As the climate scare fizzles, Canada’s celebrity environmentalist resorts to ad hominem attacks
Guest post by David R. Legates
David Suzuki has never met, debated or even spoken with my colleague, scientist Willie Soon. But as more people dismiss Mr. Suzuki’s scare stories about global warming cataclysms, Suzuki has resorted to personal attacks against Dr. Soon and others who disagree with him.
Dr. Soon’s brilliant research into the sun’s role in climate change has helped make millions aware that carbon dioxide’s influence is far less than Suzuki wants them to think. In a recent column that was picked up by the Huffington Post and other media outlets, Suzuki attacked Dr. Soon, mostly with a recycled Greenpeace “investigation” that is itself nothing more than a rehash of tiresome (and libelous) misstatements, red herrings and outright lies. It’s time to set the record straight.
First, the alleged corporate cash. Suzuki claims Dr. Soon received “more than $1 million over the past decade” from US energy companies – and implies that Dr. Soon lied to a US Senate committee about the funding. In fact, the research grants were received in the years following the Senate hearing; the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics took nearly half of the money (for “administration”), and what was left covered Dr. Soon’s salary, research, and other expenses including even toner for his printer.
By comparison, the Suzuki Foundation spends some $7 million every year on its “educational” and pressure campaigns – many of them in conjunction with various PR agencies, renewable energy companies, other foundations and environmental activist groups. They all stand to profit handsomely from Suzuki’s causes, especially “catastrophic climate change” and campaigns to replace “harmful” fossil fuels with subsidized, land-intensive, low-energy-output, “eco-friendly” wind and solar facilities.
Under another convoluted arrangement, the Suzuki Foundation, David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Gordon and Betty Moore Foundation, Natural Sciences and Engineering Research Council of Canada, University of Alberta, US-based SeaWeb and other organizations provided or divvied up some $23 million, to promote an anti-fish-farming campaign. The years-long effort suddenly and inexplicably ended – and all traces of it disappeared from the Suzuki Foundation website – after Vancouver-based researcher Vivian Krause raised serious questions about its claims.
And yet Suzuki is criticizing Dr. Soon – while alarmist climate catastrophe researchers share over $6 billion annually in US and Canadian taxpayer money, and millions more in corporate cash, to link every natural phenomenon to global warming and promote renewable “alternatives” to fossil fuels.
If it is wrong to receive grants from organizations that have taken “advocacy” positions, then virtually every scientist with whom Suzuki has associated would be guilty. Even Suzuki recognizes this. “We should look at the science, and not at who is paying for the research,” he wrote recently.
But if he truly believes real science must stand or fall on its own merits, not on the source of its funding – why does he insist on double standards and continue to attack Dr. Soon over his funding sources?
Second, Suzuki repeats an absurd Greenpeace claim that Dr. Soon tried to “undermine” the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change’s “peer-reviewed” work. In reality, scientists are required to examine, review and even criticize other scientists’ research – especially when it is used to justify slashing the hydrocarbon energy on which our jobs, living standards and civilization depend. In reality, the IPCC solicits reviews of its publications but is under no obligation to address any criticisms that scientists raise – in contrast to the normal peer-review process.
Moreover, the IPCC refuses to conduct its own quality control – and repeatedly promotes scare stories about rising seas, melting Himalayan glaciers, disappearing Amazon rainforests, more severe storms and droughts, and other disasters. By now anyone familiar with the Climategate and IPCC scandals knows these headline-grabbing claims are based on nothing more than exaggerated computer model outputs, deliberate exclusion of contrary findings, questionable air temperature station locations, and even “research” by environmental activists.
Third, Suzuki’s most egregious distortion of reality involves the Climate Research journal’s handling of two papers by Drs. Willie Soon and Sallie Baliunas, regarding solar links to climate change. The publisher concluded that the manuscript editor had “properly analyzed the evaluations and requested appropriate revisions,” and the authors “revised their manuscripts accordingly.”
