Scientists Fight Over GW

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Even the scientists are squabbling over GW. Getting kind of nasty.

http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2015/09/28/new-low-in-science-criminalizing-climate-change-skeptics.html?intcmp=hpbt2

[AURaptor 1,137]

I find it ironic that it all comes down to the certain question "what if they're right?" Is pretty much the same sort of question asked by the religious people on whether there's a heaven, hell, God, etc. etc. etc.

The crux of the issue seems to be that the answer is too important to get wrong.

The Holy Roman catholic church put Galileo under house arrest for his " crimes "

Today it appears that " science " wants to try the shoe on the other foot for a change.

[cooltigger21 0]

AGW is a religion or faith the same as Christianity, Buddhism or any other religion in this world. The believers are as fanatical as any religious zealot.

[AUUSN 823]

Oh goody! Another GW thread.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

Oh goody! Another GW thread.

Better than your cartoons.

[AUDub 12,028]

Awesome. The threat of RICO straightened out the tobacco companies. Time to do the same to the rest of the denialist industry.

[AUUSN 823]

Oh goody! Another GW thread.

Better than your cartoons.

Wanna bet?

[cooltigger21 0]

Awesome. The threat of RICO straightened out the tobacco companies. Time to do the same to the rest of the denialist industry.

Now you show your true Marxist colors. Somebody doesn't agree with you, throw them in jail.

[AUDub 12,028]

Awesome. The threat of RICO straightened out the tobacco companies. Time to do the same to the rest of the denialist industry.

Now you show your true Marxist colors. Somebody doesn't agree with you, throw them in jail.

Marxist lol.

Haven't you read the recent article detailing how Exxon researched climate change and predicted much of what the IPCC has consolidated and then switched gears and suddenly switched to denialism?

http://insideclimatenews.org/news/18092015/exxon-confirmed-global-warming-consensus-in-1982-with-in-house-climate-models

They knew then and know now. Promoting lies for financial gain is corrupt. It's damaging our nation and the world and it deserves to be criminalized.

The tobacco industry comparison is apt, because we can see, in hindsight, how the tobacco industry was able to mislead the public for decades, long after they knew the deadly effects of smoking tobacco.

The only absurd element of this RICO initiative is that it hasn't already been enacted.

[homersapien 12,386]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

http://www.nytimes.c...-Soon.html?_r=3

Deeper Ties to Corporate Cash for Doubtful Climate Researcher

For years, politicians wanting to block legislation on

climate change

have bolstered their arguments by pointing to the work of a handful of scientists who claim that greenhouse gases pose little risk to humanity.

One of the names they invoke most often is Wei-Hock Soon, known as Willie, a scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who claims that variations in the sun’s energy can largely explain recent global warming. He has often appeared on conservative news programs, testified before Congress and in state capitals, and starred at conferences of people who deny the risks of global warming.

But newly released documents show the extent to which Dr. Soon’s work has been tied to funding he received from corporate interests.

He has accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry over the last decade while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his scientific papers.

At least 11 papers he has published since 2008 omitted such a disclosure, and in at least eight of those cases, he appears to have violated ethical guidelines of the journals that published his work.

The documents show that Dr. Soon, in correspondence with his corporate funders,

described many of his scientific papers as “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money.

He used the same term to describe testimony he prepared for Congress.

Historians and sociologists of science say that since the tobacco wars of the 1960s, corporations trying to block legislation that hurts their interests have employed a strategy of creating the appearance of scientific doubt, usually with the help of ostensibly independent researchers who accept industry funding.

Fossil-fuel interests have followed this approach for years, but the mechanics of their activities remained largely hidden.

“The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “

Merchants of Doubt

,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”

Environmentalists have long questioned Dr. Soon’s work, and his acceptance of funding from the fossil-fuel industry was previously known.

But the full extent of the links was not; the documents show that corporate contributions were tied to specific papers and were not disclosed, as required by

modern standards

of publishing.

