Global Warming: Follow the Money

[Geee]

National Review:

It isn’t the fossil-fuel companies that are polluting climate science.

Citing documents uncovered by the radical environmental group Greenpeace, a group of media outlets — including the New York Times and the Boston Globe — have attacked global-warming skeptic Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon for allegedly hiding $1.2 million in contributions from “fossil fuel companies.” The articles were the latest in an ongoing campaign by greens and their media allies to discredit opponents of the warming agenda.

But in allying themselves closely with activist groups with which they share ideological goals, reporters have fundamentally misled readers on the facts of global-warming funding.

In truth, the overwhelming majority of climate-research funding comes from the federal government and left-wing foundations. And while the energy industry funds both sides of the climate debate, the government/foundation monies go only toward research that advances the warming regulatory agenda. With a clear public-policy outcome in mind, the government/foundation gravy train is a much greater threat to scientific integrity.

 

Officials with the Smithsonian Institution — which employs Dr. Soon — told the Times it appeared the scientist had violated disclosure standards, and they said they would look into the matter. Soon, a Malaysian immigrant, is a widely respected astrophysicist, and his allies came quickly to his defense.

[Valin]

@Geee

 

 

More Here

 

The Smearing of Willie Soon

John Hinderaker

February 24, 2015

 

blockbuster peer-reviewed paper in the Science Bulletin, authored by Christopher Monckton, Matt Briggs, David Legates and Wei-Hock (“Willie”) Soon, is roiling the global warming Left. The paper identifies flaws in the computer models that predict major global warming–which shouldn’t be a surprise, since the models’ predictions have flopped. It concludes that due to mathematical errors, the models overstate the impact of CO2 on the climate by a factor of three times.

So far, global warming Leftists haven’t been able to find any technical flaws in the Science Bulletin paper, which you can download here. So, naturally, they have resorted to smearing its authors. Greenpeace focused on Dr. Soon, an astrophysicist who works part time for the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Greenpeace served a Freedom of Information Act request on the Smithsonian, a public entity, for documents relating to funding of Dr. Soon’s projects. Greenpeace claims that these documents show that Dr. Soon’s projects received funding from Southern Company Services that was not disclosed in certain papers that Dr. Soon published.

 

(Snip)

 

This is the point I really want to make: the New York Times and other pro-government sources assume that government funding of research is lily-white, while corporate funding is inherently suspect. This is ridiculous. Put aside, for a moment, the fact that the American environmental movement is funded by Russia’s state-controlled oil company. Also the fact that Greenpeace gets money ($203 million) from the American Petroleum Foundation, with another $214 million coming from the Chamber of Commerce.

 

(Snip)

[Valin]

Are You Now or Have You Ever Been a Climate Skeptic?

Steven Hayward

February 25, 2015

 

Let’s start by axing 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.”

 

And one of the Magnificent Seven is . . . me! I have to say I’m flattered to have been elevated to the ranks of Richard Lindzen, John Christy, Judith Curry, and Roger Piekle Jr. as all-stars in the climate field, and it was very nice of them to aggregate all of my congressional testimony (a grand total of five times in 15 years—yeah, that really makes me a “go-to” guy doesn’t it?) in one location (scroll down to the bottom). You can see Grijava’s letter about me nearby, or download it here if you’d like your very own copy. (Send it to me with a self-address stamped envelope, and I’ll autograph it for you!) More seriously: it appears I’ve really gotten under the skin of the climate cultists (almost certainly Greenpeace, the John Birch Society of the environmental movement, is behind this).

 

(Snip)

 

I do hope the House Committee on Natural Resources will hold a hearing on this topic, because I’d love to ask Rep. Grijava some questions in return, such as which contacts at Greenpeace ginned up the particulars of his complaint (since I doubt the worthy Rep. or his staff actually read Power Line, which is cited in his letter). Further, it will be fun to ask a series of questions about the incentives of government-funded scientists, such as what might happen to their government research grants if they didn’t report a result congenial to Rep. Grijalva. More to the point: why pick on the seven of us at universities? Does he really just say “how high?” every time Greenpeace asks him to jump?

(Snip)

[Valin]

Podcast: Attack of the Greens!
Hosted by Michael Graham.
3:15 PM, Feb 25, 2015

 

 

Dem. Congressman on Witch Hunt Against Climate Scientists
10:13 AM, Feb 25, 2015 • By MARK HEMINGWAY

[Valin]

Blowback Against Democrats’ McCarthyite Investigation Continues

John Hinderaker

February 27, 2015

 

We have written here, here and here about House Democrats’ purported investigation of seven climate realists. Steven Hayward is proud to be one of the Magnificent Seven, and I interviewed him on the Laura Ingraham show this morning about the investigation. Pushback against the Democrats’ witch hunt is taking place on a variety of fronts.

