Can ANYONE refute the claims of "Corporate Ties"?

[bripat9643]

Soon LIED about his conflict of interest. He could have made all the money on Earth. It wouldn't have mattered if he hadn't LIED about it.

You all keep trying to throw the conversation aside and ignore this one crucial point. None of the people you keep trying to drag through the mud to distract us from Soon LIED about conflicts of interest. Soon DID.

Only in your mind...Harvard was fully aware where the funding was coming from and yet HARVARD still paid Soon from it.... Its funny how someone who takes 39 million dollars from advocacy groups is OK bur someone who is paid by Harvard is not simply because the science disproves your Meme...

You lying bastards need a real gut check..

Hey Dipshit,

The issue has never been Soon's employers. The lies he told were to journals who published his "work".

What lies are those?

 

[Crick]

That he had no conflict of interest. Are you really that stupid?

 

[IanC]

I must admit I havent really looked into the whole Soon COI thing. I thought it was Harvard/Smithsonian that signed the contract and issued the monies. which paper(s) did it apply to? surely not the last paper which was done on Soon's own time?

Can I ignore any paper that was funded by Green sources? if someone has been funded at anytime by 'partisans' does that mean they can never again produce 'pure' science papers? what will happen to the reputations of CAGW scientists when links to GreenPeace, etc come out? anything? did Hansen's awards and honorariums associated with his climate activism make him suspect? what about CAGW scientists that were funded by 'big oil'? are those papers off limits now? big oil has sent a lot more money towards the warmists than the sceptics.

perhaps Crick and his ilk think only skeptics can be bought. hahahahaha.

 

[Old Rocks]

Really? Well, here in Portland, Oregon, February brought us about three weeks of sunshine and upper 50's and low 60's.

Freaky February helps smash records for heat and cold

The winter of 2014-15 has been so warm across a wide swath of the West that more than 20 cities set records for the warmest meteorological winter, which runs from Dec. 1 to the end of February, theWeather Channel reports.

Most folks shivering in the Northeast really don't want to hear about it.

San Francisco, Seattle, Salt Lake City and Las Vegas were among cities blessed with record-balmy winters. But a couple thousand miles away, February brought a snow record for Boston's and record cold for Cleveland, Buffalo, Syracuse, N.Y.; Harrisburg, Pa., and several other cities. Chicago tied its February cold record.

 

[Old Rocks]

Ian, the problem was undeclared lack of conflict of interest. If the other people stated that they were getting funding from the sources they got them from, then they were clear. Soon failed to, and that is hardly kosher.

 

[IanC]

Ian, the problem was undeclared lack of conflict of interest. If the other people stated that they were getting funding from the sources they got them from, then they were clear. Soon failed to, and that is hardly kosher.

For which paper?

 

[Crick]

Is this the new tactic? Playing dumber than you actually are?

Why models run hot results from an irreducibly simple climate model

Harvard-Smithsonian climate change skeptic accused of violating academic disclosure rules - Nation - The Boston Globe

 

[CrusaderFrank]

Ian, the problem was undeclared lack of conflict of interest. If the other people stated that they were getting funding from the sources they got them from, then they were clear. Soon failed to, and that is hardly kosher.

But being funded by EnviroMarxists is OK because they're up front about their goals to tear down western civilization using phony, unproveable claims about "Manmade global Climate change warming" or whatever it's being called these days

We have consensus!

Science = Settled

 

[CrusaderFrank]

I must admit I havent really looked into the whole Soon COI thing. I thought it was Harvard/Smithsonian that signed the contract and issued the monies. which paper(s) did it apply to? surely not the last paper which was done on Soon's own time?

Can I ignore any paper that was funded by Green sources? if someone has been funded at anytime by 'partisans' does that mean they can never again produce 'pure' science papers? what will happen to the reputations of CAGW scientists when links to GreenPeace, etc come out? anything? did Hansen's awards and honorariums associated with his climate activism make him suspect? what about CAGW scientists that were funded by 'big oil'? are those papers off limits now? big oil has sent a lot more money towards the warmists than the sceptics.

perhaps Crick and his ilk think only skeptics can be bought. hahahahaha.

I have peer reviewed this post and find it 100% accurate

 

[IanC]

Is this the new tactic? Playing dumber than you actually are?

Why models run hot results from an irreducibly simple climate model

Harvard-Smithsonian climate change skeptic accused of violating academic disclosure rules - Nation - The Boston Globe

okay. so a paper that wasnt funded by any outside source is still under the umbrella of past funding? does this count for everyone or just people you dont like? did Hansen have to list all the awards and speaking fees he received from Green sources? did he? NASA GISS seemed a little pissed about his outside activities.

like I said before, you have a stark double standard when it comes to judging warmists and skeptics.

 

[jc456]

Climate sceptics invented the smear tactics so favored by the left? Could you provide an example of sceptics smearing anyone?

See every single thing you've written about Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, or any climate scientist. Smear tactics are the only tactics your pack of hyenas has used for the past decade.

What I've have written is that his work is flawed. In fact, it's bullshit. That isn't a smear. That's a simple fact. Mann has repeatedly refused to release his data, and his algorithms have been demonstrated to be invalid.

The same goes for Hansen. He's been caught fudging the numbers on numerous occasions. No one claimed he was wrong because he's taking money from left-wing groups - at least not until that became the favorite tactic of the AGW cult.

