Who paid for that?
One of the things you learn when dealing with clowns, is they will accuse you of moppery, things you never imagined and certainly never did. This is a sure sign they are doing it, thus the claims that scientists who support the consensus on climate change are on teh take.
A few months ago Eli pointed out that the Exxon CORPORATION was directly funding the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, and broadly thought that it might be to fund some of the folk over there who were churning out denialism on the half shell. The accountants here at Bunny Labs had even read a bunch of tax returns to figure out that Dr. Baliunas had received a bunch of $$ ($52K) from the Marshall Institute just before the original OISM petition came out (for which she co-authored the red herring), and the Oregon Institute of Deception and Malarky got an extra $200K in the year that they first committed climate deception. Very interesting, Mr. Smart.
Today, Eli got confirmation that indeed his nasty thoughts were true and that . .
. . support from Exxon Mobil Corporation for scientific research at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO). Our records reflect the following:However, to repeat our SPQR, RTFR, all he had to do was go read the work product
2005 – Amount Received - $105,0002006 – Amount Received - $155,000
- Dr. Willie Soon, “Understanding the Solar Influence on Arctic Climate Change and Other Environmental Impact Issues”
- Dr. Sallie Baliunas, “The Millennial Sun”
2007 – Amount Received - $55,000
- Dr. Sallie Baliunas, “The Millennial Sun”
- Dr. Willie Soon, “Understanding the Solar Influence on Arctic Climate Change and Other Environmental Impact Issues”
- - Dr. Sallie Baliunas, “The Millennial Sun”
- W. Soon, “Variable solar irradiance as a plausible agent for multidecadal variations in the Arctic-wide surface air temperature record of the past 130 years”, Geophysical Research Letters, 32, doi.10.1029/2005GL023429 (2005).
- M. Dyck, W. Soon, R. K. Baydack, D. R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T. F. Ball, L. O. Hancock, “Polar Bears of Western Hudson Bay and Climate Change: Warming Spring Air Temperatures as the `Ultimate' Survival Control Factor?” Ecological Complexity, 4, 73-84 (2007).
- W. Soon “Implications of the secondary role of carbon dioxide and methane forcing in climate change: Past, present, and future”, Physical Geography, 28, 97-125 (2007).
- -M. Dyck, W. Soon, R. K. Baydack, D. R. Legates, S. Baliunas, T. F. Ball, L. O. Hancock, “Response to Dyck et al. (2007) on polar bears and climate change in western Hudson Bay by Stirling et al. (2008)”, Ecological Complexity, in press (2008).
- J. S. Armstrong, K. C. Green, W. Soon “Polar bear population forecasts: A public-policy forecasting audit”, Interfaces, in press (2008).
- J. Liu, B. Wang, Q. Ding, X. Kuang, W. Soon, E. Zorita “Centennial variations of the global monsoon precipitation in the last millennium: Results from ECHO-G model”, Journal of Climate, submitted (2008).
- Dr. Baliunas has manuscripts in preparation (no coauthors) in the area of Ca II chromospheric surface magnetic activity and variability in F-G dwarfs and subgiants in M67.
This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are independent of sources providing support.Whatever.
PS: Baliunas may have seen the handwriting on the wall
I’m looking for the millennial scale of solar variability,” said astronomer Sallie Baliunas, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics in Cambridge. She added that “the records do show variability,” such as changes in radioactive carbon-14 abundance and a beryllium isotope in sediment that suggest changes in solar output. “Did the sun cause what we see on the ground?” she asked. “It doesn’t seem so. But there is some fuzziness in the data, which suggests it could go either way. The answer isn’t known at this time.”
Posts
30 comments:
"This scientific research was supported by generous grants from the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation, American Petroleum Institute, and Exxon-Mobil Corporation. The views expressed herein are solely those of the author and are independent of sources providing support."
Woohoo! Of course, inactivists have an analogue to the IOKIYAR rule: It's OK If You're An Inactivist. What's totally cool for inactivists will suddenly become a heinous crime if activists engage in it -- or even if they don't engage in it.
Moonbat conspiracy theories, Luboš Motl's eugenics, global temperature cherries, you name it. It's OK, and even if it's not OK, The Alarmists Are Just As Bad, and therefore inactivists are squeaky clean.
MarkeyMOuse says: This is where the funding for the commie fellow travellers climate alarmist projects comes from. Big money, taken tax free from corporate trust funds whos current owners are on a guilt trip about how much money their Grandads made. eg Theresa Heinz Kerry. Paid money to Hansen. Bought Hansens climate alarmist Presidential endorsement.
