Bishop Hill Another witchhunt
Feb 22, 2015 Climate: Sceptics Greens Media So the usual suspects in the green-tinged media are running another of their witchhunts. This time they have returned to the attack against Willie Soon, with the New York Times' Justin Gillis and the Guardian's Suzanne Goldenberg in the front line.
As far as I can see, the story is that Soon and three co-authors published a paper on climate sensitivity. At the same time (or perhaps in the past - this being a smear-job it's hard to get at the facts) he was being funded by to do work on things like the solar influence on climate by people that greens feel are the baddies. They and the greens feel he should have disclosed that baddies were paying him to do stuff on a paper that was not funded by the baddies.
I guess you can make a case that he should have done, but I'm struggling to get very excited about it as a transgression.
And as a fairly ugly attempt to poison the well the articles in the New York Times and the Guardian are an indictment of the standards at those once respected publications. Their failure to discuss the contents of the Soon paper speaks volumes.
Reader Comments (109)
on page 11 of this 1991 pdf he gives his explaination for the offence committed in 1988 of the "he would say that variety"
- He claims it was a small dumb decision to expedite fixing of a paperwork problem, which was then made catastrophic by bad plea bargaining, where instead of having lengthy court proceedings you plead guilty, but then find they didn't give you the low sentence they promised.
- "We finished the project in about 17 months, quite success- fully, and found that $29,000 in time had not been charged. I knew all the work had been done and the proj- ect could not have been completed significantly under budget".."so I re- quested that the NWWA controller adjust the accounting accordingly" (dingaling thats the law breaking)
" There has never been any question in my mind that all the money was spent and properly earned and the government re- ceived an outstanding product"
- "a devastating shock to me. I feel I have committed no crime and yet I am suffering the ultimate destruction of my life and my career. "
- So he broke the law admitted it, a court thought that sentence was appropriate and he served his time 34 years ago.
- The perspective is that the EPA didn't pay the whole $100K that final contract was was due and as punishment levied another $100K. So it's not an obvious multi-million dollar personal gain.
- However it does give an incentive for him to have a grudge against the EPA. Certainly if the case was like 3 years ago I think it should have been declared on his Heartland page, but I don't know whether in the US "your crime sheet is wiped clean" after a certain number of years . Anyway we should always go on the evidence, not peoples opinions.
BTW that case cropped up in 2013 when the EPA's own climate expert John C. Beale was sentenced to 32 months plus restitution for fraud of defraudimg the EPA personally of $1m+
oh no Russell, oh no.
https://theclimatefix.wordpress.com/2015/02/25/i-am-under-investigation/comment-page-3/#comment-256
hahahaha. I would like to ask other commenters, on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most angry, where is Russell Seitz on this scale, in regards to revelations of Joe Romm's undisclosed funding?
Cadbury clearly outranks Joe on the scale of climate bores, about a 6 to a 5, but it's hard to say where Jay fits in the journal COI sweepstakes as he's never managed to publish anything,
Joe in contrast wears his sponsorship on his 501c sleeve - and his website's latest post does not exactly fit Jay's view of the climate inquisition that began with Cuccinelli.
Why A Congressman’s Probe Of Climate Denier Scientists’ Funding Might Not Be A Great Idea l
"....on a scale of 1-10, 10 being the most angry, where is Russell Seitz on this scale....."
13 (unadjusted)
Yes, obvious frauds like "Peter Pelke" do liven things up in away. " our goal of promoting carbon based fuels" - absolute classic.
I guess those like "Pelke" (ie with ulterior political motives) simply just cannot understand what is is like to be simple and upfront; they think everyone is like themselves. The same dishonesty that colours most climate alarmism.
Russell Seitz
oh ho ho ho! Yes yes yes, Joe Romm is so open about his sponsorship he wears his 501C on his sleeve. Except for that paper that that Pesky Pielke unearthed. And wait a minute, we don't Pielke found that paper himself, there is a high probability the Koch brothers sent him a secret copy of that paper...
Russell you got owned, you took out the big whoville trumpet to early to sound the victory horn, and the grinch has come along and stuffed a big fat cork in your trumpet. Oh ho ho ho ho! Merry christmas to the skeptics!
Russell Seitz contested my assertion that it was Mann, rather than Soon, who had actually used "precipitation records" to reconstruct past temperatures.
Anchukaitis et al http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v3/n4/full/nclimate1816.html confirm my observation here:
Blockquote>State-of-the-art palaeoclimatic methods routinely use hydroclimatic proxies to reconstruct temperature (for example, refs 3, 4) [3- ann, M. E. et al. Global signatures and dynamical origins of the Little Ice Age and Medieval Climate Anomaly. Science 326, 1256–1260 (2009).]