Dr. Willie Soon Guest Comment: ‘Is What I Say Beyond the Boundaries of Reasonable Discussion?’

Guest essay by Russell Cook

Although I am no more than an ordinary citizen, my email address book reads like a “Who’s Who” list of skeptic scientists and speakers. Among them, I’ve had the privilege to exchange emails with Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Do just a basic internet search for nothing more than his name and you see why he is disgusted by those saying his work is tainted by industry funding.

Here, rather than having a written-out guest post, Dr Soon suggested I could place two videos featuring him, followed by a specific comment question he wants to pose to his accusers, along with a statement from a fellow skeptic scientist, Dr Richard Lindzen. He felt this would collectively encapsulate the fatal weakness accusers show when they resort to charter assassination in order to avoid debate on the science of global warming.clip_image001

The first video Dr Soon suggested was of his hour long 4/2/2013 University of Minnesota presentation, where he said at the outset that science should not be subjected to what he calls a strange and ugly political interference, pointing out that no amount of money can influence his opinion. Then he devoted the remainder of the presentation to his detailed scientific analysis of the global warming situation – very humorously, I should add.

View that video in its entirety, and you easily see why the woman in the following short confrontation is as foolish as she is. This confrontation occurred at the end of Dr Soon’s similar presentation at the University of Wisconsin on the following day – you see the identical slide of a comical-looking car behind him in each.

Despite all his material questioning the validity of man-caused global warming, the woman completely ignored it and instead launched into a much-repeated talking point about Dr Soon being ‘paid over a million dollars by Exxon’, followed by the question, “Why should we trust someone without credentials in climate science whose work is only funded by coal and oil industries?

Dr Soon’s response is fabulous, transferring the burden of proof right back onto her about the assertions she made, chastising her for her rudeness in being unable to engage in debate.

The comment he wished for me to put here sums up his frustration with this woman and other like-minded critics:

Does this educational lecture really go out of the boundaries of reasonable discussion of the scientific and related socio-political issues on CO2 and climate?

Answer: no, it does not, and this illustrates the entire problem involving people on Al Gore’s side of the issue. The woman accusing Dr Soon of industry corruption could not bring herself to refute anything he said or engage in actual debate on his specific topic points. She instead inferred that money influence had tainted what he said so badly that none of it was worthy of consideration, which crumbles to dust when she and other accusers fail to prove that industry money was given to skeptic scientists in exchange for laughably and demonstratively false fabricated papers, reports or assessments.

Folks on the Al Gore side, in other words, have the situation preposterously backwards: they first should shoot down what skeptics say with superior scientific reasoning and analysis, and then nail the coffin shut by proving precisely how skeptics put out fabricated material bought by ‘big coal & oil’. The woman in the second video could not meet either challenge.

Dr Soon wanted to bring up one other point, a declaration made by a fellow scientist who questions the idea that greenhouse gases are the primary driver of global warming, Dr Richard Lindzen. It’s only four paragraphs, unequivocally stating  “My research has never been supported by any industrial source.” This poses a massive problem for Ross Gelbspan, who has become rather famous over the narrative that Lindzen “charges oil and coal interests $2,500 a day for his consulting services.”

My thanks to Dr Soon for providing Dr Lindzen’s financial declaration. It’s worthy of its own blog piece here, exploring Gelbspan’s narrative of what Dr Lindzen would charge, compared to what he actually received.

One final point: a June 2011 Reuters article is often cited by critics of Dr Soon as proof of his industry corruption. What they routinely fail to mention is the last sentence of the article where Dr Soon said:

“I would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research.”

After an especially egregious version of this oft-repeated accusation against Dr Soon appeared in the UK Guardian newspaper, he responded with this firm letter-to-the-editor, concluding with the same plea as what he basically had for the critic at his University of Wisconsin presentation.

More perspective and less prejudice, please.

About these ads

103 thoughts on “Dr. Willie Soon Guest Comment: ‘Is What I Say Beyond the Boundaries of Reasonable Discussion?’

  1. AGW true believers (and leftists in general) engage in the psychological pattern of “Projection” in almost every statement they make. This woman who was accusing Soon of slanting his views for money is almost certainly being paid, in one way or the other for HER views. (government grants, NGO funding, whatever)

    The reason why it is impossible to have an honest debate, or even discussion with these people is that they no longer even understand what the words “Honesty” and “Integrity” mean. They have no frame of reference with which to understand a man who refuses to genuflect to the Accepted Wisdom of the Age.

    We can’t say it often enough; we are not fighting rational people, we are fighting hard core religious fanatics. Therefore we cannot expect rational forms of discourse to have any influence with them. In fact, nothing will have any influence on *them*; we can only defeat them by aiming our message at those people in the general population who still DO understand what words like “Honesty” and “Integrity” mean. It should be understood that this definition excludes, by its very nature, ALL of the current mainstream media, ANY government official at any level, and the vast majority of Academia. Those venues are lost to us, but they are also losing power due to their myopia and are losing more power every day. There are ways around them, and that’s where our focus must be.

  2. We now know, thanks to Anthony, that Dana, like Fat Albert, is also on Big Oil’s gravy train. I don’t know if Mikey’s shtick is similarly funded, but his government grant money comes from taxes on the energy industry. It’s all blood money or its all clean as driven, climate-cooled snow, & it doesn’t matter. When you don’t have facts, attack the messenger.

    The scandal is how hard it is for real scientists to get funding, which is what opens them up to this kind of attack, trying to discredit those whom the Green Shirts in government & the media can’t shout down.

  3. Dr. Soon has my greatest respect for his obvious restraint in that second video. I’d be sick to the back teeth of the sort of attacks he’s had to endure.

    I’m sure the young lady has absolutely no problem taking as gospel the pronouncements of that well-known climate scientist who never receives any money, directly or indirectly, from the fossil fuel industry, Al Gore. Oh, wait…

  4. By their own rules, nothing a government funded scientist puts out would be worth of consideration because as we all know who contributes to THEIR campaigns. They’d be pretty much down to well-off amateurs operating from their private fortune. And I think we know how people that passionate about science would turn out …

  5. @WWS
    It is true that CAGW is no longer a scientific issue, it’s a political one, one where politicians in general have painted themselves into a corner. Politicians rarely admit fallibility, and they have no way to safely exit this. It’s a long hard road for them. There is something I disagree with you about – It is possible to deprogram these religious zealots, but it’s not the science arguments that do it. The religion is based on guilt, guilt of despoiling gaia.

    Carbon taxes and side effects hit the poor the hardest, pensioners die because they can no longer afford to turn on heating or cooling, the first to lose their jobs because of the regressive energy taxes are the masses, The effects of turning corn into ethanol is more starvation in the third world. Burning through money in pursuit of 0.0002 degrees prevents that money being used for curing cancer, or malaria, or immunizing the third worlds children against measles or indeed even to create jobs for their children.

