Willie Soon paid to deny climate change

[Delta4Embassy]

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

"From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence.

The funding would lead to “active participations by this PI (principal investigator) of this research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding of solar variability and climate change”, Soon wrote in a report to Southern Company.

ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed.

Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.

“The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.”"

more at link

Rut roh Raggy.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Not this horse shit again...

Don't you grow tired of telling lies and falsehoods that have been clearly debunked over and over again? Its rather funny that this comes back up when Harvard University was paid the monies and the Smithsonian was paid monies to support Dr Soon's work. Why are you not blaming them and all the other scientists they employ? Why do you single out Dr Soon's careful and impeccable work which disproves your fantasy?

 

[Crick]

Because they don't and he didn't

 

[Billy_Bob]

The guardian and their liar (makes shit up) reporter... You should check your facts before you make yourself look like more of a fool..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because they don't and he didn't

 

[Crick]

We've seen the link to the articles about Willie Soon and his backers. Let's see yours.

 

[Old Rocks]

Billy Bob does not post links to things he pulls out of his ass. Fortunately.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy Bob does not post links to things he pulls out of his ass. Fortunately.

Old Fraud doesn't know how to check facts either... he spouts lies just like the other liars.. But that is the Alarmist meme... lie out your ass and scream "DENIER" at the top of your lungs when your lies are exposed..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

"From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence.

The funding would lead to “active participations by this PI (principal investigator) of this research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding of solar variability and climate change”, Soon wrote in a report to Southern Company.

ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed.

Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.

“The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.”"

more at link

Rut roh Raggy.

Dr soon was employed by the Smithsonian and Harvard in 2005. Dr Soon did prepare grant funding requests. The companies approved the grants which were paid to HARVARD and the SMITHSONIAN trustee's. Dr Soon and OTHERS were paid from the funds which were contractually agreed upon payments for services rendered.

I guess every alarmist in universities should be fired for doing the same dam thing... Mann at Penn State made multiple requests to SHELL OIL and received grants which ultimately paid his salary and every other alarmist moron.

The shear desperation to change the topic from 31.5 million in fraud at GMU and IEGS by alarmist is stunning.

 

[IanC]

perhaps the govt funding agencies should also have put in a production clause when it came to the nepotic Shakla/IEGS/COLA boondoggle. apparent;y the 10s of millions spent havent actually produced much in the way of published papers or data. Soon applied for grants on specific topics, which were given to Harvard/Smithsonian, who in turn passed on a fraction to Soon, who then produced the work.

Shakla managed to get funding over and above his GMS salary, which he used to pay himself and many of his family, and little actual science was produced for large and ongoing funding. the publicity over the RICO letter has tweeked the interest of Congress in the financial peculiarities of Shakla & Co.

I could never actually figure out what Soon had done wrong. if it was failure to promenently and specifically name his funding, then there is a large double standard because many/or most science groups could be held up on the same charge.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh yes.. Let's stop funding for SOLAR research because someone other then our irresponsible activist govt who doesn't want scientific debate -- won't. What a great idea for chilling open discussion and science..

And what a STUPID decision that would be for Climate Science in general..
You go girls... Control the free inquiry in science..

 

[IanC]

Oh yes.. Let's stop funding for SOLAR research because someone other then our irresponsible activist govt who doesn't want scientific debate -- won't. What a great idea for chilling open discussion and science..

And what a STUPID decision that would be for Climate Science in general..
You go girls... Control the free inquiry in science..

I believe they are allowed to study the Sun, as long as they dont apply their findings to climate science. just ask Dr Judith Lean.

 

[bripat9643]

Work of prominent climate change denier was funded by energy industry

"From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence.

The funding would lead to “active participations by this PI (principal investigator) of this research proposal in all national and international forums interested in promoting the basic understanding of solar variability and climate change”, Soon wrote in a report to Southern Company.

ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed.

Greenpeace has suggested Soon also improperly concealed his funding sources for a recent article, in violation of the journal’s conflict of interest guidelines.

“The company was paying him to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was not acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature,” Davies said. “These proposals and contracts show debatable interventions in science literally on the behalf of Southern Company and the Kochs.”"

more at link

Rut roh Raggy.

So how is that any different than so-called "climate science?" Don't these "scientists" get paid to produce evidence that AGW is real?

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh yes.. Let's stop funding for SOLAR research because someone other then our irresponsible activist govt who doesn't want scientific debate -- won't. What a great idea for chilling open discussion and science..

And what a STUPID decision that would be for Climate Science in general..
You go girls... Control the free inquiry in science..

I believe they are allowed to study the Sun, as long as they dont apply their findings to climate science. just ask Dr Judith Lean.

 

[IanC]

Oh yes.. Let's stop funding for SOLAR research because someone other then our irresponsible activist govt who doesn't want scientific debate -- won't. What a great idea for chilling open discussion and science..

And what a STUPID decision that would be for Climate Science in general..
You go girls... Control the free inquiry in science..

I believe they are allowed to study the Sun, as long as they dont apply their findings to climate science. just ask Dr Judith Lean.

I dont really remember the details but Lean found out the hard way that you always shade your results and conclusions to favour climate science. like many other moderate scientists, I think she does her best to stay out of it now. a pity.

 

[flacaltenn]

Oh yes.. Let's stop funding for SOLAR research because someone other then our irresponsible activist govt who doesn't want scientific debate -- won't. What a great idea for chilling open discussion and science..