However, when Dr. Hans von Storch became editor-in-chief, he circulated a hurriedly written editorial declaring that the review process had failed, and the Soon-Baliunas manuscripts should not have been published, due to alleged “methodological flaws.” He intended to publish the editorial prior to a US Senate committee hearing, thereby discrediting Dr. Soon. von Storch even asserted that Soon and Baliunas should be barred from publishing again in Climate Research – a disciplinary action usually levied only for convictions of plagiarism or fraud.
The publisher refused to publish the editorial until the editorial board could be consulted – which meant after the hearing. So von Storch and other editors and review editors resigned. Senator Jeffords highlighted the resignations during the hearing. But fortunately, I was a hearing witness and provided a correct account.
Nevertheless, after the hearing, the publisher changed his mind and said the Soon-Baliunas paper should not have been published. I resigned as review editor because I felt the journal had succumbed to pressure from activist scientists and was no longer an unbiased outlet for healthy climate change debates.
Climategate made it clear that the truth was even worse. The emails paint a vivid picture of advocacy scientists strong-arming the publisher, threatening to destroy Climate Research by boycotting the journal, and intimidating or colluding with editors and grant program officers to channel funding to alarmists, publish only their work, and reject funding requests and publications from any scientists who disagreed with them on global warming chaos. Suzuki’s increasingly strident and desperate attacks mirror their campaign, as do Al Gore’s – and no wonder.
The global warming scare has fizzled. The sun has entered a new “quiet” phase, and average global temperatures have been stable for 15 years. Climate conferences in Copenhagen and elsewhere have gone nowhere. Kyoto has become little more than a footnote in history. Countries that agreed to “climate stabilization” policies are retreating from that untenable position. The public realizes that climate science is far from “settled.” The climate-chaos religion is about to go the way of Baal-worship.
Most important, Canadians, Americans and Europeans alike are beginning to realize that the real dangers are not from global warming.
They are from potentially cooler global temperatures that could hamstring agriculture – and from government (and Suzuki-advocated) policies that are driving energy prices so high that companies are sending jobs to Asia, and millions of families can no longer afford to heat and cool their homes, drive their cars, or pay for electricity that powers all the wondrous technologies that make our lives infinitely better, safer and healthier than even kings and queens enjoyed just a century ago.
Dr. David R. Legates is Professor of Climatology at the University of Delaware and a former review editor for the journal Climate Research. He has worked with Dr. Willie Soon since they were the first to uncover the flaws in the so-called ‘Hockey Stick’ in 2002.
David Suzuki won’t debate because he’s a lousy debater. I’ve seen him debate in the past and he is terrible. I saw him debate a guy who did not have a leg to stand on, the audience was completly on Suzukis side (including me), the other guy was a sitting duck and Suzuki still could not defeat the guy. I was astonished.
No wonder Suzuki won’t debate, he will lose. And anyone who has seen him debate in the past knows this. It would be painful to watch, really.
klem: I agree about his debating skills. It shows even in that newspaper column I quoted.
He does not do research; does not know the science; and he apparently makes the science up if he doesn’t know it. Pathetic.
@A Lovell says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:15 am
Megalomania is a terrible thing…………. Very common in show business, as nowadays “farandula science” like Suzuki´s
I think lots of scientist just are not great public speakers. And if they’re not they probably will not fair well in debates.
juanita says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:13 am
Well, I hope this isn’t considered an “ad hom,” but I’d like to say, that Mr. Sexton should refrain from talking about what he thinks other people know about anything. Don’t vote because you don’t know about an issue? Oh, coming from a man who just knows it all! I’m SO unworthy, forgive me for polluting the voting process with my puny brain, you big jerk.
