Billy_Bob
Diamond Member
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..
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Your a fool..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 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.
View attachment 37189
From the contract itself... Soon has no liability and need not apologize to anyone...
Just like yours... Only mine has 25 plus years of Law Enforcement to back mine up..Well, we will see what the journals say. Your opinion is hardly something that matters.
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.
You use garbage from SKS... that's about as relevant as a garbage can full of papers..Breibart? Why not the Weekly Globe?
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!
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.