ago and is not relevant to the paper now being discussed.

    Or not being discussed, since nobody is actually addressing the science in the paper itself. And why not you may ask?

    Yes, why is the science not being discussed?

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Inconvenient truths emerge when the science is discussed. Costly truths for those on the CO2 gravy train, who have invested entire careers and reputations on a God Particle.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    The IPCC is in the business of selling the AGW theory to the world. Judging the results from their conferences, business is bad. India isn’t buying in, China said maybe later. Democratic leaders must stand for re-election, so they walk a tightrope, half in and half out. The IPCC’s previous apocalyptic warnings haven’t come true. They changed the name from Global Warming to Climate Change. Business hasn’t improved. So along come some freelance researchers who point out the flaws in the IPCC’s “business” model. If I was a businessman with a failing business, I would be wise to listen. At least give the appearance of listening, because those freelance consultants know what they’re talking about. BUT, if my business plan does have a fatal flaw and the Bank realizes it, I’m done,out of business. Nothing left to do but try to shoot the messenger. Shareholders in the AGW business will provide the gun .

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The IPCC is best viewed as a prosecuting attorney at a witch trial. The UN had already decided man was guilty, and put together a Kangaroo Court. This was the charter given to the IPCC…

      [i]“ … to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.“[/i]

      They never intended to find out [u]what[/u] was causing climate change, they were tasked with [u]proving man guilty[/u] of planetary abuse, and inventing nightmarish consequences.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    [quote name=”Gator”]The IPCC is best viewed as a prosecuting attorney at a witch trial. The UN had already decided man was guilty, and put together a Kangaroo Court. This was the charter given to the IPCC…

    [i]“ … to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of human-induced climate change, its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.“[/i]

    They never intended to find out [u]what[/u] was causing climate change, they were tasked with [u]proving man guilty[/u] of planetary abuse, and inventing nightmarish consequences.[/quote]So my business analogy still holds true. After the witch trial, the IPCC sues Capitalism for damages. Shady business at best, more like a Mob shakedown.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Good point Frederick . The science scares them ,always has and always will .
    The scam is being mainly run by people with almost no scientific background and of course they want their “science is settled “mantra used to drown out the truth .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Drewski

    |

    Soon’s research has been largely funded by the fossil-fuel industry, which provided over $1.2 million in funding, including $409,000 from The Southern Company, $230,000 from Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, and hundreds of thousands of dollars from Donors Trust.

    THIS FACT WAS NOT DISCLOSED IN AT LEAST 11 PAPERS published since 2008. . . .
    Yowza!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      This is the same drivel Greenpeace tried on him back in 2011, the same papers, the same articles, the same claims.

      Show us that each of those 11 papers was covered by that funding.

      Then I will show you the documents, signed by representatives of the Smithsonian as accepting the contracts from which said funding was dreived.

      Facts are something rarely if ever disclosed by drewski since 200x.

      But we understand, you can’t do or understand science so you can’t refute his work. The only thing you can do is try and attack the man.

      We’ll provide you with a list of all the funding your kind of scientists have recieved from “big oil”, odd you don’t have a problem with them.

      But then you’ll attack someone for any alleged sexual or ethical issue IF they don’t agree with your beliefs since you can’t refute their arguments. But as long as someone agrees with your beliefs then you’re fine with sexual predators, want to be pornographers, and other ethical deviants.

      The names Pachauri and Gleick come to mind, but then we’ve seen enough from you to know that you are just as ethically bankrupt as they are.

      Yea, yowza! Open mouth insert foot, you’re getting damned good at that.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        Pinocchio Drewski survives on drivel, it is his mainstay.

        Watch as he claims to have papers that mysteriously never appear. 😀

        If he had a brain, he would change his user name, as it has been repeatedly shown that “Drewski” has zero credibility.

        Pinocchio Drewski is about to claim he has papers, once again falsely claiming he has shown them before, and yet will not again… :zzz

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Drewski

          |

          So. . .