"Among the most unbelievable “projects” of the Tides Center is something called the Institute for Global Communications (www.igc.org). IGC is a clearinghouse for Leftist propagandists of all stripes, including living-wage advocates, anti-war protesters, slave-reparations hucksters, and a wide variety of extreme environmentalists. In February 2002 Orange County Register columnist Steven Greenhut called it “a network of the loony left” that “has to be seen to be believed… One alert posted in an IGC member conference calls for financial support for the Earth Liberation Front… Another message warns readers against cooperating with the FBI.”
The Chronicle of Philanthropy has documented this sort of America-bashing before. In a November 15, 2001 story, the Chronicle reported that the Tides Center had given the Independent Media Center (IMC) $376,000 -- ironically, from its “9/11 fund.” IMC is a notorious bastion of far left, radical viewpoints, and also serves as an organizing outpost for all sorts of large-scale protest activity. In particular, the IMC served as a “virtual” staging ground prior to the April 20, 2002 anti-war protests in Washington, DC. Visitors to the IMC web site can read the rantings of “black bloc” anarchists, violent animal-rights criminals, and an assortment of anti-American advocates, all brought to you by the Tides Center and its tax exemption."
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/225
Wow. There are still some Hollywood writers out of work. We know this because they hang out on The Internets, churning out parody, exemplified immediately above.
Best,
D
Meanwhile, Malarkey "Question Everything Except When I Say Not To" Mouse continues to experience the Great Armageddon Against The Phantom Soviet Empire... all in his head.
Dano, were Hollywood writers ever this bad? If so, I don't recall it.
Does Danos money come from the Sierra Club?
"Right now we're in the early stages of World War III," Watson wrote in the pages of the radical Earth First! Journal. "It's the war to save the planet. This kind of action will be getting stronger. The environmental movement doesn't have many deserters and has a high level of recruitment. Eventually there will be open war."
The Sierra Club's increasingly radical stances can be attributed to extremist influences within the organization. The Club shares two directors -- Paul Watson and Ben Zuckerman -- with the violent Sea Shepherd Conservation Society (SSCS). Like it or not, Watson has engaged the Sierra Club in his own personal World War."
http://www.activistcash.com/organization_overview.cfm/oid/194
Malarkey "Question Everything" Mouse continues to question nothing.
When faced with a claim from Baliunas herself that Baliunas had received research funding from Exxon, Malarkey Mouse decides to unquestioningly grab some random wacko web site. Question everything, guys, question everything.
But of course, as I said in my initial reply, it's IOKIYAR again! The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
Eli, where do those quotes come from?
Answer to an inquiry at the Smithsonian.
goddammit; don't any of these denialists and fellow travelers have any grandchildren.
Oh! Only climate alarmists care about children? I'm so glad you brought that up. Everything is clear now. I suppose next you're going to claim that anyone who doesn't agree with you eats babies! /sarcasm
Another wonderful instance of projection by Malarkey "I Question Everything Except That There Is A Great War Against The Soviet Empire Right Now" Mouse.
But hey, The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
Good research, Eli, although I should warn you that too much mention of Sallie in Dano's presence has been known to lead to a response inappropriate for a family blog. :)
Of course Sallie hasn't grown a new set of ethics (or anything else -- down, Dano!). Although it wasn't done under Harvard-Smithsonian auspices, the recent polar bear effort here is a pretty good indication of that. Baliunas, Soon, Legates and Ball as polar bear experts. Heh. Actually the lead author (Dyck) does know something about polar bears, but happens to be in the employ of a native government that sees hunting as a major source of revenue and doesn't want future restrictions on that. The paper notes that Soon received funding from the usual suspects (Koch, API and Exxon-Mobil), but says nothing about anyone else.
Anyway, the paper was directed at influencing the ESA listing of the bears by the USFWS. The latter devoted precisely one short paragraph (pp. 20-21) to saying what a complete piece of shit it was:
"The rebuttal of Dyck et al. (2007) by Derocher et al. (in press)addresses and refutes the primary contentions of the Dyck et al. paper. Specifically Derocher et al. (in press) provide evidence that changes in air temperature and sea ice United States Fish and Wildlife Service responses to comments on USGS reports prepared in support of the Polar Bear Listing Decision February 25, 2008 have corresponded with changes to polar bear condition, survival, and population size in Western Hudson Bay. Additionally, Stirling et al. (in review) indicate that there is evidence to contradict the contention that human-caused effects from research and live capture programs or tourism have been responsible for changes in demographic parameters of polar bears in this area. Mechanisms of adaptation suggested by Dyck et al. (2007) are evaluated and discounted based on well understood physiological and nutritional constraints for polar bears."
