Willie Soon paid to deny climate change

[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...

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.

There was no need for disclosure... He did what was required. Now how are you going to deal with Mann and his failures? Trenbreth and his failures?

You left wing hacks are amazingly stupid.

 

[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.

There was no need for disclosure... He did what was required. Now how are you going to deal with Mann and his failures? Trenbreth and his failures?

You left wing hacks are amazingly stupid.

There IS a need for disclosure in the journals he published in! This isn't a debatable point.

 

[mamooth]

Soon and the Connolly clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

 

[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.

There was no need for disclosure... He did what was required. Now how are you going to deal with Mann and his failures? Trenbreth and his failures?

You left wing hacks are amazingly stupid.

Disclosure is clearly required by the journals he was publishing in.

Soon is not paid by the Smithsonian- he is paid by whatever grants he can bring in, with the Smithsonian taking their usual cut. That's a little different from most academic funding, but it makes sense, since no one does teaching and service at the Smithsonian.

http://mobile.nytimes.com/2015/02/2...e-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?referer=&_r=0

I know you have no clue how science is typically done, so try not to make stuff up. It makes you look bad.

 

[threegoofs]

Soon and the Connolley clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Soon and the Connolly clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Sadly you dont understand thermal dynamics and heat balance... without the sun this planet would be lifeless and ice..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Soon and the Connolley clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

 

[mamooth]

Billy, you've pretty much entered jc and skook territory. That is, you're not worth reading, because you just sputter incoherently.

Remember, you're only read by most people for the comic relief, to see how hilariously bad your science can get. Your mindless raging is difficult to read and not amusing, so it's not worth the effort to attempt to decipher it.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Billy, you've pretty much entered jc and skook territory. That is, you're not worth reading, because you just sputter incoherently.

Remember, you're only read by most people for the comic relief, to see how hilariously bad your science can get. Your mindless raging is difficult to read and not amusing, so it's not worth the effort to attempt to decipher it.

You are a mindless sock puppet...you fail to use critical thinking skills of any kind and repeat, adnausim, the left wing line of propaganda. You are a fool and a willing idiot.

You are no longer amusing or worth my time to refute your mountain of lies upon lies over and over again.. I understand how you are ignored by real thinking scientists who post here..

Polly want a cracker?

 

[threegoofs]

Soon and the Connolley clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Soon and the Connolley clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

 

[threegoofs]

Soon and the Connolley clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Soon and the Connolley clan have a new paper out where they claim the sun did it all.

Re-evaluating the role of solar variability on Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century

Sadly, I can't look at it without paying. And nobody seems interested in paying for it and reviewing it.

The point is that Soon has actually stooped low enough to collaborate with the Connolly family of greenhouse effect deniers. You know, the "pressure keeps creating heat!" loons that you find hanging around Hockey Schtick and PSI.

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..

SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ

Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?

 

[threegoofs]

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..

SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ

Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?

So you post some random thing and pretend it shows the NAS and Royal Society are under UN Control?

 

[threegoofs]

Stooped low enough?

He's already the boy darling of Heartland. That's pretty damn low already.

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..

SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ

Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?

WTF?

Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Poor little libtards are all wee, wee'd up...

They produce facts which show your religion a lie.. Those facts, which if real science had been done to begin with, would have been evident over thirty years ago.. Some did the real science and they were shunned by agenda driven whores like you.. Now that empirical evidence backs up their conclusions, your in a hell of a spot... Want to lie some more? Want to show yourself a fool some more?

Keep digging fools...

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..

SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ

Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?

WTF?

Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.

OMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..

 

[threegoofs]

Odd. You'd think if you were right, organizations like the National Academy of Sciences and the Royal Society would agree with you.

But they are pretty clear that AGW is real and is going to be a major problem in the future.

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..

SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ

Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?

WTF?

Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.

OMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..

LOL.

Nice tactic.

The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.

 

[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.

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.

when the Soon funding 'scandal' erupted there were examples quickly put forward for other prominent climate scientists. they got no traction in the press or elsewhere. double standard.

when Wegman was accused of plagiarism because his grad student cut and pasted a piece of boilerplate from wikipedia, there were examples put forward of other climate scientists who also included unreferenced boilerplate information. again, there was no traction in the press or elsewhere. double standard.

how different would the climate science environment be today, if Nature had simply forced M Mann to comply with their data availability rules instead of stonewalling McIntyre's (and others) requests?

you may believe that there is a level playing field in climate science. but that is only because you have not read the climategate released emails with comprehension.

 

[jc456]

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.

There was no need for disclosure... He did what was required. Now how are you going to deal with Mann and his failures? Trenbreth and his failures?

You left wing hacks are amazingly stupid.

There IS a need for disclosure in the journals he published in! This isn't a debatable point.

sure it is. Do you have evidence that Soon took money from anyone other than The Smithsonian and Harvard? Show us.

 

[jc456]

You do realize that both of those organizations are controlled by the UN, dont you? Funny how objectivity is overlooked when its your agenda..

LOL. Please show me how the National Academy of Science, a body in the US which has absolutely nothing to do with the UN, is 'controlled by the UN'. Also, please let me know how the Royal Society, a UK society that dates back to the 1600s, is 'controlled by the UN'.

The above poster is right. You have some kooky ideas. Never seen you back any of them up either. I guess lies are just 'your thing'.

Your incapable of finding their funding...? No surprise there. Fools are easily duped.. The mamooth sock puppet, which only appears when mamooth does is telling..

SO lets give you a starting point... DEPS_FAQ

Four different agencies, primarily funded by the US government and FOREIGN Governments all within the UN. NO problems with objectivity there... is there...?

WTF?

Nowhere does it say the NAS is funded by the UN.

OMG.. I cant help your failure at reading and basic comprehension..

LOL.

Nice tactic.

The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future.

The NAS has nothing to do with the UN, beside the fact that they both recognize the obvious, which is that AGW is going to be a terrible problem in the future

Based on what?