          In two, almost consecutive comments, you first compare renewable energy to slavery and the opium trade and then soon after say that Drewski survives on drivel.

          Perfectly distilled Gator.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            So…

            In many years, you have never given us any reason to believe that this climate is anything other than natural, and yet you return with the same drivel year in and year out.

            Perfectly idiotic Pinocchio Drewski. 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Pinocchio Drewski doesn’t understand that slavery and the opium trade were both legal, and considered moral by society. Many families like John Kerry’s ancestors made large bucks off them. Then a small group of people stood up and pointed out the evil of both trades, and they ceased in modern cultures.

            It is the same with CAGW. Luddites who cannot do math, history, geology, physics, biology or anything else scientific made up a story to enslave humanity. They created ways to get filthy rich while the poorest amongst us starve, and they called it a ‘moral duty’.

            And we are watching the Great Global Warming Swindle die out, thanks to a few brave souls who have stood against the career lynchings, grand inquisitions, and virtual burning of scientists in the media. (Hat tip to Mother Nature as well)

            Alarmists have been trying to create a new form of slavery, and like the slave masters of old, they are heavily invested and not giving up without a fight. As we have seen with Drewski and Mike, they will L-I-E about anything in an attempt to win an argument.

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Hey Gator, drewski’s M.O. like those of his peers goes something like this:

            Present an argument along the lines of…

            Fact – drewski is a male
            Fact – drewski likes males

            …and leave it at that.

            Now assuming drewski is a male the first “fact” is indeed true.

            Assuming that he likes his father then the second “fact” is true.

            However if those are the only two “facts” presented then one could reach what may or may not be the correct idea of his sexual preference.

            If one’s intent isn’t honest exposition but smearing the person being discussed then the above method is sufficient, hence the reason he uses it.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Drewski reminds me of a guy I went to high school with many years ago. This kid used to talk about his 1969 Camaro RS/SS that he was building in his grandpa’s barn, anytime we showed up with our [i]real[/i] cars. We knew he was making it up, but he just kept talking about how his car was faster and more valuable than our hotrods.

            Then one day we figured out where grandpa lived, dropped by the infamous barn, and found only a tractor. But this didn’t stop dingbat from claiming that he still had that car, he just claimed they moved it to a cousins barn. Needless to say nobody ever saw him drive a ’69 Camaro, but we did see his Ford Escort alot. 😀

            Funny thing is, just like Pinocchio Drewski, he probably still thinks we believed him.

          • Avatar

            Drewski

            |

            Gay Gay Gator,
            Reminds me of the guy who always thought that he was smarter than the professors even though he had essentially zero education. He was also a bit of a thief, so one day he decided to siphon off gas from a neighbors car by drilling a hole into her gas tank (!).

            He is unrecognizable now and although what he did was not as stupid as comparing slavery to renewable energy but, just like Gator, he bears a striking resemblance to a lizard creature.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Pinocchio! Where is that imaginary stack of papers? In you grandpa’s barn? 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Comrade drewski is a product of the left leaning education system.
            [quote]Under the overarching influence of our left-leaning educational system, most of us only know the negative aspects of the West’s history of colonialism and imperialism.

            Teachers and professors leave out the instances when Great Britain wielded its might for good.

            For example, slavery was abolished throughout the West largely through the efforts of the British Navy.

            Then and now, champions of freedom have understood that power and liberty go hand in hand, as John Robson explains:
            [/quote]
            http://www.therebel.media/john_robson

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The money was given to the Smithsonian, and they paid Dr Soon. So technically the Smithsonian is the Big Oil recipient, and they paid Dr Soon out of their kitty.

      Hey, maybe you can get Hansen to release his financial statements, because nobody else can.

      Where can I find your attacks on these guys for taking money from Big Oil and the Koch Brothers?

