How They Made Us Doubt Everything

Jack Hays said:

Dissects the BBC smear pretty thoroughly.

[FONT=&quot][/FONT]
[h=1]BBC Climate Documentary: “How they Made Us Doubt Everything”[/h][FONT=&quot]I’ve just listened to the entire BBC radio series “How They Made Us Doubt Everything”. This is not the BBC I grew up listening to and watching.
Continue reading →
[/FONT]

Click to expand...

No, it's a load of garbage written by Eric Worrall, who appears to be a right-wing activist devoid of any form of scientific qualification. Thanks, but I think the BBC and the multiple award winning Naomi Oreskes are more likely to be closer to the truth on this one.

Surface Detail said:

No, it's a load of garbage written by Eric Worrall, who appears to be a right-wing activist devoid of any form of scientific qualification. Thanks, but I think the BBC and the multiple award winning Naomi Oreskes are more likely to be closer to the truth on this one.

Click to expand...

Naomi Oreskes is the most unprincipled of all, as demonstrated.

Dr. Fred Singer’s Original Critique of Naomi Oreskes book:
Merchants of Smear: Oreskes and Conway
SFS/ 6/16/2011
Science and Smear Merchants

Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San Diego, claims to be a science historian. One can readily demonstrate that she is neither a credible scientist nor a credible historian; the best evidence is right there in her recent book, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” coauthored with Eric Conway. Her science is faulty; her historical procedures are thoroughly unprofessional. She is, however, an accomplished polemicist, who has found time for world lecture tours, promoting her book and her ideological views, while being paid by the citizens of California. Her book tries to smear four senior physicists – of whom I am the only surviving one. I view it as my obligation to defend the reputations of my late colleagues and good friends against her libelous charges. . . .
We have established so far that Oreskes is neither a scientist of any sort nor a careful professional historian. She is, however, a “pop-psychologist.” It seems she has figured out what motivates the four senior physicists she libels in her book; it is “anti-communism.” Really! This is not only stated explicitly but she also identifies them throughout as “Cold Warriors.”
Well, now we know at least where Oreskes stands in the political spectrum.

Jack Hays said:

I've seen a lot of dishonesty and I'm usually pretty relaxed about it, but I do take offense when someone lies about me.

Click to expand...

No lies, Jack. I outed your Willie Soon. Game, set, match.

calamity said:

No lies, Jack. I outed your Willie Soon. Game, set, match.

Click to expand...

I don't know which is sadder, the original comically stupid attack on Soon, or your uninformed acceptance of it.

Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead


Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015
Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again. . . .

Jack Hays said:

Naomi Oreskes is the most unprincipled of all, as demonstrated.

Dr. Fred Singer’s Original Critique of Naomi Oreskes book:
Merchants of Smear: Oreskes and Conway
SFS/ 6/16/2011
Science and Smear Merchants

Professor Naomi Oreskes, of the University of California in San Diego, claims to be a science historian. One can readily demonstrate that she is neither a credible scientist nor a credible historian; the best evidence is right there in her recent book, “Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Global Warming,” coauthored with Eric Conway. Her science is faulty; her historical procedures are thoroughly unprofessional. She is, however, an accomplished polemicist, who has found time for world lecture tours, promoting her book and her ideological views, while being paid by the citizens of California. Her book tries to smear four senior physicists – of whom I am the only surviving one. I view it as my obligation to defend the reputations of my late colleagues and good friends against her libelous charges. . . .
We have established so far that Oreskes is neither a scientist of any sort nor a careful professional historian. She is, however, a “pop-psychologist.” It seems she has figured out what motivates the four senior physicists she libels in her book; it is “anti-communism.” Really! This is not only stated explicitly but she also identifies them throughout as “Cold Warriors.”
Well, now we know at least where Oreskes stands in the political spectrum.

Click to expand...

:lamo Yes, we know Fred Singer didn't like it when his professional denialism was called out.

This is well worth a read:

Fred Singer – 'Granddaddy of Fake Science' – Retires as SEPP President

From the effects of passive smoking to the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer and, of course, anthropogenic climate change, there is little that Fred wouldn't deny for money.

Surface Detail said:

:lamo Yes, we know Fred Singer didn't like it when his professional denialism was called out.

