Two Interesting Headlines related to Global Warming

Quote

---

Originally posted by: forkushV
One of Myster Man's sources:

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
I provided links to back up my points. I can care less if you dont find them acceptable. That seems to be a pretty high bar given that you dismiss everything as part of the leftist media conspiracy unless you cherry pick it as a reference on your partisan website.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
You forgot to add this to his resume...
He took 1.2 million dollars from fossil fuel industries and failed to disclose it (as strictly required by the Academy of Sciences) and claimed his research was unbiased.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: pjstroh
Funny how You fancy yourself as the debate moderator in addition to being a partisan participant in it...and pretend you get to determine what sources are relevant and which ones are smear. I'm afraid you simply lack the credibility to take that role...and you have the lack of sources to prove my point.

---

Quote

---

Originally posted by: forkushV
One of Myster Man's sources:

---

Quote

---

1. Key facts about the controversy

In late February, 2015, Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by liberal reporters for major media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. and then became the basis for a coordinated campaign against global warming “skeptics” by liberal advocacy groups, Democratic U.S. senators and a congressman, and their allies in the mainstream media.

This page presents background information and facts about the controversy as well as links to some of the attacks on Dr. Soon as well as articles defending him. Dr. Soon's biography and a partial list of articles he has written for peer-reviewed journals is at the bottom of this page.

* Neither the editors of Science Bulletin nor the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Soon’s employer, have said Dr. Soon violated their disclosure or conflict of interest rules.

* Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

* Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

* The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.

* By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

* Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.

---

Quote

---

Heartland's long-standing position on tobacco is that smoking is a risk factor for many diseases; we have never denied that smoking kills. We argue that the risks are exaggerated by the public health community to justify their calls for more regulations on businesses and higher taxes on smokers, and that the risk of adverse health effects from second-hand smoke is dramatically less than for active smoking, with many studies finding no adverse health effects at all. These positions are supported by many prominent scientists and virtually all free-market think tanks.

We take these principled positions on tobacco control despite their being very politically incorrect and despite receiving little (and in some years no) funding from tobacco companies because they are freedom issues. The left uses junk science to demonize smokers, which then clears the way for higher taxes on smokers, restrictions on their personal freedoms, and restrictions on the property rights of the owners of bars and other businesses. [...]

A former board member, Roy Marden (Left in 2008), indeed worked for Philip Morris/Altria during some of his time on Heartland's board, and he helped convince others in the company to approve contributions to us because of our opposition to high taxes on cigarettes, the abuse of tort law leading up to the Master Settlement Agreement, and other tobacco-related issues. This was not a conflict of interest: All nonprofit organizations put representatives of foundations and corporations on their boards with the expectation that they help "give or get" financial support.

Philip Morris' support never amounted to more than 5 percent of Heartland's annual budget. None of the correspondence between Marden and his colleagues at Philip Morris suggests any improper influence over Heartland's programs or positions, and indeed there was none. Heartland was speaking up for over-taxed smokers and against nanny state regulations long before Philip Morris offered any funding and before Marden joined the organization's board.

---