Via Heartland press release:
Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics released the following statement through The Heartland Institute in response to repeated attacks on his character and scientific integrity.
All media inquires should be directed to Heartland Institute Director of Communications Jim Lakely at jlakely@heartland.org, 312/377-4000 or (cell) 312/731-9364. For more information about Dr. Willie Soon see this page: Heartland.org/willie-soon. To see a previous statement about Willie Soon by Heartland Institute President Joseph Bast, click here.
“In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.
“I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.
“Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest. I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record. In submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.
“If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors-on all sides of the debate-are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.
“I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”
“Finally, I thank all my many colleagues and friends who have bravely objected to this smear campaign on my behalf and I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity.
Dr. Wei-Hock “Willie” Soon
Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics
# # #
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Sadly, ranting is only accepted by those that embrace the “truth”. The rest of us seem to have enough class to reply properly. (propriety does not sell headlines, sadly)
I am betting the NYT will NOT publish this letter on the front or back pages.
You are right! A story about Dr. Soon’s response to the attacks on his scientific integrity will be published on an “inside” page no one will read (Page A19) in tomorrow’s New York Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/03/03/science/climate-change-researcher-wei-hock-soon-offers-a-defense-of-his-practices.html
I’ve asked Times Propagandist Justin Gillis to tell me the page numbers of the previous stories about Willie ran in his paper. I’ll be sure to report back his answer.
The New York Times will soon reveal that many authors who published papers while at CRU did not disclose their past / present funding from Greenpeace International, Reinsurance Underwriters and Syndicates, WWF, EPA, British Petroleum, Shell, Sultanate of Oman, Climate and Development Knowledge Network
“…..aims to help decision-makers in developing countries design and deliver climate compatible development……” – Earth and Life Sciences Alliance “…..addressing the challenges of a changing climate, the Alliance not only carries out fundamental research but also applies the findings to real world scenarios…..“
PS Did Dr. Phil Jones reveal Greenpeace, WWF, and other possible climate change advocate funding conflicts. There are loads of other example papers that need urgent investigation from the useful tools at the New York Times
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/joc.1181/abstract
Sauce for the goose……………….
Cheers!
They just ran a story about the fact that Dr. Soon wrote them a letter but didn’t include anything except one paragraph of the letter!!!!
The creeps…this is definitely a witch hunt with the NYT the leading the pack of baying hounds. Meanwhile, there is an ice storm in LA right on the beach no less.
Me think: if there was enough doubt in people minds about the propriety of the grant process, I suppose that nobody would object to the IPCC or the UN collecting and then dispensing the money…….
Is this the trust of this underhanded and untruthful attack?
no one will read (Page A19) in tomorrow’s New York Times.
But they did publish a response in section A, which is more than I expected.
Serous people read all of section section A.
The article is still prejudicial, but at least it is there, and it also makes note that there is mainstream scientific protest about the widening, targeted ad hominem investgations leveled at other lukewarmer scientists.
Excellent response by Dr. Soon. How about they look at the actual work, already?
Integrity is a fine quality. Your work and words are appreciated Dr. Soon.
Yes, and I think 5 gold stars aren’t enough I’d give it ten!
His restraint in reply is an example to us all (trolls in particular).
If they “adjusted” for that, they’d make half of the fives nines instead of tens.
asybot,
The number of 5-star clicks is more than I can ever recall seeing under one article during the past eight years. [It’s currently at 155.]
stay strong Willie, don”t let the morons get you down
+1
Or as Winston Churchill used to say,
“Don’t let the buggers get you down”.
Note WC said this before he was vindicated and became prime minister. After that, of course, those that had attacked him slunk off the scene looking for dark corners to hide in.
Illegitimi non carborundum.
Excretio taurii confusit cerebellii
I’m absolutely certain my (long-suffering and sympathetic) Italian teacher would dis-avow any attempt at even dog-Latin on my behalf – but – can you see through to the tactics of the true believers?
Auto
Dr. Soon, I imagine it is not fun to be the solid rock that the climate alarmist run away train collides into.