    Focus on the evil side effects of their great moral crusade to save the world and show them the ugly effects of their zealotry and many of the fall away and ask questions. At that point they can be shown that the science doesn’t hold anyway, and they have been fooled.

    The Key to deprogramming the warmists lies in attacking constantly the fake moral argument by showing them the moral cost, is far worse than the moral benefit, and they are in fact being inhumane and antihuman.

    I ask these questions of warmists I encounter

    So you think its ok that we burn corn in our cars while the third world goes hungry?
    So you think its OK that pensioners are dying because they cant afford to run their heating and airconditioning?
    So you would rather spend billions on windmills and solar panels than cure cancer?
    So you think is OK that children in the third world die of measles and are crippled by polio?
    So you’d rather see temperatures reduced by 0.0002 degrees in 100 years time than give your children a job?
    So you think its a good thing to bury two oxygen atoms with every carbon in geosequestration schemes and deplete our atmosphere of oxygen?

    Then I give them a solution

    The ONLY thing that should be done with CO2 is to feed it to plants, if you want to help the planet plant some trees, plants turn CO2 into Oxygen we breathe and food we eat.

    It doesn’t always work, some warmists are political apparatchiks and will continue to spout the party line but the logic is unassailable, most come to see that the costs are not worth the meager benefit. Often the conversion to a realisation they have been had is quite profound some get quite angry.

  6. I agree with Dr Soon that global warming is not man made. It is natural based mostly on the changing sun and ocean currents. I have every confidence in Dr Soon as an independent scientist
    basing his work on science alone having been a co-speaker at the international climate conference in Chicago I would add the recent testimony of Dr John Christy the former Arizona state climatologist who in his testimony to the US congress said that there has been virtually no change in daily maximum temperature, while most of the warming is confined to increases in daily minimum temperatures(Nightime temperatures are driven by turbulence(or lack of it) near the surface, not by CO2 warming.). By contrast daytime maximum temperature is a much better measure of warming from greenhouse gases. the lack of a signal in daily maximum temperatures suggest the rate of warming due to CO2 is relatively small. Also there has been no warming for at least 16 years. the change has more do do with the declining solar irradiance with the current solar cycle 24 having around 60 sunspots ,half the number expected.(see Dr Abdussamatov Polkovo astronomical Observatory st Petersburg). clearly a global cooling is already underway

  7. You make very good points, Bobl, and I will work to remember your questions. I must say that I have noticed that with some relatives, for example, who were once full on board with the Global Warming Bandwagon, they never admit or even dare to discuss the fact that the idea was wrong, but rather it is now not anything they will ever talk about or acknowledge in any way. The entire issue has just been dumped into the memory hole as far as they are concerned, and I suppose from my point of view that’s about as good an outcome as reasonably could have been hoped for.

    “Global warming? Climate change? Never heard of it.”

  8. Yes, it is tedious.
    It won’t be easy to overturn almost a generations worth of ….environmentalism that turned to greed.
    Onward !!

  9. Having read the Skeptical Science secret forum posts, the warmists really think that government funded scientists do their science pro bono. They get truckloads of money for their science and policy work and think that it’s peanuts. It’s really mind blowing.

  10. The really funny thing is that is Warmists who have received more money from fossil fuels interests.

    Climate Research Unit (CRU)
    “From the late 1970s through to the collapse of oil prices in the late 1980s, CRU received a series of contracts from BP to provide data and advice….we would like to acknowledge the support of the following funders….British Petroleum,…Shell,…Sultanate of Oman…”
    Source: cru.uea.ac.uk/about-cru/history

    —–

    Exxon-Led Group Is Giving A Climate Grant to Stanford
    Four big international companies, including the oil giant Exxon Mobil, said yesterday that they would give Stanford University $225 million over 10 years….In 2000, Ford and Exxon Mobil’s global rival, BP, gave $20 million to Princeton to start a similar climate and energy research program…”
    Source: New York Times – 21 November 2002

    —–

    Sierra Club
    “TIME has learned that between 2007 and 2010 the Sierra Club accepted over $25 million in donations from the gas industry, mostly from Aubrey McClendon, CEO of Chesapeake Energy—one of the biggest gas drilling companies in the U.S. and a firm heavily involved in fracking…”
    Source: Time – 2 February 2012

    —–

    Nature Conservancy
    “…The Conservancy also has given BP a seat on its International Leadership Council and has accepted nearly $10 million in cash and land contributions from BP and affiliated corporations over the years. “Oh, wow,” De Leon said when told of the depth of the relationship between the nonprofit group she loves and the company she hates. “That’s kind of disturbing.”……Conservation International has accepted $2 million in donations from BP over the years…”
    Source: Washington Post – 25 May 2010

    —–

    Delhi Sustainable Development Summit
    In 2003 and 2004 Rajendra Pachauri’s annual Delhi Sustainable Development Summit was sponsored, among others, by the Oil and Natural Gas Corporation Ltd. and the Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. In 2005 Shell gave money and in 2006 and 2007 BP gave money. The Rockefeller Foundation gave donations in 2008, 2009, 2010, 2011, and 2012.
    Source: dsds.teriin.org [See their About Us - Archives]

    —–

    UC Berkeley’s Climate Action Partnership
    “The Cal Climate Action Partnership (CalCAP) is a collaboration of faculty, administration, staff, and students working to reduce greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions at UC Berkeley….”
    Source: sustainability.berkeley.edu/calcap/

    UC Berkeley – 1 February 2007
    BP selects UC Berkeley to lead $500 million energy research consortium with partners Lawrence Berkeley National Lab, University of Illinois…”
    Source: UK Berkely News

    Berkeley Earth Surface Temperature (BEST) project
    Financial Support – Berkeley Earth is now an independent non profit. Berkeley Earth received a total of $623,087 in financial support for the first phase of work,…..First Phase
    …….Fund for Innovative Climate and Energy Research (created by Bill Gates) ($100,000) Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($150,000)……”
    Source: berkeleyearth.org/donors

  11. Even the Warmist media realise this fossil fuel funded shill nonsense is just that, nonsense.

    Suzanne Goldenberg – Guardian – 16 February 2012
    “…There is hardly any sign of support from big oil companies – which stand to lose heavily through action on climate change……ExxonMobil, which donated $675,000 to Heartland up to 2006 according to Greenpeace, cut its ties to the thinktank after pressure from environmental organisations.

    Even the Koch family, the oil billionaires who have bankrolled the Tea Party backlash against Barack Obama, have been lukewarm on Heartland.

    Entities connected to the Koch family have donated only $25,000 to Heartland since the mid-1990s….”

    Robert J. Samuelson – Newsweek Editor – August 2007
    “…Against these real-world pressures, NEWSWEEK’s “denial machine” is a peripheral and highly contrived story. NEWSWEEK implied, for example, that ExxonMobil used a think tank to pay academics to criticize global-warming science. Actually, this accusation was long ago discredited, and NEWSWEEK shouldn’t have lent it respectability. (The company says it knew nothing of the global-warming grant, which involved issues of climate modeling. And its 2006 contribution to the think tank, the American Enterprise Institute, was small: $240,000 out of a $28 million budget.)