“What it shows is the continuation of a long-term campaign by specific fossil-fuel companies and interests to undermine the scientific consensus on climate change,” said Kert Davies, executive director of the Climate Investigations Center, a group funded by foundations seeking to limit the risks of climate change.

Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center, acknowledged on Friday that

Dr. Soon had violated the disclosure standards of some journals.

“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,”

Dr. Alcock

said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”

Dr. Soon is employed by the Smithsonian Institution, which jointly sponsors the astrophysics center with Harvard.

“I am aware of the situation with Willie Soon, and I’m very concerned about it,”

W. John Kress

, interim under secretary for science at the Smithsonian in Washington, said on Friday. “We are checking into this ourselves.”

Dr. Soon rarely grants interviews to reporters, and he did not respond to multiple emails and phone calls last week; nor did he respond to an interview request conveyed to him by his employer. In past public appearances, he has reacted angrily to questions about his funding sources, but then acknowledged some corporate ties and said that they had not altered his scientific findings.

“I write proposals; I let them decide whether to fund me or not,” he said at an event in Madison, Wis., in 2013. “If they choose to fund me, I’m happy to receive it.” A moment later, he added, “I would never be motivated by money for anything.”

The newly disclosed documents, plus additional documents compiled by Greenpeace over the last four years, show that at least $409,000 of Dr. Soon’s funding in the past decade came from Southern Company Services, a subsidiary of the Southern Company, based in Atlanta.

Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

Gavin A. Schmidt

, head of the

Goddard Institute for Space Studies

in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, whose scientists focus largely on understanding distant stars and galaxies, routinely distances itself from Dr. Soon’s findings. The Smithsonian has also published a

statement

accepting the scientific consensus on climate change.

Dr. Alcock said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings.

Dr. Soon has found a warm welcome among politicians in Washington and state capitals who try to block climate action. United States Senator

James M. Inhofe

, an Oklahoma Republican who

claims

that climate change is a global scientific hoax, has repeatedly cited Dr. Soon’s work over the years.

In a Senate debate last month, Mr. Inhofe pointed to a poster with photos of scientists questioning the climate-change consensus, including Dr. Soon. “These are scientists that cannot be challenged,” the senator said. A spokeswoman for the senator said Friday that he was traveling and could not be reached for comment.

As of late last week, most of the journals in which Dr. Soon’s work had appeared were not aware of the newly disclosed documents. The Climate Investigations Center is planning to notify them over the coming week. Several journals advised of the situation by The New York Times said they would look into the matter.

Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

Dr.

Oreskes

, the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda.

“I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.

[homersapien 12,386]

Also, the title of this piece - whoever composed it - is disingenuous and begs the question.

Conducting a RICO investigation does not "criminalize" anyone.

[autigeremt 7,284]

Meanwhile on Mars scientists claim climate change is the reason for the dried up lake beds that once held life.....or have they?

[AUDub 12,028]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

[homersapien 12,386]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

Funny how the same old names keep getting presented by the denier industry. This guy has made a lot of money from them.

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

Funny how the same old names keep getting presented by the denier industry. This guy has made a lot of money from them.

Works both ways. The supporters who are getting funded always have the same arguments too. That's the reason the GW argument goes on and on.

[homersapien 12,386]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

Funny how the same old names keep getting presented by the denier industry. This guy has made a lot of money from them.

Works both ways. The supporters who are getting funded always have the same arguments too. That's the reason the GW argument goes on and on.

Researchers have always been funded by the same sources that are funding them now. This was true long before AGW was a well developed hypothesis.

It doesn't "work both ways".

You cannot believe that, unless you really accept the idea of a global hoax of scientists working with every government to promote socialism, totalitarianism, or whatever the hell you think they are doing for.

[AFTiger 282]

Not so fast my friend. The attack on Exxon is contrived. https://storify.com/MichaelBTI/the-exxon-climate-denial-myth

[Proud Tiger 4,261]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

Funny how the same old names keep getting presented by the denier industry. This guy has made a lot of money from them.

