• We will be taking the server down at approximately 3:30 AM ET on Wednesday, 10/8/25. We have a hard drive that is in the early stages of failure and this is necessary to prevent data loss. We hope to be back up and running quickly, however this process could take some time.
  • This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Head of IPCC outed.

longview said:
Non-profit does not mean they do not make money.
It means that after all the salaries, benefits, and overhead is paid, the books are zero.
Click to expand...
And there are many making millions from them.
 
jmotivator said:
So would you say that the Director of Phillip Morris heading up a government agency researching second hand smoke is a conflict of interest?
Click to expand...
Phillip Morris is a for-profit corporation, which is actively trying to sell its products.

TERI is not a for-profit corporation that focuses on a variety of activities (not all directly connected to climate issues), and is not selling services to the IPCC or the UN.


Lets say that it is proven that the director had no direct compensation for his work and all money generated from his work went directly to Philip Morris... does that fix everything?
Click to expand...
I cannot imagine a situation where the CEO of Phillip Morris did not receive any compensation for his or her work.

If he/she did, PM would still be a commercial entity, and the CEO would be obligated to (among other things) enhance value for the shareholders.


Of course he has a conflict of interest. TERI funding is largely for studying the impact of AGW and pushing alternative energy.
Click to expand...
Or not. They focus mostly on sustainability, environmental and resource issues, primarily in India. They do energy audits of commercial entities in India; waste and water planning studies; workshops for encouraging small businesses to be more energy efficient; helping plan a wildlife sanctuary in Bihar, and so on.

The majority of their work is in India.


TERI benefits greatly from the IPCC reports.
Click to expand...
There is no evidence that the IPCC (a United Nations organization) is pressuring any nations to engage TERI for any services.

You've got a very thin thread here. You're basically saying that because TERI works on sustainability issues, and the IPCC works on AGW, there is some "conflict of interest" -- even though the IPCC basically isn't hiring TERI to do anything, and does not seem to be pressuring any member nations to hire TERI.

You don't even seem to understand what TERI does. Unsurprisingly, this results in your failure to understand that there is no conflict of interest here.
 
longview said:
Non-profit does not mean they do not make money.
It means that after all the salaries, benefits, and overhead is paid, the books are zero.
Click to expand...


That is correct and TERI is a non-profit NGO.




The Daily Telegraph issued an apology to Pachuari and paid over 200K in legal fees for trying to smear him. Of course that's a mere pittance compared to what the Koch's paid Dr. Soon to cast doubt on GW.


Daily Telegraph apologises to Pachauri

Pachauri+001.jpg



The Smearing of an Innocent man | George Monbiot
 
faithful_servant said:
It exist because of the belief in CC/AGW, without that, it doesn't exist at all.... Am I missing explaining some critical piece of logic in this so that you don't understand that the guy's job is based in large part on his work with the IPCC?
Click to expand...
Yes. You're missing quite a bit.

TERI works primarily on sustainability issues in India. They conduct research and projects in biotech, sustainable habitats, water resources, social issues, industrial energy efficiency and many other issues not directly connected to climate change or AGW. Even if climate change was not a problem, India would still have issues with pollution, allocation of resources, waste management, and lots of other issues where TERI does research and workshops.

Of course, instead of actually looking up what TERI does, apparently a few people see that Pachauri heads the IPCC, works for TERI, and jump to a variety of incorrect conclusions.

In addition, a true conflict of interest involves someone being able to take advantage of an organization for their own gain. As I've said already: A genuine conflict of interest in this instance would be Pachauri ordering the IPCC to hire TERI to perform a bunch of projects. There are no indications of any such conduct on his part.
 
Moot said:
That is correct and TERI is a non-profit NGO.




The Daily Telegraph issued an apology to Pachuari and paid over 200K in legal fees for trying to smear him. Of course that's a mere pittance compared to what the Koch's paid Dr. Soon to cast doubt on GW.
Click to expand...
You do realize that Dr. Soon, received a grant to do research like many other researchers do.
I suspect the RFP for the grant did not specify an outcome.
That the source of the grant was a non-profit NGO, has almost no bearing.
Grant research is very different from corporate research, very public.
Grant awards are posted and published. Look at the web site of any university that does any
grant based research, they list their recent grant wins.
Energy research wins grant | Harvard Gazette
It is possible that Dr. Soon, knowing that all of his grant wins were already published
in the public domain, did not see ether the need for additional disclosure, or that they
might constitute a conflict of interest.
Speaking of conflict of interest, what was the conflict of interest between the publishing
journal, and Dr. Soon receiving a grant from a non-profit NGO?
 
