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.
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
The original appears at my GelbspanFiles.com blog, http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=609
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.
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.
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…
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 …
@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.
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
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.”
Yes, it is tedious.
It won’t be easy to overturn almost a generations worth of ….environmentalism that turned to greed.
Onward !!
Way to turn it back on them…
The Video is put out by CAGWerS:
Published on Apr 8, 2013
CFACT Campus (Collegians For A Constructive Tomorrow), University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI. April 3, 2013.
For more info on Dr. Willie Soon’s funding and work for oil, gas and coal interests:
http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/en/camp…
http://www.DeSmogBlog.com/willie-soon
http://www.SourceWatch.org/index.php/willie_soon
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.
The real scandal is the failure of NSF and similar agencies to fund Soon.
The really funny thing is that is Warmists who have received more money from fossil fuels interests.
Many green groups have fossil fuel investments too.
May 2013
The Guardian
“The giants of the green world that profit from the planet’s destruction”
The Nation
“Time for Big Green to Go Fossil Free”
The Nation
“Why Aren’t Environmental Groups Divesting from Fossil Fuels?“
Even the Warmist media realise this fossil fuel funded shill nonsense is just that, nonsense.
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!
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.
Agree with you, wws. I’ve argued with true believers before.
I felt a little sorry for Dr. Soon. He was facing an inquisitor.
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.
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…..
Get a load of the clueless dolt @ur momisugly 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.
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.
Wish I could follow without having to post…
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.
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.