A Shameful Climate Witchhunt

[maxparrish]

The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra (Politico - Lowry):

Let the climate inquisition begin. The ranking Democrat on the House Natural Resources Committee, Raúl Grijalva of Arizona, has written to seven universities about seven researchers who harbor impure thoughts about climate change.
One of the targets is Steven Hayward, a blogger, author and academic now at Pepperdine University (as well as an occasional contributor to National Review). As Hayward puts it, the spirit of the inquiry is, “Are you now or have you ever been a climate skeptic?

and...

It has to be counted a small victory in this project that Pielke will no longer be an obstacle. In a blog post responding to the Grijalva letter, Pielke wrote, “The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic, and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject.”

And so the alarmists have hounded a serious researcher out of the climate business. All hail science!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...owry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SyGCOorT

It was not so long ago that climate hysterics (including democratic politicians) and their fellow travelers (including many science organizations) were protesting conservative republicans giving "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings (Mann, et. al.), rather than a search for understanding.” and such "inquiry could be interpreted as an effort to "bully and harass climate-change scientists."

So now what is their reaction to Raúl Grijalva's witch hunt? Hypocrisy anyone?

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Rich Lowry is editor of National Review.

Nuff said.

 

[laughing dog]

The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra (Politico - Lowry)

Soon forgot to mention that his research is supported by energy industries. It is a glaring lapse. I can only imagine the outrage by the National Review and its dupes if some scientist forget to mention getting support from Al Gore.

and...

It has to be counted a small victory in this project that Pielke will no longer be an obstacle. In a blog post responding to the Grijalva letter, Pielke wrote, “The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic, and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject.”

And so the alarmists have hounded a serious researcher out of the climate business. All hail science!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...owry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SyGCOorT

It was not so long ago that climate hysterics (including democratic politicians) and their fellow travelers (including many science organizations) were protesting conservative republicans giving "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings (Mann, et. al.), rather than a search for understanding.” and such "inquiry could be interpreted as an effort to "bully and harass climate-change scientists."

A serious researcher and scientist would not let criticism of his/her work deter further efforts.

So now what is their reaction to Raúl Grijalva's witch hunt?

Unlike the bombastic ideologues from the National Review and their syncophantic dupes, I prefer to know the It would be nice to know the actual content of the letter before jumping to conclusions.

Hypocrisy anyone?

That club has at least one member than you think.

 

[Axulus]

The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra (Politico - Lowry):



and...

It has to be counted a small victory in this project that Pielke will no longer be an obstacle. In a blog post responding to the Grijalva letter, Pielke wrote, “The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic, and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject.”

And so the alarmists have hounded a serious researcher out of the climate business. All hail science!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...owry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SyGCOorT

It was not so long ago that climate hysterics (including democratic politicians) and their fellow travelers (including many science organizations) were protesting conservative republicans giving "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings (Mann, et. al.), rather than a search for understanding.” and such "inquiry could be interpreted as an effort to "bully and harass climate-change scientists."

So now what is their reaction to Raúl Grijalva's witch hunt? Hypocrisy anyone?

Would you object to "evolution skeptics" being treated in the same way? How is it bullying or harassment to call out these guys for their bullshit and incompetence? Why shouldn't bullshit and incompetence in one's career negatively affect that career?

 

[ronburgundy]

The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra (Politico - Lowry):



and...

It has to be counted a small victory in this project that Pielke will no longer be an obstacle. In a blog post responding to the Grijalva letter, Pielke wrote, “The incessant attacks and smears are effective, no doubt. I have already shifted all of my academic work away from climate issues. I am simply not initiating any new research or papers on the topic, and I have ring-fenced my slowly diminishing blogging on the subject.”

And so the alarmists have hounded a serious researcher out of the climate business. All hail science!

Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...owry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SyGCOorT

It was not so long ago that climate hysterics (including democratic politicians) and their fellow travelers (including many science organizations) were protesting conservative republicans giving "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings (Mann, et. al.), rather than a search for understanding.” and such "inquiry could be interpreted as an effort to "bully and harass climate-change scientists."

