I would never be motivated by money for anything

hot This astonishing claim is apparently made by Willie Soon, according to the NYT. The claim is implausible, to say the least. As is much of his GW related research.

I’m not alone in that opinion, oddly enough. Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless. Mmmmm, the science yes (it may be a null-set joke; Gavin is subtle) but the papers clearly aren’t pointless, these “deliverables” act to advance certain rather obvious agendas.

And now I come to look, Soon was a name-for-hire on the recent Monckton drivel.

Its made wiki.

Refs

* Ask not for whom the bell tolls. It tolls for Soon – Greg Laden. Well, maybe.
* Gavin at RX on Soon, 2011.
* Many Arctic temperature trends – me, from 2007.
* Soon and Baliunas controversy from wiki.
* Did Willie Soon Lie to Congress? – DA
*Analysis: Soon’s disclosure of non-controversial funding supports the conclusion that he deliberately omitted fossil fuel disclosures – Brian at Eli’s.

7 thoughts on “I would never be motivated by money for anything”

  1. Dividing $1.2 million by the word count of Willie’s 21st century bibliography comes to upwards of $10 a word.

    At that rate ,you’d think API and the Texaco Foundation would insist on a writer who’s heard of Samuel Johnson.:

    No man but a blockhead…

    Like

  2. IMHO, GL is not the sharpest knife in the house, maybe his nick should be Butters.

    Having looked at several of Soon’s ‘papers’ I noticed something, which also showed up in Monkers ‘paper’ lack of proper disclosure.

    http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/willie-soon-fire-him-soon/#comment-219501
    http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/willie-soon-fire-him-soon/#comment-220055
    http://gregladen.com/blog/2015/01/willie-soon-fire-him-soon/#comment-220192

    “So, thank’s for askin’, but you are barking up the wrong tree!”

    So, now we see the NYT doing their research via blogs?

    And I’m still waiting on GL to get on over to Sou’s and explain his Alberta Tar Sands glacier ‘theory’ (and otherwise, his USGS 80m vs IPCC 66m ultimate SLR and his inability to count the word ‘hiatus’ in the IPCC AR5 WG! report).

    Like

  3. I did the math. We can’t afford the IPCC.

    Word count = 666,666,666

    Pay out to date = $0.00 (BAU)

    Therefore, the IPCC writers are all unpaid blockheads.

    Never heard of SJ, like this SJ though:

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s