    The alleged cabal’s influence does not seem impressive. The mainstream media have generally been unsympathetic;….”

  12. I’ve always found it amusing & telling that Mann’s first reaction to McIntyre was to ask about his “funding”. How absurd to MM that anyone would practice science without being paid for it!

  13. The first thing I would do if asked a question like this is asked the person where their income comes from. After they disclosed whatever the source I would asked them if the money influenced their opinion. And, after they said it did not, I would ask them why they think it would affect others. From that point it’s pretty easy to point out that they are essentially claiming to be morally superior without knowing a single thing about me.

  14. Agree with you, wws. I’ve argued with true believers before.

    I felt a little sorry for Dr. Soon. He was facing an inquisitor.

  15. The Saul Alinsky methods are always on display in Madison whenever anyone with a position different than the Progressives appears. Ridicule first because it is an effective weapon. Polite people don’t do it but Progressives are not polite. They also don’t give a damn about “Global Warming”. That is just another tool used to try to gain power. Notice that all AGW remedies rely on governments across the globe becoming much more powerful.

    I forget who said it, Monckton perhaps, that Green = Red. Couldn’t be said in any more simple terms.

  16. Anthony (are we on a first name basis?) – in your preamble you state: “they resort to charter assassination” (2nd para.) I believe you meant “they resort to character assassination”. Hope you can fix that typo…..

  17. Get a load of the clueless dolt @ 6:53, lamely attempting to further embarrass him. From the sound of him, I honestly don’t believe that he has two brain cells to rub together. Painful to listen to.

  18. The saddest part is that the average warmer REALLY thinks that the funding accusation is the same as disproving the data and analysis of Soon.

  19. JohnB says, July 26, 2013 at 11:22 am ” … For more info on Dr. Willie Soon’s funding and work for oil, gas … ”

    Haven’t been paying attention to my work on the origins and people in the accusation against skeptic climate scientists, have you JohnB? Your three Greenpeace, Desmogblog and SourceWatch link sources all rely on the same single unsupportable origin for their claims about the corruption of skeptics. Care to guess who that is? Meanwhile, please – indulge us: specifically where in any of those links or in any other source you can find full context document scans, undercover video/audio transcripts, leaked emails, money-transfer receipts, or any other physical proof corresponding to instructions for skeptics to lie about the science of global warming under direction from fossil fuel industry executives? Take your time, we’ll wait.

  20. ATM says:

    “The Saul Alinsky methods are always on display…”

    Alinsky was very astute regarding the nether aspects of human nature. Unfortunately, he was also a despicable rat, who advised:

    Pick the target, freeze it, personalize it, and polarize it. Cut off the support network and isolate the target from sympathy. Go after people and not institutions; people hurt faster than institutions.

    We have seen that tactic used constantly ever since Obama was elected. Just as soon as Romney was nominated, Drudge showed an Obama campaign cartoon pic of Romney with about a four foot long nose. The narrative was that he constantly tells lies.

    On top of the Alinsky character assassination, psychological projection is part and parcel of Leftist politics, and outright lies emit from Obama’s lips like water from a high pressure fire hose. The only things Obama won’t lie about are the things he refuses to talk about. And the complicit news media has bought into Obama’s agenda, and will not report his lies, or even question his incredible statements.

    We can see the Alinsky prescription being applied directly to Dr Soon. Both Soon and Romney are paragons of probity compared to the average Progressive. But it’s tough when the average American gets his news through sound bites from the visual media, and from printed headlines — which often have a completely contradictory story below the headline. But it is the headline that is seen and remembered.

    Every comment attacking Dr. Willie Soon over the non-issue of his income has one thing in common: all of it lacks credible scientific veracity. They attack the man, not his science, because his science is sound and has withstood the test of time. If they could falsify Dr. Soon’s science, they would have done that long ago. But global climate events have proved Soon prescient.

    When you see someone attacked using Alinsky’s methods above, don’t hesitate to point out what they’re doing. They have no credible argument, so they attack the man instead; it is the ad hominem logical fallacy. The antidote to Alinsky is to point out what they’re doing, and why.

  21. Steve McIntyre says:
    July 26, 2013 at 11:52 am

    The real scandal is the failure of NSF and similar agencies to fund Soon.

    The pathetic truth is that funding in science, the NSF is a good example, is driven by scientific fads. The justification for either granting or denying funding is that the foundation does not want to “waste” funds on “unproductive” lines if inquiry. The very fact that a term like “unproductive” can appear in a grant refusal is evidence of a predetermined position on the research outcome. This attitude is pervasive. It is not limited to climate science but affects every phase of research from archaeology to zoology.

  22. I must say that one of the most amusing days of my adult life occurred when I was accused, after expressing a somewhat skeptical view of AGW, of being ‘in the pay of tobacco interests’.

    The reason that this was so funny was that for 10 years, I worked for a cancer research organisation (well the two predecessors of what is now one) and have never been funded one cent by any lobbying organisation of any kind.

    I guess I didn’t put my CV up on a blog post – I never realised that it was required.

    The relevant bit for climate topics would be: ‘spent 15 years experiencing mountain weather in Austria, Switzerland, France, Spain, Wales, England and Scotland. Became expert at predicting timings of powder snow falls in the Alps weeks to months apart, for the sole purpose of avoiding bad ski-ing conditions on my winter holidays.’

    Of course, experiencing horizontal spindrift, rain, biting winds, hacking open ice in a frozen river to get drinking water, safely leading people down a gorgeous black ski run at 3.30pm after waiting for 4hrs for conditions to become perfect despite badgering from punters to go earlier etc etc is no substitute for running computer simulations with ill-selected parameters.

    It does, however, provide a wealth of experience, examples, patterns, deviations from stated norms, life-enhancing events etc etc which impact upon one’s ability to evaluate critically whether the systemic components of particular models mimic well the known characteristics of certain systems where my knowledge is more than merely rudimentary.

    I assume anyone can have insight into climatology and I don’t think that a BSc either enhances or precludes that possibility. The most wise woman I met in the UK worked as a washing up lady in Oxford and one of the most puerile and idiotic did a PhD with GlaxoSmithKline. I have also met many incredible women with PhDs, so please don’t say I can’t handle bright women. I’ve just met a few very bright, emotionally stunted women too. One of the best academic professors I ever met started life as an apprentice in an aerospace firm and only graduated into academia in his 40s. He didn’t have an undergraduate degree but his insights into metallurgy were astonishing. He didn’t learn them from books……

    The crux in navigating your way through tough complex situations is to ask every time what is being asserted, what evidence backs that up and what other explanations might there be. Are the measurement technologies suitable, is there any basis for artefacts and, if there is something strange about the data, what is it??

    Most seminal observations in science are about noticing the unexpected.