And what a STUPID decision that would be for Climate Science in general..
You go girls... Control the free inquiry in science..

I believe they are allowed to study the Sun, as long as they dont apply their findings to climate science. just ask Dr Judith Lean.

I dont really remember the details but Lean found out the hard way that you always shade your results and conclusions to favour climate science. like many other moderate scientists, I think she does her best to stay out of it now. a pity.

Well who wants to end up in front of a Congressional Investigation??

They'd have to wake me up when they needed me to testify. Couldn't keep my eyes open during the speechifying..

 

[threegoofs]

perhaps the govt funding agencies should also have put in a production clause when it came to the nepotic Shakla/IEGS/COLA boondoggle. apparent;y the 10s of millions spent havent actually produced much in the way of published papers or data. Soon applied for grants on specific topics, which were given to Harvard/Smithsonian, who in turn passed on a fraction to Soon, who then produced the work.

Shakla managed to get funding over and above his GMS salary, which he used to pay himself and many of his family, and little actual science was produced for large and ongoing funding. the publicity over the RICO letter has tweeked the interest of Congress in the financial peculiarities of Shakla & Co.

I could never actually figure out what Soon had done wrong. if it was failure to promenently and specifically name his funding, then there is a large double standard because many/or most science groups could be held up on the same charge.

That's not true.

Disclosures are quite clearly required when publishing in most journals, and especially in a topic this controversial, authors will not bury them unless they are trying to hide them.

Not sure about this Shakla thing, since it seems like a denier witch hunt and the 'facts' are sketchy, but the Soon issue is pretty egregious.

 

[Billy_Bob]

perhaps the govt funding agencies should also have put in a production clause when it came to the nepotic Shakla/IEGS/COLA boondoggle. apparent;y the 10s of millions spent havent actually produced much in the way of published papers or data. Soon applied for grants on specific topics, which were given to Harvard/Smithsonian, who in turn passed on a fraction to Soon, who then produced the work.

Shakla managed to get funding over and above his GMS salary, which he used to pay himself and many of his family, and little actual science was produced for large and ongoing funding. the publicity over the RICO letter has tweeked the interest of Congress in the financial peculiarities of Shakla & Co.

I could never actually figure out what Soon had done wrong. if it was failure to promenently and specifically name his funding, then there is a large double standard because many/or most science groups could be held up on the same charge.

That's not true.

Disclosures are quite clearly required when publishing in most journals, and especially in a topic this controversial, authors will not bury them unless they are trying to hide them.

Not sure about this Shakla thing, since it seems like a denier witch hunt and the 'facts' are sketchy, but the Soon issue is pretty egregious.

The Smithsonian and Harvard were the recipients of the grants. What they did with those grants was up to the institutions not Soon. So how do you project any kind of maleficence onto Soon when it was the institutions who hired Soon and paid him? Soon CLEARLY INDICATED WHOM HE WORKED FOR!

Are you going hold Mann,Trenbreth and many others to the same standard? Penn state was given 5.7 million dollars by Shell Oil for Mann's work and he failed to disclose it.. Oh thats right, it was for your agenda, so its ok...

 

[Billy_Bob]

What really makes me upset are the morons who think the US government grant system is pure and righteous. Climategate showed that it was politically controlled and corrupt. They gave out 858 billion dollars to prove CAGW and no one said a word. Now real scientists question the political meme and are given mere pittance and you scream bloody murder. You ignore the real corruption for a made up one, kind of like your CAGW made up crap instead of looking for real pollutants or using that wasted monies to help the poor.

 

[threegoofs]

perhaps the govt funding agencies should also have put in a production clause when it came to the nepotic Shakla/IEGS/COLA boondoggle. apparent;y the 10s of millions spent havent actually produced much in the way of published papers or data. Soon applied for grants on specific topics, which were given to Harvard/Smithsonian, who in turn passed on a fraction to Soon, who then produced the work.

Shakla managed to get funding over and above his GMS salary, which he used to pay himself and many of his family, and little actual science was produced for large and ongoing funding. the publicity over the RICO letter has tweeked the interest of Congress in the financial peculiarities of Shakla & Co.

I could never actually figure out what Soon had done wrong. if it was failure to promenently and specifically name his funding, then there is a large double standard because many/or most science groups could be held up on the same charge.

That's not true.

Disclosures are quite clearly required when publishing in most journals, and especially in a topic this controversial, authors will not bury them unless they are trying to hide them.

Not sure about this Shakla thing, since it seems like a denier witch hunt and the 'facts' are sketchy, but the Soon issue is pretty egregious.

The Smithsonian and Harvard were the recipients of the grants. What they did with those grants was up to the institutions not Soon. So how do you project any kind of maleficence onto Soon when it was the institutions who hired Soon and paid him? Soon CLEARLY INDICATED WHOM HE WORKED FOR!

Are you going hold Mann,Trenbreth and many others to the same standard? Penn state was given 5.7 million dollars by Shell Oil for Mann's work and he failed to disclose it.. Oh thats right, it was for your agenda, so its ok...

It's funny how when grants go to scientists who work on AGW it becomes 'greedy scientists' but when it goes to Willie Soon it's someone else's.

The issue is disclosure. Don't know what your issue with Mann is, but I do not believe he's ever been hit for disclosure ethical violations- if he had, you guys would be creaming in your pants daily about it.