Works both ways. The supporters who are getting funded always have the same arguments too. That's the reason the GW argument goes on and on.

Researchers have always been funded by the same sources that are funding them now. This was true long before AGW was a well developed hypothesis.

It doesn't "work both ways".

You cannot believe that unless you really accept the idea of a global hoax of scientists working with every government to promote socialism, totalitarianism, or whatever the hell you think they are doing for.

That's your old worn out standard rationale.

[augolf1716 22,108]

Crap....... I thought this was going to be a thread about Bush and scientists

[AUDub 12,028]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

Funny how the same old names keep getting presented by the denier industry. This guy has made a lot of money from them.

Works both ways. The supporters who are getting funded always have the same arguments too. That's the reason the GW argument goes on and on.

Researchers have always been funded by the same sources that are funding them now. This was true long before AGW was a well developed hypothesis.

It doesn't "work both ways".

You cannot believe that unless you really accept the idea of a global hoax of scientists working with every government to promote socialism, totalitarianism, or whatever the hell you think they are doing for. :ucrazy:/>

That's your old worn out standard rationale.

Very substantive counterpoint

[homersapien 12,386]

Crap....... I thought this was going to be a thread about Bush and scientists

Lurker

[homersapien 12,386]

I don't see the problem here. Is Ms. Curry condoning secret funding for producing "deliverables" from unethical scientists?

Link from the op article:

Willie Soon, huh? There's a familiar name.

Funny how the same old names keep getting presented by the denier industry. This guy has made a lot of money from them.

Works both ways. The supporters who are getting funded always have the same arguments too. That's the reason the GW argument goes on and on.

Researchers have always been funded by the same sources that are funding them now. This was true long before AGW was a well developed hypothesis.

It doesn't "work both ways".

You cannot believe that unless you really accept the idea of a global hoax of scientists working with every government to promote socialism, totalitarianism, or whatever the hell you think they are doing for.

That's your old worn out standard rationale.

Rationale for what?

[AUDub 12,028]

Not so fast my friend. The attack on Exxon is contrived. https://storify.com/MichaelBTI/the-exxon-climate-denial-myth

Tough s*** for the "ecomodernist" loon you've quoted. Exxon has long since fessed up to funding denialists and denialist think tanks, said they would stop, but then turned right around and continued:

ExxonMobil gave more than $2.3m to members of Congress and a corporate lobbying group that deny climate change and block efforts to fight climate change – eight years after pledging to stop its funding of climate denial, the Guardian has learned.

Climate denial – from Republicans in Congress and lobby groups operating at the state level – is seen as a major obstacle to US and global efforts to fight climate change, closing off the possibility of federal and state regulations cutting greenhouse gas emissions and the ability to plan for a future of sea-level rise and extreme weather.

Exxon channeled about $30m to researchers and activist groups promoting disinformation about global warming over the years, according to a tally kept by the campaign group Greenpeace. But the oil company pledged to stop such funding in 2007, in response to pressure from shareholder activists.

“In 2008 we will discontinue contributions to several public policy groups whose position on climate change could divert attention from the important discussion on how the world will secure energy required for economic growth in an environmentally responsible manner,” Exxon said in its 2007 Corporate Citizenship report.

But since 2007, the oil company has given $1.87m to Republicans in Congress who deny climate change and an additional $454,000 to the American Legislative Exchange Council (Alec), according to financial and tax records.

In a statement to the Guardian this week, Exxon spokesman Richard Keil reiterated: “ExxonMobil does not fund climate denial.”

[augolf1716 22,108]

Crap....... I thought this was going to be a thread about Bush and scientists

Lurker

yep

[homersapien 12,386]

Crap....... I thought this was going to be a thread about Bush and scientists

Lurker

yep

That automatically disqualifies you as being too smart to participate.