“Small minds do not understand the importance of unorthodox thinking to science”
Beheading, war crimes, prison, death threats. Perhaps you think I’m talking about IS. No, it’s just the routine hyperbolic language of media climate activism, and the minds of our cultural overlords. Next December policymakers will try again to save the world from what they don’t understand by proposing policy on something else, which won’t work anyway.
Every debate has boundaries; beyond them lies other subjects. Climate debates are unique: Their boundaries exclude their own subject. Few of the elites, journalists, or academics come close to actually discussing climate. Nearly all of them try to address physics, chemistry, computer science, and mathematics by talking anthropology instead. Try discussing anything useful with such rules.
Fresh thinking is inherently unorthodox. Small minds, unenlightened politicians, and activists do not understand the importance of unorthodox thinking to science, and ultimately to everyone. Research must transcend the zeitgeist. Therefore it’s forever in trouble. Scientists are political targets on climate.
Dr. Willie Soon is highly regarded by the people who understand his work. They would rather that he continue to do his fine work without destructive disruptions and silly political, ad hominem games intended to besmirch his reputation.
So if you can’t critique Dr Willie Soon’s work by the substance of his work, you’re better off playing with a Willie that doesn’t mind having it’s time wasted for your personal satisfaction.
- Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model PDF
Resolving the discrepancies between the methodology adopted by IPCC in its Fourth and Fifth Assessment Reports that are highlighted in the present paper is vital. Once those discrepancies are taken into account, the impact of anthropogenic global warming over the next century, and even as far as equilibrium many millennia hence, may be no more than one-third to one-half of IPCC’s current projections.
- Left Panics over Peer-Reviewed Climate Paper’s Threat to Global Warming Alarmism
You’ve heard it said that the science is settled. And it’s true. It is settled — settled beyond the possibility of any dispute. A fundamental, inescapable, indubitable bedrock scientific principle is that lousy theories make lousy predictions.
Climate forecasts are lousy, therefore it is settled science that they must necessarily be based on lousy theories. And lousy theories should not be trusted.
- The Silence of the Scientists
Have you noticed that when a political figure makes an exaggerated statement about global warming, a commonplace occurrence, no government scientific agency or leading university scientist ever corrects them? Why not?
- Goon Squad Fails To Distract Public From Fact That Climate Models Stink: Update 3
All my efforts to educate reporters were in vain. It turns out they’d rather remain wallowing in their muck than learn about the subjects on which they write. The worst examples are Justin Gillis and associate at the far left New York Times.
So I failed. I was a fool to try. I let myself forget that I was dealing with a class of people where the gap between actual and perceived ability is not only wide, but is a gaping chasm. To expect mainstream science reporters to understand science is like asking an environmentalist to be reasonable. I should have remembered most journalists suffer from reporteritis, the degrading ailment whereby because reporters cover important people and events they come believe they are important, too. Sadly, there is no known cure.
- NYT Smears Scientist Willie Soon for Telling the Truth About ‘Global Warming’
Another day, another attack on the integrity of the Harvard-Smithsonian astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, this time in the New York Times.
I first became aware of Soon in 2009 when reading through the Climategate emails. One of them was a jocular suggestion by a warmist called Tom Wigley as to how best to smear Soon and his co-author Sallie Baliunas.
- Dear NY Times Re Willie Soon: Character assassination is not science.
This is about much more than just Willie Soon. The fans of man-global warming know they can’t win a polite science debate. They know the biggest threat to the green gravy train is for competitive research, free debate, and independent funding for scientific research. The anti-science brigade want to stamp out and starve independent research. Where once companies would be lauded for their philanthropy, now they are forced to hide it knowing they’ll be targeted, and no matter how good the research work and publications are the results won’t even be discussed if smear-fans can talk about “funding” instead.
- Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Peers Fire Back Against Global Warming Witch Hunt
From the outside it is very clear that the attack on Willie is being co-ordinated, probably by the same persons who have sought to muddy his name in the past – Greenpeace being a prime suspect in this regard.
The accusations that Willie’s funding sources dictate what he writes in his research papers are of course untrue; as they would also be untrue if alleged against the many other distinguished scientists that you employ whose funding is derived from external sources.
- Conflicts of interest in climate science
The issue is this. The intense politicization of climate science makes bias more likely to be coming from political and ideological perspectives than from funding sources.
- Another witchhunt
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.