This is well worth a read:

Fred Singer – 'Granddaddy of Fake Science' – Retires as SEPP President

From the effects of passive smoking to the effect of CFCs on the ozone layer and, of course, anthropogenic climate change, there is little that Fred wouldn't deny for money.

Click to expand...

If you are willing to smear such a fine man then I must conclude there is no depth too low for you.

Jack Hays said:

I don't know which is sadder, the original comically stupid attack on Soon, or your uninformed acceptance of it.

Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead


Guest Essay by Kip Hansen
I cannot bring myself to quote from this unconscionable piece of journalistic malfeasance:
Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

By JUSTIN GILLIS and JOHN SCHWARTZ FEB. 21, 2015
Instead, I simply let my title and the following excerpts from the so-called “supporting” documents offered by Greenpeace speak for themselves. Their [non-]journalist lackeys: Justin Gillis and John Schwartz of the NY Times, apparently didn’t actually read them – or they might have noticed that the contracts are between the Smithsonian (not Soon) and Southern and if they had stretched themselves, might have uncovered the definition of “deliverables”….I can’t believe Gillis and Schwartz allowed themselves to be duped again. . . .

Click to expand...

Soon is a paid hack for the oil companies. I proved it. Gaslight all you want, Jack. But, the facts sink your nonsensical WUWT arguments all the time.

calamity said:

Soon is a paid hack for the oil companies. I proved it. Gaslight all you want, Jack. But, the facts sink your nonsensical WUWT arguments all the time.

Click to expand...

No, you did not. In this case the facts are quite clear. The allegations against Soon are false. WUWT has the facts. Greenpeace and the NYT have the lies.

Jack Hays said:

No, you did not. In this case the facts are quite clear. The allegations against Soon are false. WUWT has the facts. Greenpeace and the NYT have the lies.

Click to expand...

False. Soon is a hack who works on behalf of the energy companies like most gaslighters.

calamity said:

False. Soon is a hack who works on behalf of the energy companies like most gaslighters.

Click to expand...

No matter how often you repeat it, you can't make it true.

Jack Hays said:

No matter how often you repeat it, you can't make it true.

Click to expand...

back at ya

Jack Hays said:

No, you did not. In this case the facts are quite clear. The allegations against Soon are false. WUWT has the facts. Greenpeace and the NYT have the lies.

Click to expand...

The facts are that Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. He is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of fossil-fuel industry's tame whitecoats - paid large sums of money not to undertake genuine research, but instead to attempt to cast doubt on real findings.

Surface Detail said:

The facts are that Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. He is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of fossil-fuel industry's tame whitecoats - paid large sums of money not to undertake genuine research, but instead to attempt to cast doubt on real findings.

Click to expand...

Sorry, but nothing in your post is true, and incontrovertible evidence to refute your claims has already been posted here. If you did not understand that then your post is a product of ignorance. If you did then your post is a lie. You choose.

Jack Hays said:

Sorry, but nothing in your post is true, and incontrovertible evidence to refute your claims has already been posted here. If you did not understand that then your post is a product of ignorance. If you did then your post is a lie. You choose.

Click to expand...

If it is a lie, than you should be able to direct us to Soon's lawsuit against the NYT for defamation and subsequent victory.

Surface Detail said:

The facts are that Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers. He is, without a shadow of a doubt, one of fossil-fuel industry's tame whitecoats - paid large sums of money not to undertake genuine research, but instead to attempt to cast doubt on real findings.

Click to expand...

Considering that the nature of the funding described is that the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics received a grant,
and some of that Grant paid Dr Soon's salary, then would not any paper publish from any institution which receives Exxon grants be void?
The grants, after all, help pay the salaries of the professors, and researchers.
For fun, here is a list of Universities and colleges who receive funds from Exxon.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/...de-giving/2017-higher-ed-worldwide-giving.pdf
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
There goes all of Michael Mann's papers!
In fact most of the universities have received Exxon grants, so any papers, from any of their employees, show not be considered.

As you can tell, it is a very slippery slope, when you attempt to apply a secondary funding source, to how someone's salary is paid.

Surface Detail said:

If it is a lie, than you should be able to direct us to Soon's lawsuit against the NYT for defamation and subsequent victory.