So both guys get funding from people with an investment in their findings. One guy gets a little extra 'bonus' by hitting on the chicks at work.
 
Moot said:
Ahh, I see....you're angry because he takes a small salary from a non profit NGO instead of secretly taking millions from the for profit coal companies and greedy self serving billionaires. Got it.
Click to expand...

$90K in India is not a small salary. The fact that his livelihood comes from being the CEO of a company that the entire reason for its existence is based on no small part his work as head of the IPCC should be grounds for removing him immediately from the IPCC. He can be replaced with someone without these kind of ties that can bring into question the findings of the IPCC, so why not replace him? Why not put someone in the job who doesn't have ANY of this of conflict of interest and eliminate the questions about his objectivity?? This would be a good thing for YOUR side as well, but you and the rest of the AGW/CC believers will back him up until the cows come home, instead of demanding that he be asked to step down and replaced with someone without the conflict of interest that he has.
 
longview said:
You do realize that Dr. Soon, received a grant to do research like many other researchers do.
I suspect the RFP for the grant did not specify an outcome.
That the source of the grant was a non-profit NGO, has almost no bearing.
Click to expand...
Actually, it does.

• He was funded directly by the Southern Company, a for-profit energy company. The Charles Koch foundation is funded in no small part by Koch's oil refinery business, and their political inclinations and preferences are well known.

• DonorsTrust is specifically set up to anonymize donors to conservative causes. That doesn't mean Soon didn't know who was paying, only that DonorsTrust does not report it.

• The journals where Soon published his work require full disclosure of funding and grants. He failed to properly disclose the funding, and in doing so violated the ethics codes of those journals.

• We have Soon's communications with these funding sources. He describes his papers as "deliverables," completed in exchange for their funding. It certainly looks like he was doing "made to order" research, which is one reason why journals require funding sources to be disclosed.

Again, this doesn't demonstrate that he faked any results, but it doesn't look good.

We should also point out that if you defend Dr Soon as not being influenced by his funding sources, then you have no real basis for declaring that scientists whose work does support climate change / AGW theories are influenced by their funding sources. To exculpate Dr Soon, and only Dr Soon, is special pleading. It's also an egregious one, since you're proposing that a man who violated ethics codes relating to disclosure is more ethical than others who work in the field.



Grant awards are posted and published. Look at the web site of any university that does any grant based research, they list their recent grant wins.
Click to expand...
Soon doesn't work for a university, he's an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian. More to the point, he didn't disclose his grants. They were only uncovered by a FOIA request. Hence the problem.


It is possible that Dr. Soon, knowing that all of his grant wins were already published in the public domain, did not see ether the need for additional disclosure...
Click to expand...
1) Ignorance of the rules is not a defense.
2) It appears he took deliberate steps not to reveal his grant sources.


Speaking of conflict of interest, what was the conflict of interest between the publishing journal, and Dr. Soon receiving a grant from a non-profit NGO?
Click to expand...
The potential conflict here is if Dr Soon was writing papers "to order," i.e. producing documents not to advance science but to provide fodder for a political agenda.
 
faithful_servant said:
$90K in India is not a small salary. The fact that his livelihood comes from being the CEO of a company that the entire reason for its existence is based on no small part his work as head of the IPCC....
Click to expand...
Good grief.

1) TERI is a non-profit research organization.
2) Pachauri is not a "CEO."
3) He was working at TERI for 20 years before being elected chairman of the IPCC.
4) There is no conflict of interest. None, zero, nada, zip.
5) Much of what TERI does has little or nothing to do with global warming.

By the way, it turns out this whole "conflict of interest" thing was basically a slander by the Telegraph (aka "Torygraph"). After an audit by KPMG, no evidence of wrongdoing was found, and the Telegraph had to apologize:

"On December 20 last year we published an article about Dr Pachauri and his business interests. It was not intended to suggest that Dr Pachauri was corrupt or abusing his position as head of the IPCC and we accept KPMG found he had not made 'millions of dollars' in recent years.... We apologise to Dr Pachauri for any embarrassment caused."


He can be replaced with someone without these kind of ties that can bring into question the findings of the IPCC, so why not replace him?
Click to expand...
1) He already quit, because of the sexual harassment allegations.
2) There is no conflict of interest, hence there never was any need for him to quit on that basis.


This would be a good thing for YOUR side as well, but you and the rest of the AGW/CC believers will back him up until the cows come home, instead of demanding that he be asked to step down and replaced with someone without the conflict of interest that he has.
Click to expand...
Please.

