Can ANYONE refute the claims of "Corporate Ties"?

[Old Rocks]

Judith Curry states that CO2 is causing global warming. But her take on whether scientists should get involved in the politic of policy offends me. Scientists also have children and grand children that they would like to see have at least as good of a world to live in as we have.

 

[Moonglow]

All I saw was outrage and unsupported counter-accusations.

Curious, also, that "management" would lock that thread for the same violation that we all know has occurred here hundreds of times without notice.

Which is???

 

[Luddly Neddite]

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's the matter, Frankie Boy, afraid to post what was stated?

She's a ******* liar and shill and a moron. She dosen't have a single shred of science to back up her stupid, absurd claims.

She should prove me wrong and make predictions about the size and shape of Jupiter's Great Red Spot

She's a Joke

 

[CrusaderFrank]

The outside temperature in Westchester county is -4

Old Rocks, Crick, please, please, please go **** yourselves

And I have worked in -30 two differant days in the past years in Eastern Oregon. It's February, a winter month. As stated before, I think that 2015 is going to be a very interesting year.

Global Warming, it's not Global and it's sure as **** not warming

 

[jc456]

Hey Neddi, how many scientists is that? i.e., the count.

 

[skookerasbil]

whatever you say s0n!!!

 

[bripat9643]

If the science is settled that modern medicine is a good thing, why is medical research still going on? Frankie Boy, you ask the stupidest questions.

Science has never said that we have learned everything there is to know about medicine. On the other hand, the AGW has said there is no question about the course the climate will take. "The science is settled" is a phrase peculiar to AGW scientific ingoramuses.

 

[Crick]

If the "Science" is "Settled" why are we still funding Global Warming "research"

Time to zero it out

Who said the science was settled? That sentiment appeared no where in the Willie Soon article or here. Another false dilemma.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

If the "Science" is "Settled" why are we still funding Global Warming "research"

Time to zero it out

Who said the science was settled? That sentiment appeared no where in the Willie Soon article or here. Another false dilemma.

So you don't have "Consensus"? The "Science" isn't "Settled"?

 

[bripat9643]

Here's a more realistic plot idea:

Thousands of professional sucking on the government tit produce publications that keep the mazuma coming in. Angry taxpayers point out this conflict of interest and get slandered by people who benefit from the scam.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

What's the matter, Frankie Boy, afraid to post what was stated?

Pick a band, a section of Jupiter red spot the size of the jet stream and give us your prediction Jen. What will it look like in a day, a month a year? What shape will it take?

 

[Crick]

Again, can anyone refute the contention that Willie Soon has been taking corporate payments in exchange for his opinion and hiding his sponsorship from journals in which he has been published? Anyone?

 

[Billy_Bob]

For all, make damned sure that you post links to your sources. If you are someone with an education, and are pointing out the reality of what is happening, then your thread will be shut down. If you are a 'sceptic' you can post all the graphs and paragraphs you wish without links, no problem. Now that is an observable fact on this board. Just look at the posts of Elektra and Billy Bob.

So people actually involved doing the research should be banned from posting THEIR WORK because there might not be a link involved? Keep on posting your straw man arguments and I will keep batting them down with real science.

 

[Old Rocks]

Why no, they are not banned. They are exposed for the frauds that they are. Birds of a feather flock together. Monkton and Soon. Monkton, not a British Lord, and not a scientist.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Again, can anyone refute the contention that Willie Soon has been taking corporate payments in exchange for his opinion and hiding his sponsorship from journals in which he has been published? Anyone?

Lets take this one step at a time and put the left wing crap to rest..

Dr Soon located grant funding as do all professionals in the research fields. The Smithsonian Staff did the paper work which included the need for a progress report, along with a 40-60% over head siphon of the funds to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian was fully aware who the donor was and by contractual agreement, forbid the Smithsonian or Dr Soon to use the name of the donor, as is commonly done on both sides of the Isle.

The NY slimes article was factually incorrect as the Smithsonian was fully aware of all dealings and agreements. The letter by the Smithsonian is a smoke screen and deceitful as they were fully aware and were part of the grant receiving process. Anyone who thinks the Smithsonian was not informed is not informed. The grant process involves legal departments and agency heads.

I wonder when the left wing crap piles will fess up to their George Soros funded through multiple levels of groups and shadow organizations, who is pushing this socialist take over attempt. Or their special interest groups and corporate sponsors who are putting millions of dollars into democrat coffers after receiving special treatment and wavers from the Obama Administration..

The outright hypocrisy of the left is stunning to behold.. AGW is a scam and a lie..

 

[Billy_Bob]

Why no, they are not banned. They are exposed for the frauds that they are. Birds of a feather flock together. Monkton and Soon. Monkton, not a British Lord, and not a scientist.

As old crock throws out bull shit because he can not refute what Soon and Monckton have done.. Old crock must resort to adhom attacks of their character. Speak to the science they show and grow up..

 

[Crick]

Lets take this one step at a time and put the left wing crap to rest..

Dr Soon located grant funding as do all professionals in the research fields. The Smithsonian Staff did the paper work which included the need for a progress report, along with a 40-60% over head siphon of the funds to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian was fully aware who the donor was and by contractual agreement, forbid the Smithsonian or Dr Soon to use the name of the donor, as is commonly done on both sides of the Isle.

The NY slimes article was factually incorrect as the Smithsonian was fully aware of all dealings and agreements. The letter by the Smithsonian is a smoke screen and deceitful as they were fully aware and were part of the grant receiving process. Anyone who thinks the Smithsonian was not informed is not informed. The grant process involves legal departments and agency heads.

I wonder when the left wing crap piles will fess up to their George Soros funded through multiple levels of groups and shadow organizations, who is pushing this socialist take over attempt. Or their special interest groups and corporate sponsors who are putting millions of dollars into democrat coffers after receiving special treatment and wavers from the Obama Administration..

The outright hypocrisy of the left is stunning to behold..

How about a valid source for that information Billy? BTW, the issue was not whether or not the Smithsonian knew, it was whether or not Soon informed the journals in which he got his work published; the ones who might have been interested in a conflict of interest.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Lets take this one step at a time and put the left wing crap to rest..

Dr Soon located grant funding as do all professionals in the research fields. The Smithsonian Staff did the paper work which included the need for a progress report, along with a 40-60% over head siphon of the funds to the Smithsonian. The Smithsonian was fully aware who the donor was and by contractual agreement, forbid the Smithsonian or Dr Soon to use the name of the donor, as is commonly done on both sides of the Isle.

The NY slimes article was factually incorrect as the Smithsonian was fully aware of all dealings and agreements. The letter by the Smithsonian is a smoke screen and deceitful as they were fully aware and were part of the grant receiving process. Anyone who thinks the Smithsonian was not informed is not informed. The grant process involves legal departments and agency heads.

I wonder when the left wing crap piles will fess up to their George Soros funded through multiple levels of groups and shadow organizations, who is pushing this socialist take over attempt. Or their special interest groups and corporate sponsors who are putting millions of dollars into democrat coffers after receiving special treatment and wavers from the Obama Administration..

The outright hypocrisy of the left is stunning to behold..

How about a valid source for that information Billy? BTW, the issue was not whether or not the Smithsonian knew, it was whether or not Soon informed the journals in which he got his work published; the ones who might have been interested in a conflict of interest.

You can not inform the journals if your contractual agreement FORBIDS IT! This was discussed addnausim Here. What greenpeace and their hack friends at the New York Slimes did was slanderous and defamatory.

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.

Source

 

[Old Rocks]

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.