Can ANYONE refute the claims of "Corporate Ties"?

[Billy_Bob]

I wonder if we can say that every left wing enviro wacko who wants to be published and fails to submit their lists of donors, who wish to remain anonymous, should be flogged and slandered too..

 

[Billy_Bob]

If your contractual agreement forbids informing the journal of that agreement, you should never submit a paper to that journal. To do so is fraud. And Soon committed fraud.

Your a fool..

The donor has no bearing on the works presented. They gave up funds and they cannot direct what is to be done with them once they are given. Dr Soon was legally right to do his work and publish it. The donor had no bearing on the work other than if they did not like what was being done could deiced to not further fund him..

Your missing two major components of fraud, Old Crock.. One is intent to defraud which is clearly not the case and two, loss. There was no loss to the journal. You obviously have no training in Law.

Now what was it, scientifically, that you disagreed with? Dr Soon's facts are exact and impeccably documented.

 

[Billy_Bob]

From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...

 

[Billy_Bob]

When will Penn State give up all of Michael Mann personal E-Mail like the Smithsonian did to Soon? Yet the activists found nothing...

‘Greenpeace was able to access all of eminent solar physicist Willie Soon’s emails from his employer at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center regarding the paper. But they found nothing suggesting any kind of foul play, deception or receiving of illegal funds. Mr. Bannon mocked the Harvard-Smithsonian center for having released Soon’s correspondence, sarcastically referring to the institution as a “profiles in courage” for providing all of Soon’s private emails.’ ”

Breitbart’s article: Experts Smeared for Paper Skeptical of Climate Change

 

[Old Rocks]

Well, we will see what the journals say. Your opinion is hardly something that matters.

 

[Crick]

If your contractual agreement forbids informing the journal of that agreement, you should never submit a paper to that journal. To do so is fraud. And Soon committed fraud.

BINGO!

 

[Old Rocks]

Breibart? Why not the Weekly Globe?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 37189

From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...

I personally think he owes the world an apology and a resignation.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Well, we will see what the journals say. Your opinion is hardly something that matters.

Just like yours... Only mine has 25 plus years of Law Enforcement to back mine up..

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 37189

From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...

I personally think he owes the world an apology and a resignation.

Why? For doing what he is legally allowed to do? Fuck that!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Breibart? Why not the Weekly Globe?

You use garbage from SKS... that's about as relevant as a garbage can full of papers..

 

[Billy_Bob]

How about we treat Micheal Mann, James Hansen, and every other climate scientist the same way too... tell them all to resign..

The hypocrisy of the left is stunning..If its not my way they need to apologize and resign... Who the fuck do the left think they are?

 

[Crick]

View attachment 37189

From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...

I personally think he owes the world an apology and a resignation.

Why? For doing what he is legally allowed to do? Fuck that!

I've got a contract that says I have to break into my neighbor's house and steal their TV. Does that make it okay? Besides, telling the journal that he has a conflict of interest does not reveal the name of his sponsor and signing a document with them - a contract - in which he says he has no conflict of interest, is a lie and a breech of contract. He hasn't got a leg, Billy Boy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

View attachment 37189

From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...

I personally think he owes the world an apology and a resignation.

Why? For doing what he is legally allowed to do? Fuck that!

I've got a contract that says I have to break into my neighbor's house and steal their TV. Does that make it okay? Besides, telling the journal that he has a conflict of interest does not reveal the name of his sponsor and signing a document with them - a contract - in which he says he has no conflict of interest, is a lie and a breech of contract. He hasn't got a leg, Billy Boy.

Your straw man is on fire.. This is a fallacious argument and really stupid to boot. Soon did nothing wrong. Considering that this is only 26% of his funding for one year what are you going to do about the rest that was government funded?

Your the one without a leg to stand on. This is a non-issue blown way out of proportion. But heck, if were going to hold Soon to this kind of ridicules rhetoric lets hold every singe scientist to it.. All their private emails should be public and all funding sources from all scientists as well, not just Soon.. Then lets see just ho eager you are to have this done...

James Hansen's millions from special interest groups, Michale Mann's... ooo this could get really interesting and we would finally learn about mikes nature trick and the other half of the Climategate affair along with all the behind the scenes going ons with the IPCC and other special interest groups too...

 

[Billy_Bob]

Did Southern pay for any of the time that Soon spent on that research? According to the Smithsonian he did not. The disclosure to the Journal was not only unnecessary but unwarranted as no funding from the source was used.