The reality is that the deniers will not accept anyone as the head of IPCC. Saint Francis of Assisi could rise from the grave and take the position, and he'd still be vilified mercilessly at the earliest opportunity.

More to the point: Pushing the "conflict of interest" claim further only demonstrates a total lack of awareness of the facts.
 
Last edited:
Visbek said:
Actually, it does.

• He was funded directly by the Southern Company, a for-profit energy company. The Charles Koch foundation is funded in no small part by Koch's oil refinery business, and their political inclinations and preferences are well known.

• DonorsTrust is specifically set up to anonymize donors to conservative causes. That doesn't mean Soon didn't know who was paying, only that DonorsTrust does not report it.

• The journals where Soon published his work require full disclosure of funding and grants. He failed to properly disclose the funding, and in doing so violated the ethics codes of those journals.

• We have Soon's communications with these funding sources. He describes his papers as "deliverables," completed in exchange for their funding. It certainly looks like he was doing "made to order" research, which is one reason why journals require funding sources to be disclosed.

Again, this doesn't demonstrate that he faked any results, but it doesn't look good.

We should also point out that if you defend Dr Soon as not being influenced by his funding sources, then you have no real basis for declaring that scientists whose work does support climate change / AGW theories are influenced by their funding sources. To exculpate Dr Soon, and only Dr Soon, is special pleading. It's also an egregious one, since you're proposing that a man who violated ethics codes relating to disclosure is more ethical than others who work in the field.




Soon doesn't work for a university, he's an astrophysicist at the Smithsonian. More to the point, he didn't disclose his grants. They were only uncovered by a FOIA request. Hence the problem.



1) Ignorance of the rules is not a defense.
2) It appears he took deliberate steps not to reveal his grant sources.



The potential conflict here is if Dr Soon was writing papers "to order," i.e. producing documents not to advance science but to provide fodder for a political agenda.
Click to expand...
Since the FOIA from green peace was in 2011, when was the paper submitted?
Which paper was submitted? and which journal is making the fuss?
Do they require the same standard for all submissions?

From Wiki.
Willie Soon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
2015: Allegations of disclosure violations

In February 2015, it was reported that Soon had failed to disclose conflicts of interest, including accepting more than $1.2 million from companies from the fossil-fuel industry, in at least 11 papers since 2008. In at least 8 of those cases, this failure to disclose violated the explicit ethical guidelines of the journal publishing his work.
Click to expand...
Greenpeace had issues with his funding back in 2011, so the information was already in the public domain.
 
longview said:
You do realize that Dr. Soon, received a grant to do research like many other researchers do.
I suspect the RFP for the grant did not specify an outcome.
That the source of the grant was a non-profit NGO, has almost no bearing.
Grant research is very different from corporate research, very public.
Grant awards are posted and published. Look at the web site of any university that does any
grant based research, they list their recent grant wins.
Energy research wins grant | Harvard Gazette
It is possible that Dr. Soon, knowing that all of his grant wins were already published
in the public domain, did not see ether the need for additional disclosure, or that they
might constitute a conflict of interest.
Speaking of conflict of interest, what was the conflict of interest between the publishing
journal, and Dr. Soon receiving a grant from a non-profit NGO?
Click to expand...


Dr. Soon didn't get grants or federal money to do research on climate change. Aside from his part time job at the Smithsonian, he was paid millions by the "for profit" fossil fuel industry to produce research that would cast doubt on the GW science.
 
Moot said:
Dr. Soon didn't get grants or federal money to do research on climate change. Aside from his part time job at the Smithsonian, he was paid millions by the "for profit" fossil fuel industry to produce research that would cast doubt on the GW science.
Click to expand...
Willie Soon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totalled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totalled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010.
Click to expand...
Hum! the Wiki sure says he got grants, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute
are both non profits. Exxon Mobil funded some of his grants also, but they do fund research grants.
If you want to tie every bit of published research back to it's funding source, to see if the source has bias,
you would have to question everything the AGW people have ever done.
 
faithful_servant said:
$90K in India is not a small salary. The fact that his livelihood comes from being the CEO of a company that the entire reason for its existence is based on no small part his work as head of the IPCC should be grounds for removing him immediately from the IPCC. He can be replaced with someone without these kind of ties that can bring into question the findings of the IPCC, so why not replace him? Why not put someone in the job who doesn't have ANY of this of conflict of interest and eliminate the questions about his objectivity?? This would be a good thing for YOUR side as well, but you and the rest of the AGW/CC believers will back him up until the cows come home, instead of demanding that he be asked to step down and replaced with someone without the conflict of interest that he has.
Click to expand...