    If there’s one thing I’d like the whole world to learn to be good at, it’s to trust what they observe and be ready to accept the novel and unexpected.

    Once again, that’s not taught in books and only comes from observing things, having an open mind and being ready to see the significance of what you observe.

  23. Russell Cook –
    You misunderstood –
    There are apparently two CFACT organizations
    I thought it was from the Conservative one – but no – it’s CAMPUS or Collegiate
    I watched the video to the end and there was a note to follow the DENIERS
    When I watched the video through YouTube you get what I posted

    THOSE IDIOTS WERE PROUD of the harrassment of Dr. Soone
    Believe it or NOT – they thought that video was a win for THEM

    JohnB – U of MN Allum

  24. I also misunderstood – The video is PRESENTED by something called “PowerWatch” go to youtube and check it out for yourself

    CFACT is a WIN
    “PowerWatch” is a FAIL

    as I may have been – apologies for my confusion too

    JohnB

  25. I think his data could be explained better by making sure the audience knows what data is plotted on a graph. If they are unaware of what the x and y-axis represent, then they will find it difficult to understand, and may switch off.

  26. Meanwhile taking millions from the Rockefellers is OK by the green propagandists… Case of pot (version Pol Pot) calling the kettle black…

  27. Just decided who should be my third nominee for the Nobel Peace Prize, with Watts, for his team’s attempt to produce high-quality climatic data, & McIntyre, for his group’s statistical analysis of “settled, consensus climate science”. For his unsettling the anti-scientific, anti-human consensus & liberating climatology from government & media control, Dr. Soon, representing his colleagues & collaborators brave enough to speak truth to power from the belly of the Beast.

    Three is all that are allowed to share a Nobel. This trio would help restore the lost luster of the awards, especially Peace.

  28. Precisely how much money has Al Gore received from his CAGW activities? Is the questioner concerned over that? Or Mann, Jones, or Hansen? How much government funding is dependent upon CAGW? And if your presumption is that government must be pure at heart, then you cannot decry the military-industrial complex because that too is simply government. It’s sad that so many can remember that latter part of Eisenhower’s brilliant speech and none can remember this part:

    Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades.

    In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers.

    The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present

    and is gravely to be regarded.

    Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientifictechnological elite.

  29. Or maybe Dr. Baliunas, since my compatriot Pamela Gray feels that Dr. Franklin was slighted posthumously.

  30. I wish that Dr. Soon could have responded that the temperatures were NOT going up, and have not for some decade and a half… while showing the satellite data chart. He was really taken aback by the warmists. I wish I were in that audience, as I would have put those folks back in their place.

  31. I should have finished… it seems that the audience was friendly to him, in that they applauded. However, it’s sad that barely anyone in the room could offer anything scientifically cogent to dispel the woman’s position as well as that reasonably guy who thought temperatures were on the rise. Based on that Q&A session, it does not look like he’s good in a debate that gets ugly.

  32. Bobl – interesting tactic and it sounds as if you have had some success – Well done.

    I think the believers fall into two categories

    Gullible people
    Sour people who prefer to be dishonest than admit to teh public they were wrong.

    The first sort need patience and kindness, the second need to be publicly shamed. The difficulty is often knowing which is which, but by and large the first are the foot soldiers and the second are the generals.

  33. Julian in Wales says:
    July 26, 2013 at 6:48 pm
    “…the first are the foot soldiers…”
    +++++++++++
    Well said Julian. In that context, there is another useful term… “useful idiots”

  34. Terri Jackson says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:37 am

    Your citing of Dr. Christy’s work is apt. In fact, to the extent that there is any signature or fingerprint in the modern warming period, it isn’t of CO2.

  35. The best defense is a good offense. As Willie hints in the video it is the “consensus” scientists who are not independent. They are funded by the government, which is the epitome of politicized funding. Every dollar of the 100+billion in taxpayer funding for climate research has been channeled through the funding bureaucracy that Al Gore created during his eight years as Bill Clinton’s “climate czar.”

    The bias that Al Gore built into the bureaucracy remains completely intact. Subsequent presidents are only allowed a couple of political appointees at the head of any bureaucracy. Bush’s science appointees didn’t even have the power to stop James Hansen from violating the most basic agency rules about how he is and is not allowed to speak for the government. Bush did not have the tools to even BEGIN to change the priorities of Gore-created climate bureaucracy.

    The primary directive of this bureaucracy has been to fund only those researchers who support the CAGW line. Any researcher whose evidence or reasoning contradicts the “consensus” alarm is blackballed, as Willie (and many others) can attest. Even as established a scientist as Lindzen can’t get his research published through normal channels.

    Anyone who is concerned about the corrupting effects of politicized funding should be alarmed at the current thoroughly politicized system of taxpayer funded climate science, which is in fact how the current phony scientific “consensus” was created. Political hacks have defunded everyone else. But instead of recognizing this blatant corruption, other political hacks, like the girl in the video, insist that everyone who is not bought and paid for by the politicized funding (any truly independent researcher, like Willie Soon), should be shunned and ignored.

    She pretends to be concerned about the corrupting effects of politicized funding but is actually a rabid enforcer of the existing regime of politicized funding, a veritable brown shirt, issuing ad hominem attacks on one of the only independently funded researchers around. That she can be sincere in thinking that she is crusading against politicization, while trying to shout down anyone who is not on the taxpayer funded gravy train, is quite amazing. Through self-lobotomization this girl has managed to reduce her moral IQ to zero, or perhaps one should say that she has managed to get it all the way down to negative 70. Her position in the morally backwards direction is not COMPLETELY without the services of instrumental intelligence, so -70 (borderline retarded) sounds about right.

    A note on republicanism: the inability of the elected head of the executive branch to change the direction of the bureaucracy violates the Article IV section 4 guarantee to the states that they shall have a republican form of government. Federal law, where it is empowered by the Constitution, is superior to state law, so the republican guarantee implicitly guarantees to the states that the federal government as well as the individual state governments will be republican, which means first of all (paraphrasing Alexander Hamilton’s remarks to the NY constitutional debates) that the people must be able to “throw the bums out.” Thanks to the failure of the Supreme Court to enforce this most important guarantee we now have no power to throw the bums out. Through our election process we can only throw out a few political appointees, not the vast body of bureaucrats, no matter how strongly these bureaucrats resist the will of the electorate.

  36. JohnB says, July 26, 2013 at 5:39 pm “…. Still confused it’s PolluterWatch … ”

    Apologies myself, I didn’t catch that you were repeating top comments out of the shorter Youtube confrontation. Al Gore’s random followers do sometimes show up in these WUWT comment sections thinking they can gain points by hurling the old worn out Gelbspan/Gore ‘big oil’ accusation. Yes, PolluterWatch deludes themselves that their confrontation is some kind of a ‘win’ when it clearly is not, especially in light of the absence of the full context of the presentation. Which is why Dr Soon asked me to place the CFACT Collegians one (connected with CFACT http://www.cfact.org/cfact-programs/collegians-for-a-constructive-tomorrow/ ) before the confrontation video from PolluterWatch.