So now what is their reaction to Raúl Grijalva's witch hunt? Hypocrisy anyone?

Without knowing these researchers' actual claims and arguments, there is no way to tell whether they should or should not be "hounded". If they outright deny AGW and misrepresent or misuse facts so grossly that it could only be via intentional fraud (as some deniers have), then they should be hounded and perhaps fired for showing such grave intellectual incompetence and/or dishonest fraud.
Competent scientists can be honestly wrong, but some forms of wrong can only be explained by fundamental incompetence or dishonesty.

OTOH, if they merely challenge some of the more speculative projections about specifeffects now or in the future, and do so on minimally reasonable grounds, then they hounding them would be an anti-science witchhunt. Regardless, politicians should not be the one's calling scientists out. There is enough inherent intellectual competitiveness in science for internal policing of bad or fraudulent science. Policy is not directly about science, but about subjective goals and preference-based actions that are, at best, informed by science. If individuals are so clearly incompetent, then there is no need for politicians to joining in. They are free to and should argue about the science itself, but they should not be going after the jobs of particular scientists.

 

[bilby]

Hyperbole; the fun alternative to debate.

When you support causes that have no reason to back them up, I guess that flowery hyperbolic language is all you have.

The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra ...

Or, removing the hyperbole:

The doubts raised about the competence of Willie Soon (prompted by a joint paper he produced with several other people) has expanded into a discussion of the competence of any scientist who ignores the consensus without providing the necessary compelling evidence...

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Without knowing these researchers' actual claims and arguments, there is no way to tell whether they should or should not be "hounded". If they outright deny AGW and misrepresent or misuse facts so grossly that it could only be via intentional fraud (as some deniers have), then they should be hounded and perhaps fired for showing such grave intellectual incompetence and/or dishonest fraud.
Competent scientists can be honestly wrong, but some forms of wrong can only be explained by fundamental incompetence or dishonesty.

OTOH, if they merely challenge some of the more speculative projections about specifeffects now or in the future, and do so on minimally reasonable grounds, then they hounding them would be an anti-science witchhunt. Regardless, politicians should not be the one's calling scientists out. There is enough inherent intellectual competitiveness in science for internal policing of bad or fraudulent science. Policy is not directly about science, but about subjective goals and preference-based actions that are, at best, informed by science. If individuals are so clearly incompetent, then there is no need for politicians to joining in. They are free to and should argue about the science itself, but they should not be going after the jobs of particular scientists.

Well one of the letter receives is a political scientist. That's a kind of science.

 

[maxparrish]

The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra (Politico - Lowry):
and...
Read more: http://www.politico.com/magazine/st...owry-climate-change-115518.html#ixzz3SyGCOorT

It was not so long ago that climate hysterics (including democratic politicians) and their fellow travelers (including many science organizations) were protesting conservative republicans giving "the impression of a search for some basis on which to discredit these particular scientists and findings (Mann, et. al.), rather than a search for understanding.” and such "inquiry could be interpreted as an effort to "bully and harass climate-change scientists."

So now what is their reaction to Raúl Grijalva's witch hunt? Hypocrisy anyone?

Would you object to "evolution skeptics" being treated in the same way? How is it bullying or harassment to call out these guys for their bullshit and incompetence? Why shouldn't bullshit and incompetence in one's career negatively affect that career?

I would object to "evolution skeptics" being treated in the same way. I would object to any Congressman or Government official deciding to use the color of their office to bully employers into violating salary privacy Grijalva has no more moral right to demand the all the private sources of income and communications of an employee at Sears, than he does of an employee of Pepperdine.

Grijalva is clearly on a witch hunt, selective ONLY of seven targeted researchers that are not a part of the climate consensus. He does not care about scientific disagreement, his purpose is a fishing expedition looking for anyway he can harass and discredit those he deems has having unacceptable climate views. So he is requesting all drafts of the employees testimony or copies of any help he gave to others who have given testimony, he wants records on each target's consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, salary, and sources of funding. Also wants copies of all grants, and communications with anyone on funding.

