Can ANYONE refute the claims of "Corporate Ties"?

[Crick]

Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.

 

[skookerasbil]

OK....time to throw this little gem into the conversation..............

Need an answer............

Are there any special interests attached to climate science???

 

[bripat9643]

Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.

ROFL! Yeah, right.

 

[Old Rocks]

Yes, right. For all the Scientific Societies, National Academies of Science, and major Universities state that AGW is real, and a clear and present danger. Only willfully ignorant fools like you state differantly. And a few who have prostituted their degrees to the big energy corperations.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"

 

[Crick]

When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"

Hardly, Frank. The vast majority of peer reviewed, published studies and the scientists who did them, accept AGW as settled science. Mainstream science simply is no longer debating the point.

 

[Crick]

Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.

ROFL! Yeah, right.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that Mann, Hansen, Romm or pretty much anyone else in climate science has lied about conflicts of interest as Soon did. Despite my taunts on the matter, we haven't had a shred. NOT ONE FUCKING SHRED.

 

[bripat9643]

Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.

ROFL! Yeah, right.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that Mann, Hansen, Romm or pretty much anyone else in climate science has lied about conflicts of interest as Soon did. Despite my taunts on the matter, we haven't had a shred. NOT ONE FUCKING SHRED.

I haven't seen any evidence the Soon lied about conflicts of interest.

 

[Crick]

You've been given the links repeatedly. If you haven't seen it, it's because you haven't looked.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Yep, someone is paying them thar glaciers and ice caps millions of dollars to melt.

Obviously Walmart is out bidding them which is why the don't melt.

 

[CrusaderFrank]

When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"

Hardly, Frank. The vast majority of peer reviewed, published studies and the scientists who did them, accept AGW as settled science. Mainstream science simply is no longer debating the point.

Science is still not done by consensus, you're describing cult behavior.

Also, if the "science" is settled why are we still funding your "research". The data is apparently irrelevant to your models. You could feed in the weekly attendance at Santa Anna racetrack to your model and still show global....what are you calling it today, is it climate change or global warming or something else

 

[Billy_Bob]

You've been given the links repeatedly. If you haven't seen it, it's because you haven't looked.

Just like you haven't looked at Mann, Hansen and Company..

 

[Billy_Bob]

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.

Mann, Hansen, among others failed to report their activist ties when putting papers up for journal review.... Funny Soon did the same thing they did, However Soon was being paid by Harvard who accepted the money and then paid Soon.. Mann and Hanson have done the same... Now why is Soon treated differently along with many other scientist who's only "crime" seems to be they disagree with the mob?
Romm takes the money flat out and fails to report his ties to enviro wacko groups.. That one is so blatant that it is criminal..

 

[Crick]

When the AGWCult mentions "science" they're talking about turning on the Weather Channel and shrieking "manmade global climate warming change"

Hardly, Frank. The vast majority of peer reviewed, published studies and the scientists who did them, accept AGW as settled science. Mainstream science simply is no longer debating the point.

Science is still not done by consensus, you're describing cult behavior.

Then science's near universal belief that disease is caused by germs and virus particles, that all matter has gravity, that the sun shines by means of nuclear fusion and that the universe is expanding - they are all cult beliefs. Got it.

Also, if the "science" is settled why are we still funding your "research".

Because the conclusion that human activity is the primary cause of contemporary global warming is not the sum of all knowledge to be had concerning the Earth's climate and the effects driving it. Don't be an idiot, Frank. You love to jump on these denier memes, but for once think about them before you do. Your reputation here for a lack of thinking does you no good. Surprise us for once.

The data is apparently irrelevant to your models. You could feed in the weekly attendance at Santa Anna racetrack to your model and still show global....what are you calling it today, is it climate change or global warming or something else

Comments like this do nothing for your reputation Frank.

 

[Crick]

You've been given the links repeatedly. If you haven't seen it, it's because you haven't looked.

Just like you haven't looked at Mann, Hansen and Company..

Soon's deceit made the news. Theirs would have too. Of course, I tend to restrict myself to objective information from reliable sources. By the way, good of you to admit that you haven't seen the evidence against Soon because you haven't looked. Nice to see some honesty finally surface in something you post.