- A Shameful Climate Witch Hunt
The kind of people who run inquisitions may lack for perspective and careful respect for the facts and evidence. But they never lack for zeal.
- The final nail in the coffin of the NYT witchhunt against Dr. Willie Soon?
I was one of the earliest writers to respond to the NYT article by hack NYT journalist Justin Gillis in which astrophysicist Willie Soon was accused of writing for hire. A quite amusing accusation when you realize that Gillis himself was doing exactly that.
- U-Boulder’s Roger Pielke Jr. targeted by congressman over research funding
“I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically motivated ‘witch hunt’ designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name,” wrote Pielke, who is currently out of the country.
- The last climate science witch hunt
In what is clearly a coordinated effort, the hunt for the hides of a few climate skeptics began last weekend when The New York Times climate beat reporter, Justin Gillis, co-wrote an attack on Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon, a sceptical scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. The Times charged Mr. Soon with having “accepted more than $1.2 million in money from the fossil-fuel industry.”
- Willie Soon must be doing something right
How does supposedly getting grant money over a number of years stack up to research for finding climate change? The Federal budget for climate change research for FY 2014 was $2.7 billion. That put’s Dr. Soon’s supposed take over several years from evil big oil at 0.037% of the annual Federal dole. That’s a rounding error. The FY2014 NSF budget for climate change research was in the order of $227 million for FY 2014. James Hansen, a climate activist, was supported handsomely out of this federal climate money and he received outside awards for his activism, but in no way is he, or any of his cronies, ever suspected of being anything less than pure and honest. We never seem to follow the money for believers.
- Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Climate Skeptic?
Let’s start by axing[sic] a simple question: If I say “two plus two equals four,” does the truth of that proposition depend on whether I’ve received a grant from the Charles G. Koch Foundation? Apparently it does for Rep. Raul Grijalva (D-AZ), the ranking member of the House Committee on Natural Resources. He has sent letters to seven universities targeting seven academics who, according to the Democratic spokesman for the committee, were chosen because they seem “to have the most impact on policy in the scientific community.”
- I am Under “Investigation”
When “witch hunts” are deemed legitimate we will have fully turned science into just another arena for power politics.
Before continuing, let me make one point abundantly clear: I have no funding, declared or undeclared, with any fossil fuel company or interest. I never have. Representative Grijalva knows this too, because when I have testified before the US Congress, I have disclosed my funding and possible conflicts of interest. So I know with complete certainty that this investigation is a politically-motivated “witch hunt” designed to intimidate me (and others) and to smear my name.
- McCarthyism Not Dead
The threat is clear. If you dare to disagree with any part of Obama’s strategy, we will come after you.
- There Is High Confidence That The IPCC Is Both Corrupt And Incompetent
The White House and its propaganda outlets are working to crucify anyone who believes this record cold is not unprecedented heat.
- While Grijalva grates
Former CBS News investigative reporter Sharyl Attkisson asks herself how the media would treat a given behavior if it were practiced by a Republican. If the media would go ballistic, Attkisson suggests, the same behavior ought to be deemed newsworthy when a Democrat practices it.
And even more…
- The ‘Skeptical Seven’ Witch Hunt is Just the Beginning
The implication, of course, is that research money from fossil fuel companies to any skeptics is bad, even though much greater amounts of fossil fuel money goes to Green organizations.
Can you spell “hypocrisy”?
- Wherein I Come Clean to Representative Grijalva
I wrote this in support particularly of Roger Pielke, who has educated a lot of people about climate and is not even really a climate skeptic and who has been pretty upset by this scrutiny. Call it the “I am Spartacus” strategy.
- Government Witch Hunt Of Scientists Begins: DOJ To Join In?
Update! Inhofe Fights Back
The government, then, has a tremendous, almost overpowering conflict of interest in encouraging belief in global-warming-of-doom.
- “Regurgitate Unsupportable Accusations, We Much?” Kert Davies is Back. Again.
What is the critical missing element to this 20-year collection of ‘breaking news stories’ about skeptic scientists’ funding? Any scrap of evidence proving the skeptics falsified/fabricated data or conclusions as performance required under a monetary grant or paid employee contract. It’s all guilt-by-association and nothing more.
…gullible news outlets unquestioningly cite people from the same enviro-activist clique every time, failing to realize they could win Pulitzers if they turned the tables on sources of smear material …