Can you imagine the outcry if Inhofe identified seven iconic climate change concerned researchers and/or climate bloggers (Hayward is not a researcher but an opinion writer) and then demanded their employers provide the same information?

This kind of partisan motivated fishing to smear someone's private character is not new (it was a favorite of the left during 'the Red Decade', and reputedly by McCarthyites in the 50s)...but that is hardly a justification for hypocrisy or unethical treatment.

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2015/02/while-grijalva-grates.php

P.S. Looks like there are professional organizations and other sources giving belated but growing blow-back...that's a good sign.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

did you read the actual letters?

 

[maxparrish]

did you read the actual letters?

Yes, I read the letter sent to Pepperdine. I assume they are identical.

http://eelegal.org/wp-content/uploads/2015/02/Grijalva-Pepperdine-ltr.pdf

 

[barbos]

Is that the guy who "failed" to disclose that he was being paid by Coal barons?
Then fuck him!

 

[laughing dog]

I would object to "evolution skeptics" being treated in the same way. I would object to any Congressman or Government official deciding to use the color of their office to bully employers into violating salary privacy Grijalva has no more moral right to demand the all the private sources of income and communications of an employee at Sears, than he does of an employee of Pepperdine.

I agree - he has no moral right to demand such data.

Grijalva is clearly on a witch hunt, selective ONLY of seven targeted researchers that are not a part of the climate consensus. He does not care about scientific disagreement, his purpose is a fishing expedition looking for anyway he can harass and discredit those he deems has having unacceptable climate views. So he is requesting all drafts of the employees testimony or copies of any help he gave to others who have given testimony, he wants records on each target's consulting fees, promotional considerations, speaking fees, salary, and sources of funding. Also wants copies of all grants, and communications with anyone on funding.

He may be on a "witch hunt". Or he may be using these as test cases. I can just imagine the hysterics and indignation if this Congress critter had gone after all the climate change deniers. I think it is rather amazing that anyone would think a university would have access to drafts of testimony or records of consulting fees, etc.... Of course, he does have a point about potential conflict of interests in the case of Soon.

 

[ZiprHead]

Is that the guy who "failed" to disclose that he was being paid by Coal barons?
Then fuck him!

Yes, that's the guy.

http://www.nytimes.com/2015/02/22/us/ties-to-corporate-cash-for-climate-change-researcher-Wei-Hock-Soon.html?_r=0

"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."

 

[maxparrish]

Hyperbole; the fun alternative to debate.

When you support causes that have no reason to back them up, I guess that flowery hyperbolic language is all you have.
Or, removing the hyperbole:

The doubts raised about the competence of Willie Soon (prompted by a joint paper he produced with several other people) has expanded into a discussion of the competence of any scientist who ignores the consensus without providing the necessary compelling evidence...

Except that the hyperbole is accurate and the sanitized transmutation is not. These are not questions of Soon's competence, a discussion of competence of others, nor a issue of those "not providing the necessary compelling evidence".

Other than that, your fine.

 

[laughing dog]

Except that the hyperbole is accurate and the sanitized transmutation is not.

Unfortunately for you, your posts rebut that claim. The hyperbole of
The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra ..." is contradicted by your complaint that the congressman is only going after 7 climate change doubters. And, it is not a smear to point out Soon's omission of his source of funding. To some, the source of funding may raise doubts about potential conflict of interests. However, his omission of his source of funding does raise more doubts about his conflict of interests. Those concerns are not smears. When people are less than forthright and honest, it does tend to raise questions about the integrity of their word, actions, results, and positions.

 

[Nice Squirrel]

Max,
I would not think of it as a question of competence but as a question of ethics. Is it unethical to knowingly write falsify research for payment?

 

[untermensche]

There is no such thing as a man-made climate change skeptic.

That's like a skeptic of gravity.

There are only man-made climate change deniers.

A shrinking yet intransigent crowd.

 

[maxparrish]

Max,
I would not think of it as a question of competence but as a question of ethics. Is it unethical to knowingly write falsify research for payment?