    No worries, ignore the challenge I had for you, but feel free to apply it to anyone who hurls the ‘big oil funding’ accusation. Or, for your own curiosity, trace any accusation narratives you find and see if your are able to corroborate what I’m detailing at GelbspanFiles.com. If more people take into consideration how we have every appearance of Al Gore and crew seeing a need to quash skeptic criticism all the way back in 1992, then more people will demand to know why the mainstream media never checked the veracity of it.

  37. I and my wife had the good fortune to hear Dr. Soon speak at USC a couple of years ago. The audience was mostly academic types that were very civilized and polite. What I was struck by is how well he was accepted by the many professors present. But I was surprised by their willingness to speak privately on the subject of AGW but their fear ( I do not use that word lightly) of speaking publicly on the matter. The politics of grants kept them silent, I asked them. They did not want the eye of the camera on them. Dr. Soon has shown true bravery in the face of extreme political pressure. The politics of AGW has most certainly harmed many of our academic institutions and our personal freedom to speak without reprisal on most assuredly academic subjects.

  38. @Alec Rawls –
    Yes, true representative democracy in the US is on its deathbed, in the face of der Fuehrer and his satraps’ assault on liberty, on the economy, and on science with hardly a whimper from Congress or the courts. What a bunch of invertebrates we have “representing” us in the government.

    Two hundred years ago this sort of behavior by the federal government would have brought on a new revolution. Maybe that’s what’s needed today, to relieve society of the burden and the evil of these people.

    As for that “woman” – I hesitate to apply a term normally used for human beings to that sort of an australopithecine retardate, to that person – she is indeed a classic example of ad hominem and the use of irrelevant ststements to try to discredit someone that doesn’t buy the feces she and her kind spew. So what if Dr. Soon did get oil and coal company funding? All that deserves is kudos to the energy companies funding him, because even more than serving their own interest, they would be serving the national interest hugely.

  39. Dear Dr. Soon,

    Your excellent presentation refuting the propaganda of the IPCC was clearly within the “boundaries of reasonable discussion” of CO2 science and politics. It was thorough and accurate and presented with an engaging, refreshingly dynamic, style that most of your colleagues would envy. Don’t lose that Chinese accent! It is charming and, incidentally, will make your audience listen more attentively (it is for this reason that American TV ads often use actors with British accents).

    Suggestions:

    1) Accept speaking engagements to forums open to the general public ONLY if there will be a host or emcee present who agrees (and is competent, a Mario Lento!) to run interference for you with such obnoxious members of the audience. You are a world class scientist. Mudwrestling with fools is not your job.

    2) When there is no one to run interference:

    Respond to all ad hominem attacks by:

    a. Ignore the bogus question posed.
    (There is NO POINT to debating it, not even with a quick retort like, “So what? What is your point?” Since there IS no good point, it’s a waste of time to refute it. True believers WILL not be convinced. Those whose opinions matter to you know the truth. Remember that and be at peace.)

    b. (1) Ask, “Do you have any questions about my presentation this evening?”
    (2) If they refuse to promptly ask a legitimate question, IGNORE THEM and
    (3) go on to another questioner.
    (4) If you encounter such a question again, Repeat (1) – (3).

    **********************************
    You have a teacher’s caring heart. That will make it hard for you to resist apparently innocent, young, people like that whining female cult member or what appear to be honestly ignorant simpletons like the con artist man after her. Cons are GOOD at deceiving. A wolf in sheep’s clothing does not look like a wolf. It looks like a sheep. He or she will sound sort of sleepy or earnestly concerned, and helpless, and simple. They are not. And, if they are, i.e., if they are innocent, brainwashed, dupes, that is NOT your problem. If your conscience bothers you about not trying to help them to understand, just remind yourself that there are MANY avenues available to them to seek truth. When people really seek the truth, they find it. The need is NOT (necessarily) the call (to help them).

    You also have the noble desire that all of us have to defend our honor. Let others do that for you, if the public record needs to be corrected. YOU DO NOT NEED TO DEFEND YOUR HONOR. It stands for itself. Again, those whose opinions matter to you KNOW.

    You are, personally, a delight, Dr. Soon. You are obviously WELL-qualified to speak on this topic! You are, as others have pointed out, a Hero for Truth in Science. You and Dr. Murry Salby in his speech in Hamburg on April 18, 2013 (you would LOVE it — it’s on youtube) are true heroes.

    Gratefully yours,

    Janice Moore

  40. Hey, Chad! LOL, there we were enthusiastically typing away at the same time! Hope all is well with writing, publishing your book, and your music. Wasn’t Dr. Soon’s enthusiastic speaking style wonderful?

  41. And, (@ Chad W.) that young woman was, indeed, repulsive. Innocent or not, cult members are pretty obnoxious until they are deprogrammed.

  42. Terri Jackson says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:37 am
    no warming for at least 16 years. the change has more do do with the declining solar irradiance with the current solar cycle 24 having around 60 sunspots ,half the number expected.(see Dr Abdussamatov Polkovo astronomical…
    Actually solar irradiance has not declined as Abdussamatov will have it. In fact, TSI is at present the highest it has been since accurate measurements started in 2003.

  43. Chad wrote: “Two hundred years ago this sort of behavior by the federal government would have brought on a new revolution. ”
    +++++++++++
    This is a sobering moment given what happened in Egypt after we helped enable what led to the Arab Spring. Obama was visibly startled that against his command, the Egyptians removed that form of tyrant. I know Egypt has a lot of hell brewing and I don’t know what to think of it… I fear the thought of a revolution in bloody form and I hope to God that we can have a peaceful change in the right direction.
    +++++++
    Janice what a nice missive to Dr. Soon. You wrote well. I enjoyed hearing his light heart speak some sense to a listening audience.

    I, like John West, do not like the IPCC either.

  44. I think we live in interesting times… John Galt is the employer mandate that forces a sub 30 hour week to escape Obama Care in one of its forms…

  45. Thank you, Mario!

    The IPCC is a co-m-m-u-nist front organization. A den of li-a-rs. I detest the IPCC as an organization. (As for individual members, shrug — need more information.)

  46. the really dumb part about the woman that was challenging Dr. Soon about his funding sources is her lack of realization about her underlying assumption — that is, she is clearly operating on the premise that “people are willing to lie about their findings and research depending on where their funding comes from.”

    OK, if one accepts that as a base assumption, doesn’t it also mean that one cannot trust any research or findings of any kind?

    Secondly, it should be obvious to her that the old adage ‘it takes one to know one’ would apply. People who are quick to accuse others of falsifying their research to match their funding source are exposing exactly what they themselves would do.

    In short, this woman is a fool for not recognizing that the people who established this line of attack were only projecting their own ethical failings onto the rest of the world.

  47. I suppose one of the important ways of defeating bullying behaviour is to publicly stand next to the person who is being bullied. It is not even necessary to say you agree with their views, what is necessary is to say “in science we expect to have debates that are confined to understanding the objectives truths, and those who bring other baggage into the room are not welcome in this forum”. As mentioned above a good chairman should be doing this anyway, but perhaps now is a time for a more general message to be expressed from the wider science community.

    We have seen the constant use of the word denier in debates as a bullying put down. This word should be disallowed, and both sides should object to anyone who tries to use it in a discussion about objective truth, and people should intervene to stop the debate to point out it is an unacceptable tactic every time it crops up.

  48. Janice, I was taught to use ‘Why?’ – to the 7th.
    ‘Is it true you’re funded by big oil?’ ‘Why does that matter?’
    And on, and on…

  49. This is what caused the CAGW crowd to go ballistic. Note the date. Dr Soon has been in their sights ever since. The first paragraph shows why.

  50. So, money from Exxon is tainted with “big oil interests” but money from the government isn’t tainted with “big government interests” nor is money from NGO’s like greenpeace tainted with “big political lobby interests”?

    Is there a Dr. Soon speaking engagement schedule somewhere?

  51. Barabara Boxer, to me, sounded even more idiotic, if that’s possible, than that useful/useless idiot, at the Senate hearing last week.

    Their scientific theory of climate change appears now to have fully morphed to “The science is in, and here’s the data. Anthropogenic carbon dioxide causes global warming/climate change because anyone who disagrees is funded by the Koch Brothers or Exxon/Mobil”.

    Ha ha, remember those heady days for them of “the debate is over”. It soon will be.

  52. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    Terri Jackson says:
    July 26, 2013 at 10:37 am
    no warming for at least 16 years. the change has more do do with the declining solar irradiance with the current solar cycle 24 having around 60 sunspots ,half the number expected.(see Dr Abdussamatov Polkovo astronomical…

    Leif Svalgaard says “Actually solar irradiance has not declined as Abdussamatov will have it. In fact, TSI is at present the highest it has been since accurate measurements started in 2003.
    +++++++++++++
    Hi Leif: I think your accurate comment could be a bit misleading. In the past 16 years, solar irradiance has been lower compared to the any 16 year period in the past 100 years, even though we are at the peak of the current relatively weak solar cycle 24. That is the point of Terri Jackson’s comment. So yes, we are at the peak of this solar cycle, which is stronger than the tail end of cycle 23. Cycle 24 is the weakest solar cycle in many decades. If solar cycle 24 were like 23, 22 or 21, we would have seen more energy than we have seen over the past 10 years. I believe the point was that the weaker levels of solar output over the past 16 years correlates with the lack of warming. Of course, this is not proof of anything, but the correlation does exist.

  53. Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 11:25 am
    In the past 16 years, solar irradiance has been lower compared to the any 16 year period in the past 100 years
    This is not what the esteemed Dr. Soon [who is the hero of this post] thinks:

  54. Mario Lento, nice clarification of Leif Svalgaard’s ambiguously written remarks.

    D. B. Stealey (a.k.a. Smokey) thanks for that great link. TEN YEARS of being sneered at by colleagues like Dr. Svalgaard or harassed by fools like the woman in the video! His endurance of all that and with such a cheerful attitude makes him a hero, indeed.

  55. re: Steve McIntyre says: “The real scandal is the failure of NSF and similar agencies to fund Soon.” Then Duster says: July 26, 2013 at 3:02 pm “The pathetic truth is that funding in science, the NSF is a good example, is driven by scientific fads.”

    My experience: Graduate School, Ivy League mid 1960s, Post Doc, Ivy League, early 1970s:

    1) My Research Professor, a full professor, admitted to me that he another big wigs journeyed to Washington, DC on a regular basis to in committee format to decide on grants and that the members took care of their friends: it was institutional back scratching. The same was true with the major journals and peer review.

    2) An acquaintance, lived nearby in an apartment complex, who was a Resident in an Ivy University Hospital told me about his “service” in lieu of going to the Army, Navy or Air force after his internship–remember the Dr. Draft? He had gone to Harvard undergrad and his father was a professor at one of the Washington, D.C. medical schools where he got his M.D., either George Town or George Washington. Well with “pull” the man got a gig at the National Institutes of Health as a reviewer of proposals for grants. Yes, this “green” MD became a gate keeper for picking Grants. He thought that the system was insane but was quite happy that he avoided Viet Nam.

    Dan Kurt

  56. Hi Leif: Personally, I enjoy reading your comments, whether or not they seem negative. Information does not need to be candy coated for me to receive it – and I learn more being wrong than being right. I tried to chose my words so as not to get caught up in the fray.

    If we consider NASA’s sunspot proxy since 2003, I think it’s fair to say that the average# of sunspots is about 45+/- or so. Whatever the number is, it’s been lower over the past 16 years than it’s been during most of the 20th century over any other 16 year period. I’m not trying to oversimply solar science. I’m also not saying that if the sunspot is lower, that’s proof of anything.

    If we can’t even try to hear what someone’s saying, we’ll just go around in circles and accomplish nothing. It gets confusing for many when your interjections seem aimed at telling everyone here how stupid they are because they are not solar physicists.

    A baseball player, for instance, does not need to understand the principles of trigonometry, gravity, force and the affect of wind friction to throw a really nice curve ball, slider, or fast ball. Yet, I could imagine someone like you making that pitcher look really stupid while he’s explaining how to correctly pitch a ball. His knowledge of science may be completely incorrect, but that does not mean he can’t show someone how to do something most scientists can’t do.

  57. Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 1:23 pm
    If we consider NASA’s sunspot proxy since 2003, I think it’s fair to say that the average# of sunspots is about 45+/- or so. Whatever the number is, it’s been lower over the past 16 years than
    You were specifically talking about solar irradiance, not sunspots

    your interjections seem aimed at telling everyone here how stupid they are because they are not solar physicists.</i.
    Being wrong is not the same as being stupid. I just correct statements that are wrong, regardless of why they are wrong.

    Kasuha says:
    July 27, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    Are you sure you are not comparing TSI in space with TSI on the surface?
    I am comparing with Dr. Soon was comparing.

  58. Got it. That’s what I get from not reading the entire list of posts before commenting. Still, you tend to force us to be precise, which is a good thing, though not so easy for us non solar educated. Thank you.

  59. Kasuha says:
    July 27, 2013 at 1:26 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says
    Nice, but wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
    ________________________________
    ++++++++++++
    Personally I think this graph shows that temperature DOES track solar cycles. It requires considering the cumulative effects to see the tracking, and this graph does not show other forces involved in climate such as ENSO and other natural processes that effect temperature.

  60. Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    Personally I think this graph shows that temperature DOES track solar cycles.
    The black and the grey curves do track. But the black curve is not what is considered to be the correct run of solar irradiance [based on a 20-yr obsolete model]. The red curves at the top is shows modern versions of the irradiance.

  61. Leif Svalgaard says:
    I am comparing with Dr. Soon was comparing.
    _____________________________________________

    You’re evading the answer.
    Dr. Soon is not very specific about where does his graph come from. He’s calling it “the best estimate how the sun’s light output has been changing”. That description allows a whole lot of interpretations. But the graph you use in your comparison comes from a different presentation and as far as I remember, that graph was not about above-the-atmosphere TSI.

  62. I believe the best way to deal with people accusing “skeptics” of being funded by “big oil” is to ask them if they are into conspiracy theories.

  63. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2013 at 2:02 pm
    Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 1:56 pm
    Personally I think this graph shows that temperature DOES track solar cycles.
    The black and the grey curves do track. But the black curve is not what is considered to be the correct run of solar irradiance [based on a 20-yr obsolete model]. The red curves at the top is shows modern versions of the irradiance.
    +++++++
    Thank you Leif: To be clear, you agree that I was speaking of what the graph shows not whether or the data is valid. That graph does show that climate tracks solar cycles –especially give the caveats I listed in my complete statement.

    That said, I appreciate that you bring into this, that there is new perhaps more relevant information. Is not the red curve on top the source for the black trend?

  64. Kasuha says:
    July 27, 2013 at 3:24 pm
    I believe the best way to deal with people accusing “skeptics” of being funded by “big oil” is to ask them if they are into conspiracy theories.
    ++++++
    Brilliant – JUST Brilliant… A new version of now “who’s calling the kettle black?”

  65. Kasuha says:
    July 27, 2013 at 3:00 pm
    Leif Svalgaard says:
    Dr. Soon is not very specific about where does his graph come from. He’s calling it “the best estimate how the sun’s light output has been changing”. That description allows a whole lot of interpretations. But the graph you use in your comparison comes from a different presentation and as far as I remember, that graph was not about above-the-atmosphere TSI.
    Soon’s curve comes from a 20-yr old-reconstruction by Hoyt & Schatten http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf [as you can see for yourself by comparing Soon’s curve with H&S’s Figure http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not1.png [with some fiddling of the scales and a new cycle grafted on to the right-hand part.
    All TSI reconstructions [mine, Soon's, anybody's] refer to above-the-atmosphere

    Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 3:29 pm
    To be clear, you agree that I was speaking of what the graph shows not whether or the data is valid./i>
    One would presume you would assume the data was valid [why show invalid data?]
    Is not the red curve on top the source for the black trend?
    No, the curves are drawn to the same scale. The black curve is from http://www.leif.org/EOS/93JA01944.pdf . The red ‘curves’ are actually several modern reconstructions [with different colors - most of them reddish]. Try to blow up the Figure.

  66. Robert of Ottawa says:
    July 27, 2013 at 7:58 pm

    Nobel rules allow maximum of three individuals. I’m good with either Soon or Lindzen, whom I considered before Soon or Baliunas.

    But why not two back-to-back Nobels, when in a few years to a decade the anti-scientific, anti-human CACCA spew has been well & truly falsified? That gives skeptics up to six recipients.

  67. PS: Hard to say as to contributions to science, but Lindzen at least was already tenured, while Soon & Baliunas sacrificed comfortable careers on the altar of quest for the truth.

  68. I am very grateful for scientists like Dr. Soon who have the guts, the manhood, and the moral fortitude to take a stand for Truth. I cannot express the sense of relief such a man allows me to enjoy, especially in a time when so many other, cheaper men have me gritting my teeth and clenching my fists in despair over the idea of there being any good in mankind at all.

    I grew up in Massachusetts, and know all too much about the corrupted side of that state. In Massachusetts it is hard not to become cynical about Truth, or even to consider corruption a “truth” in and of itself. However there is a world of difference between the “truth” of corruption and true Truth.

    Engineers know the difference between a structure founded on stone and a structure founded on sand. The structure founded on sand is like one of those old Texas saloons, rickety and cheap behind an impressive “false front.” Those fooled by the “false front” are astounded when a strong wind comes and the saloon falls down.

    People in Boston were astounded when the umpteen billion dollar “Big Dig” sprang leaks. However, because they consider the cheap status quo of corruption to be a “truth,” they sadly will remain loyal to the status quo, (because they made good money working on the “Big Dig,” at the expense of other American taxpayers.) I fear it will take a greater pain, beyond even the horrible bombing of their beloved Marathon, to awake those lovable fools to the foolishness of building on sand.

    Perhaps a hurricane like the 1938 storm will charge north over the fair city of Boston, and the corruption-compromised engineering of the Big Dig will collapse under the added pressure created by the waters of twelve-foot storm tides. Abruptly there will be no road into the city from the south. Meanwhile some other corruption-compromised engineering may collapse, including perhaps the city’s highest towers, named after insurance companies (who likely will be reluctant to pay a penny.) Under such duress, even blue-collar guys who thought they made good money building compromised engineering may go through an epiphany. Dawn may break on Marblehead. People may become aware that, in the long run, fabricating and corrupting Truth doesn’t pay, for you wind up with a city collapsing, where you could have had a home town remaining solid and strong.

    At that point the real men, (and I include Dr. Soon,) who stood for Truth all along, even when it cost them advancement, funding, and sometimes even their jobs, will be remembered and honored. Let us pray they live to see the day. Not all do.

    Until that day one must speak Truth, stand by Truth, and have faith that in the end Truth will triumph. Also one must also have a sense of humor about the mess we are in. At times I honestly think that is the only thing that keeps Boston going.

    Dr. Soon has that Boston sense of humor, and I pray he never loses it.

  69. Wiily is no more at Harvard than Sally- nor has either published anything under its auspices for years. Dick Lindzen has told me that he charges his consulting clients in the energy business his usual rate of $2500 a day

  70. Sad that Willie Soon handled it so badly, I would’ve nailed these people easily.
    Woman: pointing out the flawed science of the IPCC is the goal and their subsequent undermining is a just result of their bad science. There is no evidence that I collaborated with Exxon in any capacity, I merely received funding.

    Man: WRONG. The climate has not been warming, it has NOT warmed for the past 17 years.
    The sun is logically the primary climate driver as evidenced by the sun activity matching the temperature data and the climate cannot affect the sun.
    There is ZERO evidence that CO2 caused significant warming and no discernibly human signal in the trend.

  71. Leif Svalgaard says:
    One would presume you would assume the data was valid [why show invalid data?]
    ++++

    Leif: It all started with this:
    Leif Svalgaard says
    Nice, but wrong: http://www.leif.org/research/Temp-Track-Sun-Not.png
    ________________________________
    ++++++++++++
    Personally I think this graph shows that temperature DOES track solar cycles. It requires considering the cumulative effects to see the tracking, and this graph does not show other forces involved in climate such as ENSO and other natural processes that effect temperature.
    ++++++++++

    Leif: Essentially you showed data saying that temp-does not track sun. And I said using that data, it does show that temp tracks sun. Then you said the data was no longer valid, but it was data you presented, so now I am confused. We’re going around in circles. It could just be me being dense, I do not think this banter is productive.