Not everyone in India is the founder of a company. What you keep failing to understand is the IPCC is not paying him. Nor does the IPCC pay his company to do climate research.....in fact,...

the IPCC doesn't pay anyone to do climate research.

Sadly, yours and a few others failure to understand even the basics of the issue you're trying to discuss is pathetic. That you don't even know what the IPCC is, or why it exists or even what a non-profit NGO or a grant is, is beyond stupid.....and yet, here you are. Unbelievable. :roll:
 
longview said:
Willie Soon - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hum! the Wiki sure says he got grants, and the Charles G. Koch Foundation and the American Petroleum Institute
are both non profits. Exxon Mobil funded some of his grants also, but they do fund research grants.
If you want to tie every bit of published research back to it's funding source, to see if the source has bias,
you would have to question everything the AGW people have ever done.
Click to expand...

Dr. Soon didn't get grants or federal money to do research on climate change. Aside from his part time job at the Smithsonian, he was paid millions by the "for profit" fossil fuel industry to produce research that would cast doubt on the GW science.
 
Moot said:
Dr. Soon didn't get grants or federal money to do research on climate change. Aside from his part time job at the Smithsonian, he was paid millions by the "for profit" fossil fuel industry to produce research that would cast doubt on the GW science.
Click to expand...

That's what this is all about, isn't it?

Blasphemy!

It is material that is not in like with the religion of AGW.
 
Moot said:
Dr. Soon didn't get grants or federal money to do research on climate change. Aside from his part time job at the Smithsonian, he was paid millions by the "for profit" fossil fuel industry to produce research that would cast doubt on the GW science.
Click to expand...
Well let's check how valid your claim is.
Do you have any doubt of the tax status of the Charles G. Koch Foundation?
How about the American Petroleum Institute?
Both clearly non profit organizations.
You say he did not get grants, Why is it that greenpeace has a whole page
listing Grants awarded to Dr. Soon?
CASE STUDY: Dr. Willie Soon, a Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal | Greenpeace
Keep in mind, I am not actually defending Dr. Willie Soon, but pointing out that
the funding source and the Science have very little to do with each other.
The organization who wants to sponsor research issues a RFP,(Request For Proposals).
Researchers submit proposals showing how they can best do the research.
The winning proposal gets the grant, does the research, and writes a followup report( read deliverable).
For public sponsored research grants, the researchers are allowed to also publish their findings.
Other that being able to justify how the money spent, applied to the grant research,
the grant issuing organization has no control over the outcome of the research.
If they want to attach Dr. Soon, they should do it with Science.
I don't know much about his work, other that his theory says all the observed warming can be attributable
to changes in solar intensity.
If it is a valid theory, it should have an invalidation criteria, and should be allowed to be presented
and argued on it's Scientific merit, or lack there of!
To try and silence all opposing thought is not Science, but totalitarianism.
 
Moot said:
Not everyone in India is the founder of a company. What you keep failing to understand is the IPCC is not paying him. Nor does the IPCC pay his company to do climate research.....in fact,...

the IPCC doesn't pay anyone to do climate research.

Sadly, yours and a few others failure to understand even the basics of the issue you're trying to discuss is pathetic. That you don't even know what the IPCC is, or why it exists or even what a non-profit NGO or a grant is, is beyond stupid.....and yet, here you are. Unbelievable. :roll:
Click to expand...

Stupidity is thinking that someone can work for a business that owes it existence to ideas that the IPCC supports can be an IPCC member without letting his business effect his decisions as part of the IPCC. But I'm pretty sure you and the rest of the people defending him know this and most likely are VERY happy that you get to have a friendly voice supporting your beliefs.
 
Lord of Planar said:
That's what this is all about, isn't it?

Blasphemy!

It is material that is not in like with the religion of AGW.
Click to expand...

Geez, you don't have a clue what the word "objective" means, do you? That is really, really sad.
 
Last edited:
faithful_servant said:
Stupidity is thinking that someone can work for a business that owes it existence to ideas that the IPCC supports can be an IPCC member without letting his business effect his decisions as part of the IPCC. But I'm pretty sure you and the rest of the people defending him know this and most likely are VERY happy that you get to have a friendly voice supporting your beliefs.
Click to expand...

The IPCC was formed by the UN because it wanted to learn more about global warming...not to pretend it didn't exist.

Pachauri started his company in the 1970s and long before the IPCC was formed in 1988. So to say he owes his existence to the IPCC is a lie.
 
Moot said:
Some people say religion and others say passion. It was just a figure of speech, so what?
Click to expand...

Maybe it was, maybe it wasn't.

Are you a mind reader?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom