rushmc 23 #51 April 10, 2015 QuoteWhen those allegations were proven false, the extremist advocacy group originally responsible for them circulated further false allegations that in 11 earlier papers Dr Soon had acted improperly in not having disclosed the source of his funding. However, the Smithsonian had negotiated a contract with the funder in question by which the funder’s identity was not to be published. The only papers in which Dr Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which the Smithsonian, not he, was solely responsible. The Smithsonian, however, unlawfully and publicly issued a series of statements intended to blame Dr Soon, though it was at fault for having improperly agreed to the obligation of confidentiality by which he was bound. His three co-authors of the Science Bulletin paper have investigated the allegations by the Smithsonian and various political advocacy groups against their colleague. Their findings are set out in the first two pages of their report to the Regents, attached hereto, followed by the evidence. I know the truth is something you could care less about......"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #52 April 10, 2015 rushmc************ you keep lying That statement would appear to violate forum rules. QuoteDespite $Billions from Big Energy supporting people like Willie Soon, Is that statement true? Early in 2013, The Guardian reported that two "trusts", the 'Donors Trust' and the 'Donors Capital Fund' have donated to 102 think tanks and activist groups $118M between 2002 and 2010 Exxon Mobil donated $1.5M in 2009 alone after stating publicaly that it would no longer fund deniers. The Kochs alone are known to have donated $63M between 2001 and 2007. According to Scientific American, 140 foundations funneled $558 million to almost 100 climate denial organizations from 2003 to 2010. According to Drexel University sociologist Robert Brulle, much of the funding is deliberately untraceable "dark money". So, yes, it most likely is true. ok so regarding Soon I will stick to my earlier statement What was written was "people like Willie Soon". Having a reading problem today?... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #53 April 10, 2015 kallend What was written was "people like Willie Soon". Having a reading problem today? Oh well then that is differnt then"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #54 April 10, 2015 rushmc *** What was written was "people like Willie Soon". Having a reading problem today? Oh well then that is differnt thenYes it is, because the deniers as a group have received enormous amounts of funding, both overt and "dark". Just as I said.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
rushmc 23 #55 April 10, 2015 kallend ****** What was written was "people like Willie Soon". Having a reading problem today? Oh well then that is differnt thenYes it is, because the deniers as a group have received enormous amounts of funding, both overt and "dark". Just as I said. Which pales in comparison to what the gov gives to the alarmists"America will never be destroyed from the outside, if we falter and lose our freedoms, it will be because we destroyed ourselves." Abraham Lincoln Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
lawrocket 3 #56 April 10, 2015 What about the money spent supporting it? Did the 97% do it for free? I'd suggest they did not. Just look at the money spent by governments. See which side the money is on. My wife is hotter than your wife. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 2,106 #57 April 10, 2015 lawrocketWhat about the money spent supporting it? Did the 97% do it for free? I'd suggest they did not. Just look at the money spent by governments. See which side the money is on. Yes, just like comparing the money the government spent to falsely promote the idea that smoking is bad for you, compared with the money spent by the tobacco companies to deny that it is.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