Don't even think of trying to keep up this pathological liar routine where you claim complete innocence. Nobody is dumb enough to fall for it. Instead, everyone is chuckling at the sweet poetic justice of the situation. Except the deniers, who are all squealing about how unjust it is that someone else dares use their tactics.

"Poetic justice?" It's business as usual for the AGW cult propaganda organs. They have attempted similar smears against anyone who dared to question the received dogma.

You guys state over and over again that the work of Mann and Hansen is flawed, but I can't recall any of you EVER producing objective evidence to support such charges. Any chance that you could show us you're slinging something besides Grade AAAA BULLSHIT?

nor have we seen an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature or climate. Show us, we've been waiting for a long time.

 

[Old Rocks]

he Version 5.6 global average lower tropospheric temperature (LT) anomaly for January, 2015 is +0.35 deg. C, little changed from the December 2014 value of +0.32 deg. C (click for full size version):

http://www.drroyspencer.com/2015/02/uah-global-temperature-update-for-jan-2015-0-35-deg-c/

The Grand Experiment.

 

[jc456]

Coldest MONTH of February in 80 years in NY. Not a day, not a one off, a whole cold MONTH

ours was second coldest here in Chicago. We didn't get that record this year, it was damn close though.

 

[Crick]

Climate sceptics invented the smear tactics so favored by the left? Could you provide an example of sceptics smearing anyone?

See every single thing you've written about Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, or any climate scientist. Smear tactics are the only tactics your pack of hyenas has used for the past decade.

What I've have written is that his work is flawed. In fact, it's bullshit. That isn't a smear. That's a simple fact. Mann has repeatedly refused to release his data, and his algorithms have been demonstrated to be invalid.

The same goes for Hansen. He's been caught fudging the numbers on numerous occasions. No one claimed he was wrong because he's taking money from left-wing groups - at least not until that became the favorite tactic of the AGW cult.

Don't even think of trying to keep up this pathological liar routine where you claim complete innocence. Nobody is dumb enough to fall for it. Instead, everyone is chuckling at the sweet poetic justice of the situation. Except the deniers, who are all squealing about how unjust it is that someone else dares use their tactics.

"Poetic justice?" It's business as usual for the AGW cult propaganda organs. They have attempted similar smears against anyone who dared to question the received dogma.

You guys state over and over again that the work of Mann and Hansen is flawed, but I can't recall any of you EVER producing objective evidence to support such charges. Any chance that you could show us you're slinging something besides Grade AAAA BULLSHIT?

nor have we seen an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature or climate. Show us, we've been waiting for a long time.

No. You were shown the experiments long ago. You've recently seen a long term in situ experiment. What's been going on for a long time is your lies about it.

 

[jc456]

Climate sceptics invented the smear tactics so favored by the left? Could you provide an example of sceptics smearing anyone?

See every single thing you've written about Dr. Mann, Dr. Hansen, or any climate scientist. Smear tactics are the only tactics your pack of hyenas has used for the past decade.

What I've have written is that his work is flawed. In fact, it's bullshit. That isn't a smear. That's a simple fact. Mann has repeatedly refused to release his data, and his algorithms have been demonstrated to be invalid.

The same goes for Hansen. He's been caught fudging the numbers on numerous occasions. No one claimed he was wrong because he's taking money from left-wing groups - at least not until that became the favorite tactic of the AGW cult.

Don't even think of trying to keep up this pathological liar routine where you claim complete innocence. Nobody is dumb enough to fall for it. Instead, everyone is chuckling at the sweet poetic justice of the situation. Except the deniers, who are all squealing about how unjust it is that someone else dares use their tactics.

"Poetic justice?" It's business as usual for the AGW cult propaganda organs. They have attempted similar smears against anyone who dared to question the received dogma.

You guys state over and over again that the work of Mann and Hansen is flawed, but I can't recall any of you EVER producing objective evidence to support such charges. Any chance that you could show us you're slinging something besides Grade AAAA BULLSHIT?

nor have we seen an experiment that shows that adding 120 PPM of CO2 does anything to temperature or climate. Show us, we've been waiting for a long time.

No. You were shown the experiments long ago. You've recently seen a long term in situ experiment. What's been going on for a long time is your lies about it.

no, I was not. You are in error, have been in error for 13 months. You have no experiment. None, zero, nada

 

[Crick]

And I still see no evidence that Mann or Hansen ever hid a conflict of interest from anyone. You guys are ALL full of bullshit. Nothing but.

 

[bripat9643]

And I still see no evidence that Mann or Hansen ever hid a conflict of interest from anyone. You guys are ALL full of bullshit. Nothing but.

Several of us have already posted a long list of conflicts they have.

What's the point of debating someone who pretends stuff hasn't been posted?

 

[Crick]

Well, I keep hoping JC will see the light.

You've posted lots of items about Hansen and Mann earning money. What you have NOT posted is the slightest hint of evidence that either of them ever lied about it. Like Soon.

 

[Billy_Bob]

And I still see no evidence that Mann or Hansen ever hid a conflict of interest from anyone. You guys are ALL full of bullshit. Nothing but.

Your a lying libtard! 39 million dollars in just one year by Romm and you cant see the forest through the dam trees.....

 

[Crick]

What I don't see is where Romm lied about any conflicts of interest. Last time I checked, it's not against the law to earn money.