==========================================================
lol, sorry about the offense Juanita, but I’ll stand by the assertion. But, I can’t take credit for the original thought. Knowledge will forever govern ignorance; and a people who mean to be their own governors must arm themselves with the power which knowledge gives. ———- James Madison
Just to clarify, I do practice what I preach. If there is a question on a ballot I haven’t researched or a ballot of people of which I don’t have any particular knowledge, I abstain. I consider it the height of irresponsibility to vote on stuff of which one doesn’t have any particular knowledge. So, while I may be a big jerk, my conscience is clear in that I didn’t unknowingly impose upon my fellow citizens. Imagine all of the insipidly stupid laws that have been passed because the voters failed to properly vet the candidates. Imagine our nations if the citizenry had fulfilled their obligation before casting their ballots. I submit, we’d be an a far better position than we are today. But, maybe people like to be in a nation where the usurpation of liberties and capital are the norm and not the exception.
I’m gobsmacked that people would argue for the strength of ignorance. But, that isn’t a first…….sigh
Best regards,
James
Carbon glass? is that like Transparent Aluminum? ☺
Paul Ehrlich, the all time champion of apocalyptic predictions that have not come to pass is an honorary member of the Suzuki Foundation board.
It makes perfect sense that Suzuki would appoint a board member who has been demonstrably wrong on major global issues than any human being on earth – birds of a feather!
[Snip. No more personal attacks on Willis. Argue about his science, fine. But enough with the baseless jabs. ~dbs, mod.]
James Sexton says “I’m gobsmacked that people would argue for the strength of ignorance..”
Oh really…
James Sexton says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:33 am “I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so.”
Brian: your
I think lots of scientist just are not great public speakers. And if they’re not they probably will not fair well in debates.
But Suzuki is a great public speaker. But a great voice combined with lousy research and ill-stated facts is still a poor debater.
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:30 am
James Sexton says “I’m gobsmacked that people would argue for the strength of ignorance..”
Oh really…
James Sexton says:
June 14, 2011 at 6:33 am “I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so.”
====================================================
lol, Bystander, I’m kinda at a loss as how to respond….. are you stating your are an alarmist and are acknowledging the earth has cooled in the last decade or so? If so, you’d be the first I’ve seen. So, I would be correct, but no longer able to make that statement.
Or, are you like the rest, still refusing to see reality?
Just curious.
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:02 am
[Snip. No more personal attacks on Willis. Argue about his science, fine. But enough with the baseless jabs. ~dbs, mod.]
===================================
lmao!!! Then the very next comment is
Bystander says:
August 17, 2011 at 11:30 am
James Sexton says
Dbs……. look at what you did!!! Poor Bystander, apparently has a trolling quota……
I can’t resist:
Richard Day says:
August 17, 2011 at 5:40 am
Suzuki should stick to fruit flies.
…and fruit flies should stick to flypaper.
Well I must confess, that I too have never met; nor debated Dr Willie Wei Hock Soon regarding his climate research.
But ! I have exchanged a number of quite fruitful e-mails with Dr Soon, regarding his work; and I also confess to having; and having read cover to cover; several times, his landmark book; “The Maunder Minimum, and the Variable Sun-Earth Connection.”, and perhaps his co-author is simply a gujost
That book really opened my eyes to the inescapable conclusion that the sun affects earth’s climate, in ways that are not simply covered by the current measures of the TSI, nor simple descriptions, of its near black body spectral characteristics.
Hendrik Svensmark’s theory regarding Cosmic Rays, or at least near earth charged particles, as it (may) relate to cloud formation, seems at least hinted at by Dr. Soon in his book.
OK, so English is not Willie’s native language, and perhaps his co-author is simply a ghost writer; I’m sure the book is better for that. But I can attest from the exchanged e-mails, that Dr Soon lacks nothing in his ability to communicate to his readers; and those who have heard his oral presentations, I am sure were never in doubt of his meaning.
As for some nefarious agenda sparked by some imagined enslavement to funding from a natural resource Company; what nonsense. Does anybody really imagine, that such tainted and biassed work would not be immediately recognized by anyone reading his work; and I dare say that such propagandizing, would be just that much more obvious, from an author who is ESL challenged.
