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.
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.
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?
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?”
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.
My “Peace Prize” nomInations, as a group
Soon
Lyndzen
MaCintyre
Watts
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.
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.
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.
Caleb says:
July 27, 2013 at 9:24 pm
Amen, brother!
Couldn’t resist.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Ugh – typo “bot” should be “boy”
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
@ur momisugly [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?