Assuming you mean "knowingly write falsified research", then it is unethical - regardless of whether or not it is done for payment. But as far as I am aware there is no evidence of falsification of any of his research (including his latest co-authored paper) or the research of others that were targeted.. The ONLY issue raised by Greenpeace (fed to a NYTimes hit team) is centered on potential non-disclosure of funding.

 

[maxparrish]

Except that the hyperbole is accurate and the sanitized transmutation is not.

Unfortunately for you, your posts rebut that claim. The hyperbole of "The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra ..." is contradicted by your complaint that the congressman is only going after 7 climate change doubters.

Unfortunately for me? Unfortunately for your counter-claim most of my "hyperbole" is accurate. Willie Soon has been smeared, it has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate scientists that doubt the climate change mantra, and the issue has not been about competence of Willie Soon or any other of the targeted scientists " who ignores the consensus without providing the necessary compelling evidence...". It is entirely about non-disclosure of funding from 'evil' fossil-fuel interests, and any real or imagined violation of professional ethics.

However, you do make a distinction, albeit without much of a hyperbolic difference: this is a crusade to bully and intimidate the most prominent scientific heretics, most of them from what Thinkprogress calls the "Republican Party's "small cadre" that testifies before Congress "time and again to question the scientific consensus on the threat of greenhouse pollution to the global climate." And it's intention is to intimidate any other scientists who might think about expressing their heretical views before Congress.

And, it is not a smear to point out Soon's omission of his source of funding. To some, the source of funding may raise doubts about potential conflict of interests. However, his omission of his source of funding does raise more doubts about his conflict of interests. Those concerns are not smears. When people are less than forthright and honest, it does tend to raise questions about the integrity of their word, actions, results, and positions.

It is a smear when the accusers facts are a pile of speculative and misleading information used to unfairly blacken someone's name. If, as it seems, the documents DO NOT support what the Greenpeace/NYTimes mud-gunners imply and/or claim, and do not indicate illegal or professionally unethical conduct then of course it is a smear "It's purpose is to "raise questions about integrity...and actions" by throwing as much public mud as possible and then hope that innuendo and misinformation will do it's job.

 

[laughing dog]

Unfortunately for you, your posts rebut that claim. The hyperbole of "The smearing of Willie Soon (prompted by a blockbuster joint paper done with several other climate "skeptics") has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate any scientist that doubts the climate change mantra ..." is contradicted by your complaint that the congressman is only going after 7 climate change doubters.

"Unfortunately for" your counter-claim most of my "hyperbole" is accurate. Willie Soon has been smeared, it has expanded into a crusade to bully and intimidate scientists that doubt the climate change mantra, and the issue has not been about competence of Willie Soon or any other of the targeted scientists " who ignores the consensus without providing the necessary compelling evidence...". It is entirely about disclosure of funding.

Repeating hysterical claims do not make them any more or less true. I presented the evidence in your own words. You have not presented any disinterested evidence to support your claims of a smear. The rantings of a conservative writer for the National Review is not convincing evidence.

But you do make a distinction without much of a hyperbolic difference: this is a crusade to bully and intimidate the most prominent scientific heretics, most of them from what Thinkprogress calls the "Republican Party's "small cadre" that testifies before Congress "time and again to question the scientific consensus on the threat of greenhouse pollution to the global climate." And it's intention is to intimidate any other scientists who might think about expressing their heretical views before Congress.

You are long on the rhetoric and short on evidence.

It is a smear when the accusers facts are a pile of speculative and misleading information used to blacken someone's name.

You mean like what you are doing in this thread?

If, as it seems, the documents DO NOT support what the Greenpeace/NYTimes mud-gunners imply and/or claim, and do not indicate illegal or professionally unethical conduct then of course it is a smear "It's purpose is to "raise questions about integrity...and actions" by throwing as much public mud as possible and then hope that innuendo and misinformation will do it's job.

Max, failure to report his source of funding does raise questions about his integrity and his actions. It does not raise questions about his scientific competence in my view.