Click to expand...

Such lawsuits are generally a waste of money in the US. The fundamental point is that Soon is a Harvard-Smithsonian salaried employee, subject to that institution's funding, contracting and confidentiality rules, as are most scientists and scholars at most institutions. Here are Soon's own words.

BBC Asks Dr. Willie Soon to Respond to Climate Conspiracy Claims


1)You received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015 from fossil fuel interests including Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Foundation. Is that the case? Would you like to respond?

WS: This is definitely not the case. I have definitely not “received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015”. My employer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is simply not that generous. Frankly, if making money was my main priority, I would not have gone into science. Indeed, if I did not care about science or the environment, maybe I would have found it more lucrative to work for an advocacy group like Greenpeace, which as we discuss in the attached report has an annual turnover of about $400 million.

My salary has come from the Center since I started as a staff position in 1997. Until about 2008, I had no involvement in where the Center received its funding. After my immediate supervisor retired in 2009, one of my additional duties was to write grant proposals on behalf of the Center, which has received funding from many sources including government, industry, charities, foundations and many others. This includes the three groups you mentioned, amongst many others.

However, most employees (including me) receive their salary through the Center. This has the advantage that our research is uninfluenced by the Center’s funding sources. In any case, I am a scientist. I believe it is important to follow the science wherever it leads. I appreciate that there probably are some “scientists” out there who might alter their research results to facilitate vested interests, but the idea is abhorrent to me.

Background:

Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead

longview said:

Considering that the nature of the funding described is that the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics received a grant,
and some of that Grant paid Dr Soon's salary, then would not any paper publish from any institution which receives Exxon grants be void?
The grants, after all, help pay the salaries of the professors, and researchers.
For fun, here is a list of Universities and colleges who receive funds from Exxon.
https://corporate.exxonmobil.com/-/...de-giving/2017-higher-ed-worldwide-giving.pdf
Pennsylvania State University, University Park, Pennsylvania
There goes all of Michael Mann's papers!
In fact most of the universities have received Exxon grants, so any papers, from any of their employees, show not be considered.

As you can tell, it is a very slippery slope, when you attempt to apply a secondary funding source, to how someone's salary is paid.

Click to expand...

Excellent post.

Jack Hays said:

Excellent post.

Click to expand...

Thank you, the concept falls under the category of, "You should not set a standard too high, least you be expected to meet the same standard".

LOL Jack and longview just owns this thread. :mrgreen:

Jack Hays said:

Such lawsuits are generally a waste of money in the US. The fundamental point is that Soon is a Harvard-Smithsonian salaried employee, subject to that institution's funding, contracting and confidentiality rules, as are most scientists and scholars at most institutions. Here are Soon's own words.

BBC Asks Dr. Willie Soon to Respond to Climate Conspiracy Claims


1)You received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015 from fossil fuel interests including Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Foundation. Is that the case? Would you like to respond?

WS: This is definitely not the case. I have definitely not “received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015”. My employer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is simply not that generous. Frankly, if making money was my main priority, I would not have gone into science. Indeed, if I did not care about science or the environment, maybe I would have found it more lucrative to work for an advocacy group like Greenpeace, which as we discuss in the attached report has an annual turnover of about $400 million.

My salary has come from the Center since I started as a staff position in 1997. Until about 2008, I had no involvement in where the Center received its funding. After my immediate supervisor retired in 2009, one of my additional duties was to write grant proposals on behalf of the Center, which has received funding from many sources including government, industry, charities, foundations and many others. This includes the three groups you mentioned, amongst many others.

However, most employees (including me) receive their salary through the Center. This has the advantage that our research is uninfluenced by the Center’s funding sources. In any case, I am a scientist. I believe it is important to follow the science wherever it leads. I appreciate that there probably are some “scientists” out there who might alter their research results to facilitate vested interests, but the idea is abhorrent to me.

Background:

Greenpeace enlists Justin Gillis & John Schwartz of the NY Times in Journalistic Terrorist Attack on Willie Soon - Miss Target, Hit Smithsonian Instead

Click to expand...