As for David Suzuki; I have only seen him a handful of times; usually on PBS TV programs; and with the caveat, that this may not be a fair evaluation of his expertise; I have to say that he seems to be every bit as knowlegeable of what he speaks, as is the well known “Science Guy”; or for that matter, that woman “Expert” on the weather channel. Sorry I’m not much for remembering names of obscure public figures.
As for general principles, and the sacred place of “double blind” methodology. Would you REALLY want to live in a place, and under a system, where every critical decision was made by totally unbiassed persons, each of whom had no interest or stake in the consequential outcome of their decisions; a total and complete absence of “special interest” bias in the outcome of their decisions. yes what a wondrful system that would be; to be ruled by folks with NO skin in the game.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/tips-notes/#comment-699394
I pointed the Suzuki comments about Willie Soon back in July, only to have my tip censored.
What’s up with that?
Hey dbs – what is with the double standard of not snipping FAR worse thrown at mainstream science? Seems kinda selective, no?
And James Sexton;
“Climate warming since 1995 is now statistically significant, according to Phil Jones, the UK scientist targeted in the “ClimateGate” affair.
Last year, he told BBC News that post-1995 warming was not significant – a statement still seen on blogs critical of the idea of man-made climate change.
But another year of data has pushed the trend past the threshold usually used to assess whether trends are “real”.
Dr Jones says this shows the importance of using longer records for analysis.
Continue reading the main story
By widespread convention, scientists use a minimum threshold of 95% to assess whether a trend is likely to be down to an underlying cause, rather than emerging by chance.
If a trend meets the 95% threshold, it basically means that the odds of it being down to chance are less than one in 20.
Last year’s analysis, which went to 2009, did not reach this threshold; but adding data for 2010 takes it over the line.
“The trend over the period 1995-2009 was significant at the 90% level, but wasn’t significant at the standard 95% level that people use,” Professor Jones told BBC News.
“Basically what’s changed is one more year [of data]. That period 1995-2009 was just 15 years – and because of the uncertainty in estimating trends over short periods, an extra year has made that trend significant at the 95% level which is the traditional threshold that statisticians have used for many years.”
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-13719510
REPLY: “Bystander is actually the banned troll “moderate republican” under a new fake name, fake email address, and fake connection. But I’m pretty good at spotting fakes, of which he is one. So don’t feed the troll – Anthony
Bystander: you really need to read James Sexton quote again:
“I haven’t seen one alarmist even recognize the fact that the earth has cooled in the last decade or so.”
A decade or so would be 2000 or 2001. Using HADCRUT data, not only has there been no warming in a “decade or so”, but there has been an insignificant cooling.
Mr. Miyagi!
Wax on, wax off, eh?
juanita says:
August 17, 2011 at 6:13 am
“Well, I hope this isn’t considered an “ad hom,” but I’d like to say, that Mr. Sexton should refrain from talking about what he thinks other people know about anything. Don’t vote because you don’t know about an issue? Oh, coming from a man who just knows it all! I’m SO unworthy, forgive me for polluting the voting process with my puny brain, you big jerk.”
You’re forgiven, sweety. Don’t worry your pretty little head about it one more moment.
Sonicfrog says:
August 17, 2011 at 9:04 am
Suzuki: We are familiar with this effect in a car that has sat in the sun. The interior becomes hot because the carbon in the glass keeps the heat in.
Really?… REALLY???????????
I learned something today. I thought glass was a silicon based product made from sand (quartz). I had heard of leaded glass though does that count?
Thanks for showing, again, the deep corruption that pervades mainstream Academia
There is likely no end to this debate, because likely neither side can actually prove their point.