I truly hope you can handle the stress, and that it does not affect your family too much. Please keep up your good work.
You people don’t have children do you?
If I had to choose between having a beer with Willie Soon, Michael Mann or President Obama, my choice would be Willie Soon, hands down. Why? I can understand what he’s talking about …
Sadly, I probably could not understand what Willie Soon is talking about, at least in his field of Solar Physics. But I would still much rather have a beer with him than any of the others you mentioned above if only so I could offer to pick up the tab. Would he have to disclose that?
Yes Obama would buy the whole pub 10 beers each except Willie and yourself, and then drunkenly berate Willie for not disclosing that you bought him a beer.
You might be very surprised, real expert are often quite adapt at distilling complex concepts into simpler understandable and logically consistent ideas.
A wise man once said, “the test of whether you trust a man or not is;
Would you lend him the keys to your car?
Would you invite him home fora barbecue?
Would you trust for a night on the town with your wife?
I am sure Willie Soon would pass on all three, as for his cowardly defamers, , no chance for any of those criteria…
If I had to choose to sit down and have a conversation with Willie Soon, Mann, or Obama I would definitely choose Dr. Soon. We could have an honest conversation and what he said would not be all lies. Oh, and make mine a lemonade. Thanks.
I’d pick Obama. He’s the one who could benefit most. One might even make him think twice, make him realize there are (at least) two very real, legit sides to all this. He lives in an echo chamber. That’s a bad place to be in terms of scientific perspective.
@Evan Jones
I admire your confidence. However, look up the term “invincible ignorance” for the likely outcome of your conversation.
I would love to have a beer with Michael Mann. I know exactly where I would dispose of the beer bottle.
Actually, I would love to have a beer with Michael Mann, so that I could look him in the eye and ask, “What is up with you? Why do you say these things? You *know* that the official records of drought, hurricane, severe weather events, snowfall, rainfall, you name it, don’t show any pattern of increase. You have to know these things; they are what you *do*! Why do you claim otherwise?”
Nobody in his circle asks him such things. I’d love to hear his three-beer answers.
+1
The trouble is your chances of getting an honest answer are nil.
I’ve had beers with Willie. Fun!
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
Jim Lakely
Please convey my sincere good wishes to Willie Soon. He is a true gentleman.
He may be interested in a BBC TV program broadcast yesterday that explained attribution studies for AGW reported by the IPCC. Willie’s work provides very different results and the explanation provided by the BBC showed the IPCC method gives wrong indications (see my footnote).
Richard
Footnote
The attribution method was demonstrated by applying it to analyse the performances of Premiership football (US translation: soccer) clubs as indicated by the points they each won in each year. This analysis showed the “wage bill” of each club was the single most important factor affecting the points won by a club, and it was said that, “If a club increased its wage bill by 10% then it can be said there is 95% confidence that this would increase its points by one”.
The finding is wrong.
The main factor affecting the points won by a football club is the standard of its players, and the reason that “wage bill” seems to indicate the points is because the best players tend to be payed most.
Increasing the wage bill (e.g. by giving all employees a wage rise, or by employing additional players to ‘sit on the bench’, etc.) would have no affect on the points.
The standard of players was not a variable included in the analysis and, therefore, the analysis could not indicate the correct ‘attribution’. Climate attribution studies also don’t include every factor – both known and unknown – which affects climate. But the BBC did not say that.
Please pass on m support to Dr Soon.
Maybe somebody on here could set up something we could sign? It’s beyond me I’m afraid, but I’m sure there are lots of people – hopefully not just sceptics – who think these attacks are utterly wrong.
Well Jim, I’ve merely had the pleasure of exchanging e-mails with Dr. Soon; yes that “Willie”; and it was about his work, prompted by reading his book on the Maunder Minimum.
And yes, it was a fun experience too; he does have great humor too.
Kindly pass on my message of support to Dr. Soon.
George E. Smith.
I am not surprised to see the high level of class that resides with the true skeptical scientists like Dr. Soon as opposed to the mean-spirited hate that comes from those who wish to distort science.