  72. The stupid amongst the solar deniers is neck deep. OBVIOUSLY the source of almost all the heat content in the system is a massive, primary driver of the dynamics. Small fluctuations in such a massive asymmetric input (different angles/seasons) in combination with various oceanic oscillations etc and cloud cover resulting from solar fluctuations can result in significant natural temperature variation.

  73. I apologise for the tone in my above comments. People like the woman accusing Willie of corruption with zero evidence together with the fact that government funding dwarfs non-governmental funding in climate science by a factor of millions really get me angry.

    This truly now is good versus evil, truth versus lies, the alarmists are purely political and this is evidenced by the fact that they don’t address the science but merely engage in ad hominem and ad verecundiam.

    I admire people like Willie Soon, as well as Mr Watts, they’ve sacrificed career and funding to pursue truth.

  74. Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    but it was data you presented, so now I am confused.
    The black and grey curves were presented by Dr. Soon in a recent article in the Washington Times.

  75. milodonharlani says:
    July 27, 2013 at 9:27 pm
    Caleb says:
    July 27, 2013 at 9:24 pm

    Amen, brother!

    Couldn’t resist.
    +++++++++
    As a Boston bot who’s lived in the Bay area of CA since 1995, I will say another Amen brother to you Caleb.
    Your missive brings back memories. I left Boston years after the Big dig started, and it took many years as the budget grew and grew and the delivery of the mess carried on milking the tax payers. I was so sad for my home town to see this corruption from near and far over the years –only to be in CA to see it here too. CA has embarked on the train to nowwhere and the milking of the cash cow continues.

    Now I stand in CA and frustrate liberals with truth and basis – they look like a dog twisting their heads in confusion as I present facts that have them in delirium.

    Mario

  76. Leif Svalgaard says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:46 pm
    Mario Lento says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:38 pm
    but it was data you presented, so now I am confused.
    The black and grey curves were presented by Dr. Soon in a recent article in the Washington Times.
    +++++++++
    Thank you Leif: You’re keeping me straight! Thank you for your unrelenting patience! I get it all now. Lights dawn on marble-head!
    Mario

  77. Dr Soon,

    Keep up the good work. As an engineer of over 30 years in industry, there is a constant battle to keep the truth forefront. In my engineering career I have seen it most often in battling false expectations; sometimes and perhaps quite often brought on by owners and marketing people. And sometimes we have to go to battle with them, in some sense, for their own good, and the good of the corporation.

    That woman sounded to me like a marketing person – just not clued in to the actual technical argument at hand – an argument, a topic have you, that will be decided by actual measurements, empirical data, solid logic, and a merciless application of the scientific method. Funding, publicity, sophistry, word play – all captivating in their own right – but utterly irrelevant to the eventual outcome, or truth of the matter. The truth of the matter. Never compromise, never concede, obey and serve the truth. That is our mission, and our purpose as scientists and engineers.

    Dr Soon, you the man! I only hope you are having fun and bathing in the unlimited joy and power of discovering and revealing physical reality.

  78. Russell says:
    July 27, 2013 at 10:04 pm

    Evidence please. Sally was silenced by threats. Soon has less to lose and has stood facing the shit-storm from people like you who smear with no evidence to support the smears. PFO.

  79. So two guys walk up to a chalk board and write out the same physics equation.

    They come to different conclusions.

    The Warmists now want me to decide which is right based on who writes the paychecks to the two guys at the chalk board….

    This is how they “DO” science.

  80. What I really do not understand is why anyone believes their LIE that Big Oil actually has a motive to favor skeptics in the first place? They don’t. Less supply means higher profits for them and more tax revenue for the IRS. Big Oil doesn’t care if it gets taxed more for ‘carbon’. Why should they? WE PAY IT AT THE PUMP! – not them.

  81. Funny how people like her attempting to smear Dr Soon are silent when people like Gleick were caught banged to rights corrupting science and fabricating “evidence”.

    Not a squeak out of them.

  82. Mike M says:
    July 29, 2013 at 9:34 pm
    What I really do not understand is why anyone believes their LIE that Big Oil actually has a motive to favor skeptics in the first place? They don’t. Less supply means higher profits for them and more tax revenue for the IRS. Big Oil doesn’t care if it gets taxed more for ‘carbon’. Why should they? WE PAY IT AT THE PUMP! – not them.
    +++++++++++
    That’s not exactly how it works. Yes, squeezing supply drives prices up. But after that you have it wrong. If US companies are squeezes, they sell less of their product at market rates. If other countries get squeezed and US does not, then US gets to sell more of their product. Taxing oil hurts consumers and it hurts oil companies. It does NOT drive up Oil profits.

  83. @ [other] Russell says, July 27, 2013 at 10:04 pm ” … Dick Lindzen has told me that he charges his consulting clients in the energy business his usual rate of $2500 a day …”

    You can’t be serious. Did you not read the 6th-from-last paragraph of my guest essay above? Dr Lindzen told you about his ‘usual rate’, or did you read it somewhere as a regurgitated talking point?

  84. Mario Lento: “..they sell less of their product..”
    Duh, so what? How much less? Suppose I sell 1/3 less product at higher price Y versus X? It says NOTHING as to whether or not I made more or less profit. And how much less/more driving do people do when the price of gasoline goes up/down? Not much. If the price dropped to $1.20/gallon tomorrow would you drive 3X more miles per year? no… Look up elasticity and get back to me.

    Explain HOW taxing oil hurts them – details please. It’s just another cost to them. ALL the cost ends up included in the price at the pump, a FACT that you cannot deny. Companies do NOT foot the cost of corporate income taxes – WE DO.

  85. Mike M: If you want to learn something here, you need to go about it in a more humble manner.

    The fundamental idea that taxing a product increases its profitability is so far out there, I can’t even think of where to start with an explanation you could digest. If you tell me something about yourself and level of experience or education, I might be able to offer an explanation that you ponder.

  86. @ [other] Russell says, July 27, 2013 at 10:04 pm “ … Dick Lindzen has told me that he charges his consulting clients in the energy business his usual rate of $2500 a day …”

    Sound of crickets so far from ‘[other] Russell’ on defending that claim. Could be that was just a drive-by comment, and he had no intention of coming back here to see if anyone challenged him on it.

    Funny thing about the claim. As I pointed out above near the end of the main essay, the “$2,500 a day” bit ultimately goes back to a line from a 1995 magazine article. Maybe this ‘[other] Russell’ commenter did actually hear it directly from Dr Lindzen, but that only leads to more problems: are we to believe he heard this recently and that Dr Lindzen has never thought to raise his rate after nearly two decades? Or is this something that occurred long ago but is otherwise of no significance without any evidence that whatever fees he RECEIVED came with specific instructions to offer false scientific statements?

Comments are closed.