Hmm, that seems to contradict what the Smithsonian says:

"Soon is a part-time researcher at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a cooperative institute operated in conjunction with Harvard University. Soon “was hired to conduct research on long-term stellar and solar variability,” the statement notes, adding that the “Smithsonian does not fund Dr. Soon; he pursues external grants to fund his research.”

Smithsonian asks legal watchdog to investigate climate skeptic’s disclosure practices | Science | AAAS

So it looks like Soon was being, how shall we say, economical with the truth when he replied to the BBC :roll:

Edit: And we know where those external grants come from, don't we

Surface Detail said:

Hmm, that seems to contradict what the Smithsonian says:

"Soon is a part-time researcher at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a cooperative institute operated in conjunction with Harvard University. Soon “was hired to conduct research on long-term stellar and solar variability,” the statement notes, adding that the “Smithsonian does not fund Dr. Soon; he pursues external grants to fund his research.”

Smithsonian asks legal watchdog to investigate climate skeptic’s disclosure practices | Science | AAAS

So it looks like Soon was being, how shall we say, economical with the truth when he replied to the BBC :roll:

Edit: And we know where those external grants come from, don't we

Click to expand...

I think your post is a teachable moment. You have demonstrated a pitfall of confirmation bias: you stopped looking when you found an answer you liked. Unfortunately, the Smithsonian's leadership had to walk back their initial cowardly response (linked by you) when their own Inspector General found that Soon had acted as required by the Smithsonian's rules.

Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

". . . The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.
Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists. . . .

About one-third of the Center’s scientists, including Soon, are employed in what are called “Smithsonian Trust positions.” These positions are held mostly by Ph.D. specialists. According to the Smithsonian Employee Handbook, paychecks given to those holding federal positions are paid from Smithsonian’s annual federal appropriation, while Trust positions are paid from Smithsonian’s trust fund. Trust scientists are paid by the hour.
According to Smithsonian’s requirements, scientists in Trust positions develop donors willing to give Smithsonian grants to fund research.
“Obtaining competitive funding is an important part of the scientists’ jobs and a measure of their career success,” states the Smithsonian Employee Handbook.
Grants go directly to Smithsonian for the specified science projects, and 30–40 percent of each grant goes directly to Smithsonian for management and overhead costs. The money never goes directly to the researcher. . . ."

The matter was described with some eloquence in this letter.

500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon - Guess Smithsonian's answer

". . . No investigation or waffling on the part of the Smithsonian was warranted. The Smithsonian itself had negotiated all the contracts in question under the condition the funder’s identity was not to be published, and all the money went directly to the Smithsonian, who then paid Soon out of the grants. The Smithsonian’s internal policies assured no conflict of interest. As the letter from Monckton et al. states, “The only papers in which Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which obligation the Smithsonian, not Soon, was entirely responsible.”. . . ."

Surface Detail said:

Hmm, that seems to contradict what the Smithsonian says:

"Soon is a part-time researcher at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory in Cambridge, Massachusetts, a cooperative institute operated in conjunction with Harvard University. Soon “was hired to conduct research on long-term stellar and solar variability,” the statement notes, adding that the “Smithsonian does not fund Dr. Soon; he pursues external grants to fund his research.”

Smithsonian asks legal watchdog to investigate climate skeptic’s disclosure practices | Science | AAAS

So it looks like Soon was being, how shall we say, economical with the truth when he replied to the BBC :roll:

Edit: And we know where those external grants come from, don't we

Click to expand...

Well your cited article was from Feb of 2015, and Dr. Soon is still an Employee at Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
I think it would be safe to conclude that the The Smithsonian Institution's independent Inspector General, found no impropriety.
Of Course none of this changes his findings that variations in the sun’s radiation output play a bigger role in influencing Earth’s climate than do other factors.
In reality, even if, say only 40% of the observed warming, were from changes in solar radiation, (not just intensity, but also spectrum),
then the catastrophic predictions of AGW would be invalid.
The concept of AGW, is that after we subtract all the know causes of warming, then the remaining warming is from AGW.
Any research that moves any warming from the unattributed AGW column to the known column, reduces the climate's sensitivity to added CO2.
To see how this would work in the real world, we could take one of the data sets like Harcrut4,
https://www.metoffice.gov.uk/hadobs...ries/HadCRUT.4.6.0.0.annual_ns_avg_smooth.txt
From 1900 to 1950 we have the warming attributable to natural causes of .258C
Between 1900 and 2019 We have the total warming of 1.015C
If 40% were from the changes in solar output, than ~.406C would be from natural causes.
This would only leave .609 C for the observed warming from Human activity.
The problem with that is that the increase in greenhouse gasses alone, the AGGI,
NOAA/ESRL Global Monitoring Laboratory - THE NOAA ANNUAL GREENHOUSE GAS INDEX (AGGI)
should show 5.35 X ln(500/310) X.3=.767 C.
Even adjusting for aerosols and volcanic eruptions, still leaves no room for the required amplified feedbacks!

