John Mashey's blog

Willie Soon And Friends In The Early Days Before Climate Science Denial

Willie Soon is gathering with his Heartland Institute friends this week in Washington, DC for their latest Denial-a-Palooza stunt designed to mimic a science conference.

Ed Wegman, Yasmin Said, Milt Johns Sue John Mashey For $2 Million

In May 2013, DeSmog published the FOIA Facts  (1, 2, 3, 4) series on the misdeeds of George Mason University (GMU Professor Edward Wegman and his long-time helper Yasmin Said, authors of the long-discredited 2006 Wegman Report (WR).  Behind those blog posts was a much more detailed report, published only today.  In May 2013, I sent that to a few Federal agencies and to Aurali Dade, GMU's AVP for Research Integrity and Assurance. I had thought to be done with the Wegman/Said/GMU saga, but was proved wrong.

Bjorn Lomborg's Copenhagen Consensus Center - Real Charity Or "Foreign Conduit"?

Bjørn Lomborg is founder and president of the  Copenhagen Consensus Center USA (CCC)), a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) “public charity” whose US physical presence is shown in the image: 262 Middlesex St, Lowell MA.

Fred Singer Recalls Silly Attack On Consensus And Naomi Oreskes By Klaus-Martin Schulte, Lord Monckton's Endocrinologist Front Man

By the 1950s, smoking's cause of disease had risen to strong scientific consensus, but Big Tobacco needed an illusion of scientific controversy to keep the public in doubt. As seen in the new film Merchants of Doubt,  they developed superb marketing tactics copied by others, including the fossil fuel industry and allies.

The scientific consensus on human causation of climate change is just as strong as that on smoking, so the same tactics are used against it, plus Internet-amplified harassment of scientists. Fred Singer recently tried to revive a nearly-forgotten 2007 attack on climate consensus, one of the silliest and least competent, entangled with plagiarism and falsification. A revisit of this episode may be instructive, as consensus (not unanimity) is important enough that people keep challenging it.

Willie Soon A Heartland Institute Star Since 2003: Was He Paid? If So, When And With Whose Money?

Willie Soon has gained a global spotlight from many recent news articles (New York Times, Boston Globe, The Guardian, Der Spiegel, etc).  This was lit by documents obtained from the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA), whose former director had said of Soon that “no one pays any attention to him.”  An impassioned defense was published, not by the CfA, but by the Heartland Institute, for whom he seems vastly more important, a tireless star.  Heartland has even purchased Google AdWords, so the first hit for Willie Soon is this:

Heartland buys Google AdWords for Willie Soon

Soon's frequent efforts for Heartland started no later than 2003.  They raise questions about potential unreported Conflict of Interest  even if unpaid. But did Heartland pay him? If so, how much, when, for what and with whose money? Heartland is a tax-exempt 501(c)(3) “public charity” whose climate anti-science tactics were preceded by a long history of paid efforts for tobacco companies, as per Fakery 2: More Funny Finances, Free Of Tax.

Readers unfamiliar wiith Soon might start with DeSmogBlog's profile. and follow by reading  story of a personal encounter. The history and other details motivate some questions, summarized next, then explained in detail.

Was Willie Soon Paid For Science...Or Anti-Science?

Willie Soon speaks to Doctors for Disaster Preparedness

Willie Soon has been in the news lately, but the recent 131p FOIA shines even more light on climate anti-science.  It details tax-exempt tactics that use a sciency facade to promote anti-science to the public. It includes some grant proposals and results for 2008-2012. These are quite enlightening, but cover only a fraction of Soon's history of fossil funding, about which he told DeSmog UK's Brendan Montague amazing tales.

Funding Science versus Funding Anti-Science
In real science, scientists:
1. propose a research topic for grant funding,  often to government agencies via open, fiercely-competitive processes peer-reviewed by experts who include past performance. Awards are usually publicly visible, as seen at the National Science Foundation(NSF)or National Institutes of Health (NIH).

2. do research, whose outcomes are not predetermined, present results at science meetings and publish in credible science journals, regularly acknowledging funding sources. They may do some outreach for general public, and may even get public exposure, but to be successful they must convince other field experts of their work's merit.  Scientists comprise their primary audience.

3. provide one or more reports to the funding agency listing the papers, talks or other relevant accomplishments.  Such reports are usually public, often online.

Anti-science is a PR effort aimed to cast doubt on science, not among scientists, but among the public and policymakers.
Here, people:


Subscribe to RSS - John Mashey's blog