Bravo Dr. Soon.
Well said!
…and ditto!
Hear, hear. A man like Dr. Soon also no doubt had to ask himself earnestly many times “Is it worth it?” I don’t think the “Yes” has come very easily, no matter what his integrity tells him. We have now all seen the dire consequences of following one’s conscience and calling. There is always a price to be paid for this kind of courage.
Maybe it was harder some years ago, when the climate crises hype was still in full swing. Today, although this is a very vicious attack on him, there is more acceptance of divergent opinions, at least outside the green blob.
This kind of atack is truly a sign of defeat on the side of the alarmists. Nobody who have confidence in their science and argumentation, need to launch such a hate campaign. It has already backfired. Hopefully in posterity this campaign will be seen as the moment when politicalized science finally overreached itself, and true climate science was given a new lease of life.
Yes, indeed, ConTrari.
“{Alexander Graham Bell} … regard{ed} the personal attacks on him as ‘evidences of victory …
”
{Source: Bell — Alexander Graham Bell and the Conquest of Solitude, p, 386 R. Bruce (1973)}
+100
Amen!
EXCELLENT STATEMENT!! Couldn’t have said it better if I were in his shoes.
Why does he release a statement through the Heartland Institute and not the Smithsonian?
Why not ?
Why not, indeed. Should he try to find somewhere else to publicise his statement because the Heartland Institute has been vilified and demonised by certain people who would not like him to use them and who will complain bitterly if he does use them – the complaints being on the grounds that the Heartland Institute is not a reputable organisation because of the way in which it has been vilified and demonised? Or should he ignore the vilification and demonisation and use the Heartland Institute, simply because it is a worthy and honest organisation with the guts to stand up to the bullies? It’s actually not all that easy a decision, but he decided on the latter. Very reasonably, IMHO. Bullies get away with too much too often.
The powerful content of Dr. Soon’s statement is what is relevant. The channel he chose is of trivial importance.
Agreed, Janice. Most middle-grounders i know have a cautious view of Heartland. He apparently has no influence to get mainstream media attention. At least for now…
Yeah…but….
That flies directly in the face of the current “Attack the messenger, NOT the message” approach…which is exactly what Barry is doing, and exactly what created the mess to begin with. If the Heartland published it, it must be false.
And people keep falling for that approach, over and over.
Because the Smithsonian wouldn’t allow him to do it. They have clearly taken the “consensus” and ad hominem side in their own statement.
I think that question is self evident.
Why wonder? The statement is in clear, intelligible language. Alarmists credit the medium rather than the message, as if dressing up a pig with lipstick makes it the belle of the ball.
Why does he release a statement through the Heartland Institute and not the Smithsonian?
————-
Simple: because they are cowards like you.
Soon has thrown down the gauntlet to anyone who is willing to debate the Science with him. An open attempt at an honest debate, which is at the heart of Science and the Scientific Method.
Will you take up the challenge? Will Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, etc, step forward and enter into an intellectual debate based on empirical evidence? If not, why not?
Reg Nelson states “Will you take up the challenge? Will Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, Jones, etc, step forward and enter into an intellectual debate based on empirical evidence? If not, why not?”
Mann, Schmidt, Hansen, and Jones enter the debate on a regular basis through peer-reviewed publications- which is the proper venue for debate complex scientific issues.
Firstly, make sure all the peer review journals are run by CAGW religious zealot editors who are told repeatedly where the money spigot is (liberal government grant trough directed only at the kool-aid drinkers).
Secondly, take control of the peer review process, ensuring that no science/data/theories contrary to the CAGW religion ever see the light of day.
Thirdly, destroy public funded documents in order to hide the collusion and bias in the peer review process.
{so much proof on these points I won’t even bother with links – – e.g. climate gate e-mails from East Anglia CRU}
Fourthly, claim that any science that isn’t in these vaunted peer review journals is has already been found to be invalid and shouldn’t be a part of the debate.
Sounds fair…
Right, Luke?
Is it because you say so? Is it so the gatekeepers keep their hands on the gates? Debate in science is normal and has been going on well before you were but a twinkle in your granpappy’s eye. Yeah, I’ll fall for that one.