AFAIK Sallie's astrophysics work taken as a whole is not unrespectable, so perhaps whoever put that forum together invited her as an effort toward rehabilitation. If so, good luck to them with that.
BTW, Eli, I suspect Gavin would have some way-back dirt on Sallie due to the Jastrow connection (but perhaps nothing "publishable").
The interested can find the Dyke et al. polar bear paper here
Bloom, the Sierra Club useful idiot:
"I say that as a 20-year Club activist who gets the membership figures each month."
http://gristmill.grist.org/story/2008/6/20/55822/4204
Oh, a *paranoid* mousie. How nice.
FYI, Eli, I did provide a link to the paper (the pale blue doesn't have the best contrast) and I didn't even have to resort to using Willie's site (well, OK, I used Siegfried's, but the principle is important).
If anyone's still interested, that corporate think tank paper from a few months back is now available gratis here.
Thank you for the offer of a straight line, but Eli declines
Me thinks there is a pressing need for two things.
One, a well organized website that identifies all the Soons, Sallies and other fungi, all their nefarious financials, and provides the definitive debunkings of each of the "papers". It takes the novices (me) many hops from site to site to find the clearest dissections.
Second, a term which captures the essence of how low these people have sunk.
Suggestions?
But there is some fuzziness in the data, which suggests it could go either way. The answer isn’t known at this time.”
In other words, "give me a few more hundred thou and maybe that -- and 20 more years -- can provide the answer".
Cheapos.
:wq
Lepus, there are many debunkers, tehre is desmogblog which does exactly what you're talking about, there is sourcewatch, which tries to list ALL the fronts out there - if, say, GreenPeace starts an organization that doesn't have Greenpeace in its title, it will point that out as well as who pays it and runs it - but it mostly concentrates on astroturf, mostly by corporations. There is deltoid, etc. etc. A lot of Eli's raisin debt is doing that.
So you're like someone on the Appian Way saying "let's invent the wheel."
The point now is to make the wheel better and get the wheels to turn in a more orderly and unified way.
A good hint is that the denialists are in a group that says much of what it says for emotional reasons - it's a way of blurting out what they're up to or saying what they're most afraid of.
Beyond doubt we need more clearinghouses - but sharing information (unless you're in a state that for political, religious, military or business interest reasons censors science) is what "our side" is already good at.
Lepus, they are sanctimonious vandalizers of the Ark and minions of fossil fuel greed.
Not that there isn`t any other sanctimony out there, but only one group is actively employed by those who profit by damaging our shared environment.
Eli it's certainly important to point out these obvious conflicts of interest. Yet you don't seem to think there is *any reason whatsoever* to suspect that the grant funding process that supports studies in line with your own views has any analogous challenges. It does, and as science and advocacy continue to mix so perversely it'll leave a lot of damage for clear thinking people to repair in the future.
The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... The Alarmists Are Just As Bad... Om... Om... Om...
I have been a polar bear guide for ten years and have deep concerns about the present state of the 'polar bear/climate change debate'. While I do not agree with everything they say it is patently unfair to smear one's reputation simply because you don't agree with what they say. If you apply the same standards to mainstream scientists, such as Amstrup, Stirling, etc., you could argue that they receive some degree of funding from oil companies as well, specifically British Petroleum. Does this discredit their research or is this different because we like what they are saying.
Kelsey Eliasson, Churchill
What one stumbles upon when searching for other information:
According to a fallout shelter seller* OISM is funded by FEMA.
I can't vouch for the correctness of this claim. Anyone know how to check?
I posted an excerpt at:
http://scienceblogs.com/deltoid/2009/05/a_taxonomy_of_delusion.php#comment-1665627
___________________
*http://www.lyricstime.com/bob-dylan-playboys-and-playgirls-lyrics.html
yea, i agree with Not that there isn`t any other sanctimony out there, but only one group is actively employed by those who profit by damaging our shared environment.
Are the Hollywood writers funded by Philip Morris?
Everybody's free to follow breadcrumbs:
Center for Consumer Freedom
I look forward to the correction.
Post a Comment