Our weather men have sophisticated computer models that cannot predict weather accurately for an entire week. The climate change weather model has to be 1000 times harder to build. Yet all of these climate theorists that are preaching either ‘gloom and doom’, or ‘there is nothing to fear’ claim to know the truth in one direction or another. In actual fact, when you look at the total amount of information that needs to be known about climate to predict it accurately for 100 years, our best minds are still not much more advanced about climate knowledge than cave people were during the last ice age. Yes the modern scientists know a lot more, but it is a drop in the ocean of what must be learned.
As far as the comments about David Suzuki and his personal negative impact on the environment.
I heard something once that seems appropriate:
The difference between an environmentalist and a developer is that the environmentalist already has his little cabin in the woods.
Spam post:
________
The reason for Bugman’s decay is the suppressed knowledge that the admiration he garnered as a TV star on “The Nature of Things” was undeserved. Fear of disclosure as an impostor is common amongst the vain.
While Suzuki will never admit he is wrong, he’s not the worthwhile audience for highlighting his errors and ethical failings – the media is. (Most importantly politicians are, but they tend to pander to media claims of “public opinion” which they think is votes.)
Suzuki’s performance in complaining about money given to Soon’s employer when he takes in huge amounts is in general a method of con artists and politicians – give only part of the picture. That’s “politicking” in one sense, might be defamation in some cases. Suzuki’s performance is typical of Modern Liberals, who put on a nice personna but turn nasty when they run out of ability to debate (indeed their ideology is at root one of appearances and emotions, not facts and logic).
The internment of persons with a genetic background typical of residents of Japan was a travesty, but it should have demonstrated to Suzuki the potential for bad in mobs, whether ad hoc (as in the attacks on persons of Chinese and Japanese ancestry in Vancouver BC) or a majority of voters through who they elected (as in the internment of Suzuki). Yet he tries to use the latter in saying that politicians who don’t agree with his prejudices should be jailed. (The Marxist mob in Russia that executed the first elected legislative assembly would also be a good example for most environmentalists of the nature of the ideology whose teachings most of them believe.)
As for referring to David Suzuki as “Doctor”, I stopped using titles because so many people hide behind them, and one of the very best thinkers for human life did not have fancy degrees – Ayn Rand. Among her accomplishments is thinking in principles of knowledge acquisition, which is a fundamental problem in climate debates. Put erroneous methods of figuring things out with the negative view of humans that she explained the causes of, and you have climate alarmists. Rand had a reputation for patience in explaining to sincere people but not debating with smearing types.
As for the claim made by a commenter herein that Suzuki pulled anti-fish-farm material from his web site because of the huge Fraser River return last summer, I ask what the timing of removal was relative to that, Krause’s expose, and the hearings that I gather are illuminating many possible reasons for salmon mortality including small sharks north of Vancouver Island.
Krause claims the pages were removed on or about February 16, 2011, which is several months after the huge sockeye salmon run up the Fraser was widely reported. Krause claims the pages were removed soon after she publicly questioned Suzuki on the issue.
Krause also points to a very high return of pink salmon to the area supposedly most affected by fish farms, in 2000 – ten years before the huge sockeye run up the Fraser.
(Refer to “The case of the missing sea lice”, by Vivian Krause, in the National Post of May 31, 2011. (I doubt she wrote the headline, which is typical sloppy media headline writing – the issues are the source of sea lice and its impact on salmon mortality, how much lice is secondary.))
One thing to remember about fish is that mortality is high. That’s true of most living things, but especially of those whose eggs are left to emerge on their own and whose young then migrate across open territory or travel long distances to feeding areas. (One salmon may lay 4,000. eggs.) Researchers are slowly increasing the breadth of data they collect – I see the accoustic monitoring network being set up on the WA-BC coasts as promising.
Another question for Suzuki is why salmon returns to rivers in AK, OR, and WA vary so much – no fish farms in the ocean off OR and WA, I doubt any off AK either. Studies from OR suggest returns shift north-south depending on the PDO, and varying with type of salmon.