Errors in complicated climate science have been found outside of the peer review and journals – papers withdrawn. Furthermore, why didn’t Soon’s accusers simply write to the publications AND LEAVE IT AT THAT? That is the proper venue after all. LOL.
The Guardian thinks discussion outside of journals BEFORE peer review is a good idea.
Barry, you’re kidding, right? The Smithsonian receives over half of it’s operating budget from the Federal Government. If you don’t think someone whispered in their ear over the past 48 hours, you are as dumb as you are arrogant.
Amen!
Cause H-S already caved. Which will cost Harvard even more than the Oreskes hire.
Oreskes is the intellectual mother of the lot.
John
Go ahead John, damn them with faint praise.
Alan Robertson,
Thank you. “Damn them with faint praise” is an excellent way to demote Oreskes’ importance
as the pre-science intellectual mother of the lot.
John
That’s what I want to know too.
That by extension is another kind of slander. Question the message if you must but keep the messenger out of it.
Well, maybe ask the leader of the Smithsonian?
So Barry, why not indeed.
Your contribution to the smear campaign.
When this gets turned around and funding sources of the alarmists are exposed, what do you think? From Russia, with love?
The president of The Heartland Institute, Joe Bast, left CPAC last Wednesday night (before the confab really got started) and skipped an excellent Thursday panel on the climate (in which he was scheduled to speak) to fly up to Boston for several days to be a friend and counsel to Dr. Soon.
Dr. Soon’s statement was pushed out by Heartland because we have thousands of reporters, editors, producers, and bloggers at our disposal. We also did it because he is a friend and a frequent particpant in Heartland’s climate conference. For those and many other reasons, Heartland was proud and happy to leverage our status to distribute Dr. Soon’s statement to the world’s media, un-edited.
Dr. Soon’s statement was sent out to tens of thousands of media contacts … and (for one) got his response to this BS “story” into the New York Times.
Jim Lakely
Director of Communications
The Heartland Institute
Jim, thanks to you, to Joe Bast, and to all who contributed to getting the word out.
Regards,
w.
Bravo!
Jim Lakely,
My respect for HI grows.
John
why do you care?
The Smithsonian may have to do an investigation. It certainly needs to be able to undertake an investigation.
Therefore it must maintain an appearance of neutrality.
This is obvious.
So why did Dr Soon choose Heartland and not, say, the Guardian?
Because he hasn’t won the right from the Press Complaint Commission this time as the PCC was closed over phone hacking.
But he did last time the dirty tricks were tried.
Show me da money.
I recall reading that the Smithsonian has launched an investigation into the matter, and I would imagine Soon is awaiting the finding.
Why is that any of your business ??
george,
It is not any of warrenlb’s business. He is just one of the hyenas circling and hoping to get a piece of meat.
I think he will go away hungry. Hyenas often do.
Why is it any of your business?
See, george? When the hyenas have nothing better to argue, they just repeat what you said. That kind of petty response could hardly be more lame. It means warrenlb’s got nothin’. As usual.
Dr. Soon is on solid ground, and despite all the impotent hand-waving of the alarmist cult, he will do just fine. There are still plenty of ethical, professional scientists who will not leave him hanging out. Not least because they know they could face the same witch hunt down the road.
The monkey-piling on Dr. Soon will run its course, and then he will be just like Prof. Wegman: right on the science, while Mann hides out in his ivory tower, afraid to answer any questions.
The monkeys will screech, and howl, and fling their feces. But in the end… they are still just monkeys.
Who cares and why should they?
It’s easy to be a good Christian
if it weren’t for all these people.
I think this is why
..
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon
Yes, the spineless panderers.
They don’t want to say to the McCarthy style inquisitors that they have ever known or associated with a skeptic/communist.
Sun Spot … they are fine associating with communists, it’s just the skeptic that they’re petrified of.
