5 ms·

Wei-Hock Soon, one of the few (formerly) half-reputable scientists the energy industry could find that pretended anthropogenic climate change isn't real recent

by x0x0 11y ago

Wei-Hock Soon, one of the few (formerly) half-reputable scientists the energy industry could find that pretended anthropogenic climate change isn't real recently was found to have: - "forgotten" $1.2m in payments on disclosure forms (oops-a-daisy); - referred to his papers as "deliverables" in correspondence with the energy companies

MCRed 11y ago
For every such example you can come up with, there are a dozen examples of scientists you guys consider to be pro AGW who have made similar errors. For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann. (And yet proponents still use the Mann data.) Notice that your argument is not science, but demonization. Meanwhile every projection and prediction your side has made has failed to come to pass. And this has been going on for 20+ years!
- ocschwar 11y ago
  " For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann" You obviously have no idea what it is that Mann does, let alone how mining his email for a quote that can be misrepresented had one nothing to discredit him.
- Daishiman 11y ago
  Ah, yes, Mann, the dude whose work was reviewed by multiple indepent panels and groups and consider it to be sound science. If you're going to attack someone based on stupid soundbites, you should at least use the ones that are up to date.
Zuider 11y ago
I have flagged this comment as libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character. This kind of fact-twisting is on the level of the apocryphal Smathers campaign speech: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]." http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000379;p=0 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...
- Daishiman 11y ago
  1.2m in unethically gained compensation is a conflict of interest. That is not libel. Libel is publishing false information about a person. It's not false that the dude received the money, hence, not libel.
  - dragonwriter 11y ago
    > Libel is publishing false information about a person. Most generally, it is publishing damaging information about a person. In some jurisdictions, truth is an absolute defense to libel, in some other jurisdictions, truth is sometimes a defense (but not always).
    - Zuider 11y ago
      The attack on Dr. Wei Hock Soon is a very ugly business. It is a case in point of the political incursion on science that Matt Ridley was describing in the linked article. I have good reason to believe that the insinuations against Dr. Wei Hock Soon are both damaging and false, and indeed, actionable. They are part of a campaign instigated since 1997 by one Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, to mob and harass Dr. Soon, isolate him by putting pressure on his employer to fire him, to cause sponsors to drop him, and destroy his reputation. Added to that, the stress from this attack is worsening his ill health. https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/defense-dr-willie-soon-politically-motivated-attacks https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/defense-dr-willie... >Contrary to media reports, the grants from “energy interests” used to support Dr. Soon’s research were solicited and received by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, not by Dr. Soon himself. The Smithsonian staff vetted and approved every grant and then kept about 40 percent of the total as a fee for acting as a fire wall between a donor and the researcher. >Prior to conducting research on behalf of the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon would draw up a grant proposal that summarized the scientific questions he planned to research. Third-party entities interested in funding the research made their interest known to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian then vetted the research proposal and grant offers to ensure the research was scientifically proper and would not present any conflicts of interest. Only after conducting the vetting process did the Smithsonian authorize the research and the funding. The third-party funders wrote their checks directly to the Smithsonian, which was the grant recipient. The Smithsonian then distributed a portion of the grant money (usually a little more than half) to Dr. Soon as payment for his services The term 'deliverables' mentioned in the offending comment above (which insinuates that Dr. Soon is 'delivering' scientific conclusions made to order) comes from the contract between the donors and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (not Dr. Soon), and refers to progress reports and early access to material in preparation for publication.

by x0x0 11y ago

MCRed 11y ago

For every such example you can come up with, there are a dozen examples of scientists you guys consider to be pro AGW who have made similar errors. For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann. (And yet proponents still use the Mann data.) Notice that your argument is not science, but demonization. Meanwhile every projection and prediction your side has made has failed to come to pass. And this has been going on for 20+ years!

ocschwar 11y ago
" For instance, this comes nothing close to impeaching his work like ClimateGate did for Mann" You obviously have no idea what it is that Mann does, let alone how mining his email for a quote that can be misrepresented had one nothing to discredit him.
Daishiman 11y ago
Ah, yes, Mann, the dude whose work was reviewed by multiple indepent panels and groups and consider it to be sound science. If you're going to attack someone based on stupid soundbites, you should at least use the ones that are up to date.

Zuider 11y ago

I have flagged this comment as libel. It is one thing to argue a position you believe, it is quite another to smear another's character. This kind of fact-twisting is on the level of the apocryphal Smathers campaign speech: "Are you aware that Claude Pepper is known all over Washington as a shameless extrovert [pervert]? Not only that, but this man is reliably reported to practice nepotism [necrophilia] with his sister-in-law and he has a sister who was once a thespian [lesbian] in wicked New York. Worst of all, it is an established fact that Mr. Pepper, before his marriage, habitually practiced celibacy [???]." http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_topic;f=101;t=000379;p=0 http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi-bin/ultimatebb.cgi?ubb=get_to...

Daishiman 11y ago
1.2m in unethically gained compensation is a conflict of interest. That is not libel. Libel is publishing false information about a person. It's not false that the dude received the money, hence, not libel.
- dragonwriter 11y ago
  > Libel is publishing false information about a person. Most generally, it is publishing damaging information about a person. In some jurisdictions, truth is an absolute defense to libel, in some other jurisdictions, truth is sometimes a defense (but not always).
  - Zuider 11y ago
    The attack on Dr. Wei Hock Soon is a very ugly business. It is a case in point of the political incursion on science that Matt Ridley was describing in the linked article. I have good reason to believe that the insinuations against Dr. Wei Hock Soon are both damaging and false, and indeed, actionable. They are part of a campaign instigated since 1997 by one Kert Davies, research director of Greenpeace, to mob and harass Dr. Soon, isolate him by putting pressure on his employer to fire him, to cause sponsors to drop him, and destroy his reputation. Added to that, the stress from this attack is worsening his ill health. https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/defense-dr-willie-soon-politically-motivated-attacks https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/defense-dr-willie... >Contrary to media reports, the grants from “energy interests” used to support Dr. Soon’s research were solicited and received by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, not by Dr. Soon himself. The Smithsonian staff vetted and approved every grant and then kept about 40 percent of the total as a fee for acting as a fire wall between a donor and the researcher. >Prior to conducting research on behalf of the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon would draw up a grant proposal that summarized the scientific questions he planned to research. Third-party entities interested in funding the research made their interest known to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian then vetted the research proposal and grant offers to ensure the research was scientifically proper and would not present any conflicts of interest. Only after conducting the vetting process did the Smithsonian authorize the research and the funding. The third-party funders wrote their checks directly to the Smithsonian, which was the grant recipient. The Smithsonian then distributed a portion of the grant money (usually a little more than half) to Dr. Soon as payment for his services The term 'deliverables' mentioned in the offending comment above (which insinuates that Dr. Soon is 'delivering' scientific conclusions made to order) comes from the contract between the donors and the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (not Dr. Soon), and refers to progress reports and early access to material in preparation for publication.