 

[Crick]

Mann, Hansen, among others failed to report their activist ties when putting papers up for journal review.... Funny Soon did the same thing they did, However Soon was being paid by Harvard who accepted the money and then paid Soon.. Mann and Hanson have done the same... Now why is Soon treated differently along with many other scientist who's only "crime" seems to be they disagree with the mob?
Romm takes the money flat out and fails to report his ties to enviro wacko groups.. That one is so blatant that it is criminal..

Evidence please.

 

[jc456]

Romm or Mann or Hansen or Gore or any of the thousands of active climate scientists who have all found AGW supported by the evidence and by the science.

ROFL! Yeah, right.

I'm still waiting for the evidence that Mann, Hansen, Romm or pretty much anyone else in climate science has lied about conflicts of interest as Soon did. Despite my taunts on the matter, we haven't had a shred. NOT ONE FUCKING SHRED.

I'm still waiting on the experiment that shows that CO2 added in an experiment causes an increase in temperatures. hasn't gotten me anywhere and you feel like you're deserved of something? LOL FAIL

 

[Billy_Bob]

Mann, Hansen, among others failed to report their activist ties when putting papers up for journal review.... Funny Soon did the same thing they did, However Soon was being paid by Harvard who accepted the money and then paid Soon.. Mann and Hanson have done the same... Now why is Soon treated differently along with many other scientist who's only "crime" seems to be they disagree with the mob?
Romm takes the money flat out and fails to report his ties to enviro wacko groups.. That one is so blatant that it is criminal..

Evidence please.

You really dont know how universities and the grant system work. Just like the NY Slimes and other left wing hacks... No surprise to see here..

 

[Crick]

Because I ask you for evidence? This thread has seen dozens of slanderous accusation placed again Hansen, Mann and Romm and not one shred of evidence. And since the subject of this thread is not Mann or Hansen or Romm and not even the topic of corrupt science in general, all these accusations are simply desperate attempts to draw our attention from the actual topic here: the demonstrable falsehoods committed by Dr Wei Hock Soon when he signed documents - on multiple occasions - swearing no conflict of interests existed regarding work to be published when he knew full well that such conflicts existed in spades.

Given the the stated topic of this thread was to ask if anyone had any evidence to suggest he did NOT make these false statements and that he did NOT hide real conflicts of interest and that he did NOT produce "results" as "deliverables" to his grant payors - the fact that the opposition has done nothing here but unsuccessfully attempt to besmirch the names of others tells us all that the answer to the topic query is "NO".

Just a basic lesson in logic here for the deniers: none of your charges against Mann, Hansen and Romm would have had the SLIGHTEST bearing on the guilt or innocence of Dr Wei Hock Soon but clearly made the case that you assumed the former - that Willie Soon was guilty - right out of the gates.

 

[Billy_Bob]

Because I ask you for evidence? This thread has seen dozens of slanderous accusation placed again Hansen, Mann and Romm and not one shred of evidence. And since the subject of this thread is not Mann or Hansen or Romm and not even the topic of corrupt science in general, all these accusations are simply desperate attempts to draw our attention from the actual topic here: the demonstrable falsehoods committed by Dr Wei Hock Soon when he signed documents - on multiple occasions - swearing no conflict of interests existed regarding work to be published when he knew full well that such conflicts existed in spades.

Given the the stated topic of this thread was to ask if anyone had any evidence to suggest he did NOT make these false statements and that he did NOT hide real conflicts of interest and that he did NOT produce "results" as "deliverables" to his grant payors - the fact that the opposition has done nothing here but unsuccessfully attempt to besmirch the names of others tells us all that the answer to the topic query is "NO".

Just a basic lesson in logic here for the deniers: none of your charges against Mann, Hansen and Romm would have had the SLIGHTEST bearing on the guilt or innocence of Dr Wei Hock Soon but clearly made the case that you assumed the former - that Willie Soon was guilty - right out of the gates.

Crick, You are a man who chooses to live with your head up your ass. The hypocrisy and pathetic attempts to deflect are stunning to say the least. The university was the one paid and the one who had a contract with the payee, not Dr Soon. Dr Soon is an employee dong the work he was tasked with and paid to do. The fact he does it with integrity and follows the science wherever it leads is the problem you have. The science disproves the CAGW meme. And that is the reason you attack him. Yet you cant even see that the likes of James Hansen and Michele Mann act and are paid by their institutions, yet when they publish, are not required to disclose their activist attachments and monies given directly to them. Romm was given over 39 million dollars and runs a hack AGW site.. and yet you defend them while attacking Soon.

Stunning....idiocy...