Yes, I agree with that characterization of those that drink their own bathwater of anti-AGW
The Smithsonian, which has posted Dr. Soon’s work product without complaint in the past, says:
The Smithsonian does not support Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change. The Smithsonian’s official statement on climate change, based upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a cause of global warming.
They are not experts; Dr. Soon is. So how would the un-named Smithsonian editorial flack know which end is up, climate-wise?
And then we get this drive-by comment from warrenlb, trolling the thread as usual:
… I agree with that characterization of those that drink their own bathwater of anti-AGW
Where is that characterization, warrenlb? I don’t see it anywhere. You are pretty good at fabricating strawman comments, and then arguing with them.
All I see is your baseless presumption of “anti-AGW”. You have been told repeatedly that most readers and commenters here agree with AGW. I agree with them. Your problem is that if AGW exists, there are still no measurements quantifying it. So AGW really doesn’t matter much, does it?
You are quite the despicable commenter, warrenlb. Obviously, you have no mirrors in your house, or you would see what others see. It isn’t pretty.
“You have been told repeatedly that most readers and commenters here agree with AGW. I agree with them.”
…
You agree with AGW?
…
When did you start agreeing with AGW?
Robert, wake up! I have never said that AGW doesn’t exist.
Once again, my long-held position is as follows: If AGW exists, it must be too minuscule to measure, for the simple reason that there are no widely-agreed measurements of AGW. Because to date, no one has produced a testable, empirical measurement quantifying the fraction of human-caused warming [AGW], out of total global warming.
Is AGW 50% of total global warming?
We don’t know.
Is it 5%?
We don’t know.
Is AGW 0.02%?
WE DON’T KNOW.
Is AGW ZERO?
WE DON’T KNOW!
If anyone could produce a verifiable, testable measurement of AGW, they would not only be on the short list for a Nobel Prize, but the long sought question of the climate sensitivity number would finally be decisively answered. As it is, however, the sensitivity number has been estimated as being anywhere from zero, to more than 6ºC! Some scientists have even argued that the sensitivity number is negative; that CO2 causes cooling.
See, Robert, no one knows. The reason is because there are no measurements of AGW. None at all that withstand falsification. You would think that after so many decades of diligent searching, by thousands of well educated scientists, that there would be at least one testable, verifiable measurement of AGW that is agreed to by everyone. But there are none, Robert.
So even though I think that AGW exists, I also think that it must ipso facto be too small to measure. And thus, national policy [and taxpayer monies] should stop treating AGW as anything significant. Clearly, it is not. It is a minuscule forcing that can be completely disregarded for all practical purposes.
Robert, I must have posted that explabnation, or similar, twenty or thirty times over the past several years. So please don’t presume to understand my position without first asking. TIA.
“it must be too minuscule to measure”
…
So, you believe it exists, but you can’t measure it.
Why do you believe it exists if you can’t measure it, and what measure have you used to determine that it is too miniscule?
I recognize the physics of the matter, that is to say that CO2 is a radiative gas and makes unknown contribution to our planet’s greenhouse effect. Beyond that, the AGW hypothesis falls to the ground, in my view.
The warming trend circa 1918-1945 was not due to AGW, all generally agree, even the IPCC authors. This is because anthropogenic CO2 levels were too slight, at some 20 ppm more or less, to affect earth’s climate. No serious dispute here.
This leaves the circa 1977-97 warming trend. This can be shown as due to entirely natural causes such as increased insolation (via reduced cloud coverage, globally).
We are left to conclude that AGW does not existas a factor in climate, or at least so I conclude.
So, yes CO2 is a radiative gas, but no, it is not a factor in climate.
Robert says:
So, you believe it exists, but you can’t measure it.
That’s exactly right.
Next, Robert asks:
Why do you believe it exists if you can’t measure it, and what measure have you used to determine that it is too miniscule?
Glad you asked. I’ll explain:
Radiative physics argues that there is some tiny warming effect as CO2 is being added to the atmosphere. You can see it here:
As you can see, the biggest effect by far occurred within the first ≈20 ppm (by volume). But at current concentrations of around 400 ppm, any warming effect from CO2 is far too minuscule to measure. In fact, CO2 could rise by 20% – 30% without any measurable warming. Following me so far?