The alarmists loose again...

It would appear that The Smithsonian did not comply with this directive and that the documents that were released were covered by these provisions. The agreements with Southern appear to be dated in Feb 2008, so they would NOT be exempt from the policy NOT to disclose them under the provision exempting (i.e. disclosing) documents entered into prior to 30 Nov 2007. It seems that The Smithsonian has acted in a manner contrary to its own written Statement of Values and Code of Ethics and contrary to its own Directive. One could conclude that it was The Smithsonian who may have acted unethically, perhaps for political purposes rather than in support of its mission.

By correctly identifying himself as being part of The Smithsonian, Dr. Soon would seem to have made all relevant disclosures about his source of funding, especially in view of the Statement of Values and Code of Ethics of The Smithsonian, which seems to ensure that it provides the oversight (and charges 30% of the grant for that purpose!) to prevent any undue influence by outside parties (such as donors or sponsors) on any scholarship or publications supported by The Smithsonian. I would agree that this hits The Smithsonian hard and that the Inspector General of The Smithsonian has him- or herself a conflict of interest in investigating these allegations due to the apparently unethical and contrary to stated policy release of documents that would reasonably be considered were going to be or could be used for inflammatory purposes.

This is about to get really ugly...

Source

This is the relevant part of this information:

"In short, the Smithsonian performed research by means of a part-time employee funded by grants from, among others, Southern. By disclosing that he was with the Smithsonian, it seems to me that Dr. Soon has properly disclosed the direct source of his funding."

This is exactly right!

 

[Billy_Bob]

Putting this all together;

1. Soon is an employee of the Smithsonian.
2. Southern made a contractual pledge of money to the Smithsonian for climactic research along with many other companies and organizations.
3. Soon, as an employee, received remuneration for his work from the Smithsonian.
4. When Soon published his work and identified himself as an employee he made all of the necessary notifications to the journal.

Soon has made no error or misjudgment and has no apologies to make to anyone. The slanderous rant by Greenpeace and the NY Times is defamatory and actionable. I encourage Dr Soon to take actions against those who slandered him.

As for the Smithsonian and the actions of those in authority, it is far from over. There is most certainly a conflict in interests with the inspector general or his counsel investigating themselves. The "it wasn't me" letter appearing to distance themselves from Soon is beyond disgusting and childish. The letter violates several areas of their code of conduct. It seems that it may be The Smithsonian that has acted unethically.

 

[bripat9643]

If your contractual agreement forbids informing the journal of that agreement, you should never submit a paper to that journal. To do so is fraud. And Soon committed fraud.

If it's fraud, then why hasn't he been prosecuted? Apparently you don't understand the definition of the term.

 

[Crick]

How about we treat Micheal Mann, James Hansen, and every other climate scientist the same way too... tell them all to resign..

The hypocrisy of the left is stunning..If its not my way they need to apologize and resign... Who the fuck do the left think they are?

When you find some evidence that Mann and Hansen have done what Soon has done, I'll be right behind you. Till then, it's YOU that has the lock on hypocrisy around here Billy.

 

[Crick]

If your contractual agreement forbids informing the journal of that agreement, you should never submit a paper to that journal. To do so is fraud. And Soon committed fraud.

If it's fraud, then why hasn't he been prosecuted? Apparently you don't understand the definition of the term.

This just came out. Patience, laddy, patience.

 

[Crick]

Putting this all together;

1. Soon is an employee of the Smithsonian.
2. Southern made a contractual pledge of money to the Smithsonian for climactic research along with many other companies and organizations.
3. Soon, as an employee, received remuneration for his work from the Smithsonian.
4. When Soon published his work and identified himself as an employee he made all of the necessary notifications to the journal.

Soon has made no error or misjudgment and has no apologies to make to anyone. The slanderous rant by Greenpeace and the NY Times is defamatory and actionable. I encourage Dr Soon to take actions against those who slandered him.

As for the Smithsonian and the actions of those in authority, it is far from over. There is most certainly a conflict in interests with the inspector general or his counsel investigating themselves. The "it wasn't me" letter appearing to distance themselves from Soon is beyond disgusting and childish. The letter violates several areas of their code of conduct. It seems that it may be The Smithsonian that has acted unethically.

It'll be interesting to see how that works out for you.