 

Yesterday a reporter from Politico, Alex Guillen, contacted Scott and me via email. Guillen said that he was working on a story about reaction to the Democrats’ investigation. He questioned whether our condemnation of the Democrats’ letters to seven academic institutions was inconsistent with my endorsement of a CID served by Ken Cuccinelli, who was then the Attorney General of Virginia, in May 2010.

 

I answered Guillen’s question. To Politico’s credit, while they did accuse us of inconsistency (“But Power Line had a different take on Cuccinelli’s climate probe five years ago…”), they also included my response:

 

(Snip)

 

But I asked one question that the Politico reporter declined to answer: do you really read Power Line so carefully that you recalled a post from nearly five years ago, or did someone feed you the Cuccinelli bit? Crickets. My guess is that it was Kert Davies, former research director for Greenpeace. But, in any event, I am confident that Politico was doing the bidding of some left-wing environmental activist when it accused us and others of inconsistency with regard to the Cuccinelli CID.

 

(Snip)

 

 

[Valin]

More Blowback

Steven Hayward

February 27, 2015

 

(Snip)

 

 

 

 

Dear Representative Grijalva:

 

Science and jurisprudence have in common the practice of the careful and critical evaluation of ideas, facts, assertions, and conclusions. The remarkable and time tested results apparent to all rely on guidelines for the practice of research, of argument, of evidence, and of integrity that are clear and clearly honored. It is in this spirit that the American Meteorological Society (AMS) is strongly committed to academic freedom, open scientific debate, and free expression of scientific ideas (see, for example, the AMS Statement on Freedom of Scientific Expression: http://www.ametsoc.org/policy/2012statement_freedom.html). The AMS is also deeply committed to transparency in science, the free availability of scientific data and academic research products, and full disclosure of funding sources and potential conflicts of interest (see, for example, the obligations of authors wishing to publish their results in AMS scientific journals: www.ametsoc.org/PUBSAuthorObligations).

 

Despite its commitment to transparency and full disclosure within the scientific process, the AMS is concerned by the Letters to Seven Universities Asking for Documents on Climate Change Research (http://democrats.naturalresources.house.gov/documents/letters-seven-universities-asking-documents-climate- change-research) posted on the Committee website on 24 February. Publicly singling out specific researchers based on perspectives they have expressed and implying a failure to appropriately disclose funding sources and thereby questioning their scientific integrity sends a chilling message to all academic researchers. Further, requesting copies of the researchers communications related to external funding opportunities or the preparation of testimony impinges on the free pursuit of ideas that is central to the concept of academic freedom.

 

The AMS maintains that peer-review is the appropriate mechanism to assess the validity and quality of scientific research, regardless of the funding sources supporting that research as long as those funding sources and any potential conflicts of interest are fully disclosed. The scientific process that includes testing and validation of concepts and ideas discarding those that cannot successfully withstand such testing is chronicled in the peer- reviewed scientific literature. We encourage the Committee to rely on the full corpus of peer-reviewed literature on climate science as the most reliable source for knowledge and understanding that can be applied to the policy options before you.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

Dr. Keith L. Seitter

AMS Executive Director

[Valin]

Lindzen contra Grijalva

Scott Johnson

March 5, 2015

 

The wretched Democratic Rep. Raúl Grijalva has sent letters to seven university presidents based on his concerns about the heterodox climate-related testimony of professors at the institutions. He has sought “detailed records on the funding sources for affiliated researchers who have opposed the scientific consensus on man-made global warming,” as the Washington Post’s Joby Warrick put it in “House Dems: Did Big Oil seek to sway scientists in climate debate?”

 

Our own Steve Hayward has proudly proclaimed his membership in the Magnificent Seven, but Steve is in good company. Retired MIT Professor Richard Lindzen is also on the list. The climatistas, as Steve calls them, really hate Lindzen. Lindzen is a prominent atmospheric physicist with the cachet of MIT and he has felt free to set forth the facts that mock the climatistas as he sees fit.

 

Professor Lindzen responds to Grihalva’s crusade with a column in today’s Wall Street Journal. The column — “The political assault on climate skeptics” — is accessible indirectly here via Google.

 

In his Journal column Professor Lindzen notes the failure of reality to conform to the predictions of the climatistas. He touts the virtues of an increase in the level of carbon dioxide. He disputes the proposition that extreme climate events have become more frequent.

 

(Snip)

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

[Valin]

 

 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

 

 

 

Podcast: Is Science Progressing

[Cyber_Liberty]

How many of these colleges and think tanks have responded to Gridiot's prying?

[Valin]

How many of these colleges and think tanks have responded to Gridiot's prying?

Good Question. Our "friends" in the Global Warming Climate Change Climate Disruption appear to be really putting the pressure on over this. One might almost call them desperate.

 

Financial supporters pull the plug on * climate change denier Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon amid bribery scandal

Colin Payne

03/05/15

 

Soon, who worked at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, defended his record earlier this week via the Heartland Institute – a group that lobbies against climate change initiatives and one of his biggest supporters. “In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups,” he said in a statement released on Monday via the Heartland Institute website. “This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare to question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic climate change.”