      [i]1. Climate Research Unit (CRU)

      2. Sierra Club

      3. Delhi Sustainable Development Summit [Founded by Teri under Dr. Rajendra Pachauri chairman of the IPCC]

      4. Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST)

      5. 350.org

      6. Union of Concerned Scientists

      7. University of California, Berkeley CalCAP,

      8. University of California, Berkeley UC

      9. Climate Institute

      10. EcoLiving

      11. Nature Conservancy Climate Change Threats and Impacts

      12. Nature Conservancy

      13. America’s WETLAND Foundation

  • Avatar

    Gator

    |

    So Pinocchio Drewski thinks that the grant check was made out to “Willie Soon”? 😆 😀

    [i]A scientist can use his money to pay for his salary or he can also use it to pay for equip or conferences, but he can’t just write himself a check because the money doesn’t go into his bank account.

    One thing about grant money is how it is administered. The scientist doesn’t get the grant money deposited into their personal account. Rather the money goes to the university, and every time the scientist wants to spend the money, they have to provide the right documentation to the university for them to release them money. [/i]

    http://www.quora.com/How-common-is-it-for-scientists-to-use-grant-money-for-their-own-personal-uses

    And maybe you missed this comment above…

    [b]# Frederick Colbourne 2015-02-26 06:22[/b]
    [i]You did not quite express the flow of funds correctly, the grantor concluded a contract with Harvard-Smithsonian to employ Dr Soon in a study.

    The grantor paid the funds to the institute which in turn paid Dr Soon less than half what it received from the grantor.

    This is how I have worked during most of 40 years under projects financed by the World Bank and the Asian Development Bank. Rarely have I experienced a situation when I have felt that either institution is paying me to express a certain opinion as my own professional opinion.[/i]

    So, the Smithsonian gets the check and typically up to half the money goes to overhead/operating expenses, and then the Smithsonian pays Dr Soon. Techically the money Dr Soon gets is from the grantor, but the check ios made out to the Smithsonian (I am a lifetime member).

    Buh-bye Pinocchio! 😀

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      drewski is taking a statement being regurgitated by the media and alarmist blogs as fact when digitized photocopies of the contracts which are signed by representatives of the Smithsonian, not Dr. Soon are also available.

      The evidence contradicts his claims as usual.

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Pinocchio Drewski is just re-certifying his ignorance of the scientific community at large.

      [i]I have Tweeted that [u]undisclosed COI is endemic in scientific publishing[/u]. I have had several requests for elaboration.

      Here is a great example.

      This paper was published by ERL in 2010:
      http://iopscience.iop.org/1748-9326/5/1/014017/fulltext/
      It has a list of 53 co-authors.

      There was no COI disclosure whatsoever associated with this paper.

      The 53 authors include (for example) [b]Joe Romm[/b], Hal Harvey and Amory Lovins each of [b]whom had massive undisclosed financial COI (obviously and easily documented) associated with renewable energy and political advocacy. No doubt other co-authors do as well. Further, several of these co-authors have also testified before Congress without COI disclosure[/b].

      Two points:
      1-The lack of COI disclosure in this case does not mean that the paper is in any way in error.
      2-The lack of COI disclosure in this case does not in any way justify or excuse similar lack of COI disclosure by Willie Soon. But it does point to the incredible selectivity of outrage in standards of COI disclosure, e.g., as applied by the NYT and US Congress. The Soon case and the example here are exactly parallel.

      If COI disclosure is a good idea, and I think that it is, then it should be applied consistently across academic publishing and testimony, [b]rather than being used as a selectively applied political bludgeon by campaigning journalists and politicians seeking to delegitimize certian academics whose work they do not like.[/b] [/i]

      http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/27/faux-outrage-over-willie-soons-disclosure-joe-romm-failed-to-disclose-his-political-financial-ties-in-a-scientific-paper/

  • Avatar

    amirlach

    |

    Yet they were still “published”? Yowza?

    And the most recent paper was not funded by the fossil-fuel industry, yet warmists still harp about past funding simply because they cannot refute the findings.

    Worry not Comrade, some one will make a Model that refutes those observations, that refuted all the other failed Co2 based Models. :-*

    Reply

  • Leave a comment

    No Trackbacks.