Here's another one:


Holthaus says:


In other words, Holthaus thinks that climate science hasn’t done a good job of
stating their case. No, they’ve done an excellent job of stating their case, it
just doesn’t hold up to the light of day. The misdirection, re-writing of history,
exaggeration, cherry picking, bunker mentality, propaganda & dogma is there
for all to see.

Better Stories? We all know what acronym to use for that!

Steve Case said:

Here's another one:

Here’s how we could reinvent the climate narrative - Eric Holthaus
​

Holthaus says:

I invited six Indigenous climate scholars, activists, and advocates to talk
about how they tell climate stories, and how we might be able to tell
better climate stories – together.​

In other words, Holthaus thinks that climate science hasn’t done a good job of
stating their case. No, they’ve done an excellent job of stating their case, it
just doesn’t hold up to the light of day. The misdirection, re-writing of history,
exaggeration, cherry picking, bunker mentality, propaganda & dogma is there
for all to see.

Better Stories? We all know what acronym to use for that!

Click to expand...

Oooh! I know the answer!:bs

Jack Hays said:

I think your post is a teachable moment. You have demonstrated a pitfall of confirmation bias: you stopped looking when you found an answer you liked. Unfortunately, the Smithsonian's leadership had to walk back their initial cowardly response (linked by you) when their own Inspector General found that Soon had acted as required by the Smithsonian's rules.

Facts Clear Astrophysicist Soon of Wrongdoing While Indicting Journalists Covering Climate Debate

". . . The Greenpeace ruckus brought pressure from the Obama administration on the Harvard-Smithsonian Center to silence climate skeptics. Smithsonian responded with an elaborate new “Directive on Standards of Conduct,” which forced its employees to wade through bureaucratic rules replete with an ethics counselor and a “Loyalty to the Smithsonian” clause.
Despite the pressure applied to Smithsonian, its inspector general found Soon had not broken any rules, prompting additional attacks from alarmists. . . .

About one-third of the Center’s scientists, including Soon, are employed in what are called “Smithsonian Trust positions.” These positions are held mostly by Ph.D. specialists. According to the Smithsonian Employee Handbook, paychecks given to those holding federal positions are paid from Smithsonian’s annual federal appropriation, while Trust positions are paid from Smithsonian’s trust fund. Trust scientists are paid by the hour.
According to Smithsonian’s requirements, scientists in Trust positions develop donors willing to give Smithsonian grants to fund research.
“Obtaining competitive funding is an important part of the scientists’ jobs and a measure of their career success,” states the Smithsonian Employee Handbook.
Grants go directly to Smithsonian for the specified science projects, and 30–40 percent of each grant goes directly to Smithsonian for management and overhead costs. The money never goes directly to the researcher. . . ."

The matter was described with some eloquence in this letter.

500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon - Guess Smithsonian's answer

". . . No investigation or waffling on the part of the Smithsonian was warranted. The Smithsonian itself had negotiated all the contracts in question under the condition the funder’s identity was not to be published, and all the money went directly to the Smithsonian, who then paid Soon out of the grants. The Smithsonian’s internal policies assured no conflict of interest. As the letter from Monckton et al. states, “The only papers in which Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which obligation the Smithsonian, not Soon, was entirely responsible.”. . . ."

Click to expand...

Sorry, Jack, but anonymous bloggers on WUWT and that nutcase Monckton do not qualify as reliable sources of information. Your reliance on such dubious sources is itself a perfect example of confirmation bias.

If Willie Soon believes that his reputation has been damaged by lies, then his lawyer is just a phone call away.