 

According to the Guardian, the Heartland Institute is framing the debate as a partisan issue by blaming the American left for trying to discredit a scientist who questions accepted science.

 

Oddly enough, one of the companies that funded Soon to the tune of $409,000 was an electric utility called Southern Company. The figure comes from the Southern Alliance for Clean Energy, which is questioning why Southern Company would fund his research when it could use that money to help reduce costs to ratepayers.

 

(Snip)

* You will notice the false charge here

 

You may also notice that no where does The Southern Company actually say they are pulling their funding. Writing an article and hoping it comes true.

[Valin]

Dr. Willie Soon Responds

John Hinderaker

March 5, 2015

 

We wrote here about the Left’s effort to smear Dr. Willie Soon, who has written for many years about the Sun’s role in variations in the Earth’s climate. (How controversial can you get?) The smearing of Dr. Soon was a warm-up for the Democrats’ assault on the Magnificent Seven climate realists, a group that includes our own Steve Hayward. Dr. Soon has now released this statement in response to the attacks on him. It is, I think, a model of lucidity and a valuable reminder of how disgraceful the Left’s refusal to engage in scientific debate truly is.

 

(Snip)

 

 

_______________________________________________________________________________________________________________________

 

Cliff Notes version

Dear Rep. Raúl M. Grijalva, Greenpeace et al

 

 

Your Mama!

 

Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon

 

Dr. Soon is a much nicer, more articulate person than I.

[Valin]

The Climate Beclowning Continues

Steven Hayward

March 5, 2015

 

Far be it from me to prevent a mediocre leftist Democratic congressman from beclowning himself like Rep. Grijalva, but today the whole story jumped more sharks than Sharknado I & II combined when the Malibu Times, a local sheet devoted chiefly to Kardashian sightings and Bruce Jenner accident reports, ran the headline, “Pepperdine Professor Investigated by Congressman.”

 

Do you think the Malibu Times follows these Capitol Hill stories that closely? I happen to know for a fact—because the university’s PR department told me—that the Malibu Times had been contacted by Rep. Grijalva’s staff and encouraged to do a story on the matter—a fact not disclosed in the story. And apparently the reporter and paper editor simply asked “how high?” when suggested they jump on this story. The reporter never called or emailed me for a comment, which is contrary to standard journalistic practice (if standard practice can be presumed to exist any more).

 

The Malibu Times isn’t the only reporter working hand-in-glove with Rep. Grijalva and ultimately Greenpeace (the real progenitor of this project). Quite clearly Politico reporter Alex Guillen is in direct contact with Greenpeace; John already noted he dodged a direct question about his contact with Greenpeace. This isn’t the first time I’ve been through this media drill. About eight or nine years ago I spent the better part of a day on and off the phone with a TV network news reporter. He kept calling me back with more pointed (and silly) questions about my climate work at AEI. Finally I was able to figure out who he was talking to between each conversation to get fresh questions: It was Greenpeace. Nice to know I live rent-free in their heads. (Footnote: the network news reporter eventually concluded there was no substance to the Greenpeace attempt at a media smear, as did reporters from the New York Times and Washington Post, where Greenpeace also tried to shop the story.) Guillen really ought to come clean on this. I’m not holding my breath.

 

(Snip)

 

 

[Valin]

Koch to Democratic Senators: Get Lost!

John Hinderaker

March 6, 2015

 

(Snip)

 

As part of their smear campaign, Democratic Senators Boxer, Markey and Whitehouse wrote to Koch Industries to request information, covering the last 10 years, “about Koch Industries’ payments made in support of scientific research and scientists, as well as support for other efforts related to climate change, if such payments have been made.” Yesterday, Koch’s General Counsel, Mark Holden, responded to the Democrats’ request:

 

 

The activity and efforts about which you inquire, and Koch’s involvement, if any, in them, are at the core of the fundamental liberties protected by the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. To the extent that your letter touches on matters that implicate the First Amendment, I am sure you recognize Koch’s right to participate in the debate of important public policy issues and its right of free association. …

 

In reviewing your letter, I did not see any explanation or justification for an official Senate Committee inquiry into activities protected by the First Amendment. Under the circumstances, we decline to participate in this endeavor and object to your apparent efforts to infringe upon and potentially stifle fundamental First Amendment activities.

 

 

(Snip)

 

 

Senator Markey’s web site contains a list of 100 “fossil fuel companies, trade groups, and other organizations” to which the senators have sent the same request. The “other organizations” include the Chamber of Commerce, the Cato Institute, the Competitive Enterprise Institute, the George C. Marshall Institute, the Hoover Institution, the Hudson Institute, the Institute for Energy Research, the John Locke Foundation, the John Williams Pope Foundation, the Bradley Foundation, the Manhattan Institute for Policy Research, the Searle Freedom Trust, the Heartland Institute and the Heritage Foundation. Holden’s letter is an excellent model for those organizations, as well as the energy companies on the list, to use in responding to the senators’ request, should they choose to respond at all.