Willis points out that at current levels, CO2 is only a 3rd-order forcing — which is swamped by 2nd-order forcings. Both of those are swamped by 1st-order forcings, so at current concentrations, any effect from CO2 is simply too small to measure; MUCH too small to measure.
That does not mean there is no effect, that only means that with current instrumentation, no one has been able to measure any warming effect from the recent rise in CO2.
The only explanation for the fact that there has been no global warming as CO2 has continued to rise, is either:
a) Background noise is higher than any warming signal, thus burying the very tiny warming signal, or
b) AGW does not exist.
Based on physics, I think AGW exists. I have never said otherwise. But if it is too small to measure, then we certainly should not be wasting our national resources on “mitigating” such a trivial non-problem. There are too many real problems to take care of.
Wouldn’t you agree?
You are illogical
..
You say, ” there are no measurements of AGW”
..
Then you say “any effect from CO2 is simply too small to measure”
..
If there are no measurements, how do you know the effect is too small?
It might be really really big, but since you can’t measure it, all you have is “beliefs” which have no place in science.
Robert,
You have a problem. A psychological problem. Because no matter how many explanations I provide, you are like a child, asking, “But, why?…” You remind me of another banned commenter who has the same style. You wouldn’t by any chance be posting under different screen names, would you? Because whenever I patiently try to answer your questions, it’s never enough.
I’ve been very patient, Robert. I have turned the other cheek to your insults and name-calling, and I have done my best to answer your questions using evidence and facts. But you treat me like I’m your enemy. Why? Do I remind you of a kid who beat you up in grade school? Whatever the reason, and whether you can see it or not, I’ve run circles around your weak arguments. I use facts and evidence, while you ask inane and incessant questions, like you did again here:
If there are no measurements, how do you know the effect is too small?
I’ve repeatedly explained that for you, Robert. It’s physics. If you know the position of an electron, you cannot measure its momentum. So are you arguing that an electron has no momentum, since it can’t be measured?
There are some things that cannot be measured for various reasons. That does not mean they don’t exist. Adding more CO2 at current concentrations does not cause any measurable global warming. But you are claiming that because it is too small to measure, it doesn’t exist? Stay after school, Robert. You need to do extra homework.
Finally, you always chase my comments, and you are never complimentary or agreeable — another clue that you are not who you claim to be. I never pick out your posts and argue with them, ‘Robert’, I only respond to you when you bird-dog my comments.
So how about if you go your way, and I’ll go mine? As I pointed out, I’ve been arguing circles around you. You should really quit, for your own credibility. But as always, if you continue to dispute my explanations, I’ll respond. I will use facts and evidence. If I am wrong, I will admit it. But I won’t back down if I think I’m right. In that respect, I’m like Willie Soon.
“You have a problem. A psychological problem”
…
When did you become an expert in psychology?
…
You posted: “AGW does not exist.”
…
Then you post: “Based on physics, I think AGW exists”
..
You need to make up your mind, and dispense with your amateur armchair psychology.
Your belief in AGW is not measurable, so I suggest you stop “believing” in it.
Robert;
I think you and my 2 year old have a lot in common.
he says, I want a cookie
I say, I don’t have one
he says, I want one
I say, you can’t have one because I don’t have one to give you
He says, I want
I say, if I had one I would give you one
he says, I want one
I say, NO
Robert,
It doesn’t require being an expert to see that you have a problem. As I pointed out, you are bird-dogging my comments, nitpicking in a failed effort to find something wrong with them. You constantly ask questions, which I’ve tried in good faith to answer. But you never answer questions, do you, ‘Robert’?
I’ve asked you this question before, but here it is again:
Have you ever posted here under different screen names?
Yes or no, ‘Robert’? Just answer the question: Yes, or No.
Because your style is suspiciously like a commenter who was banned for that.
[I predict that mr. Grumbine will once again evade answering that question.]
I apologize dbstealey
..
I did not intend to embarrass you when you made your illogical statements
You are free to “believe” i AGW if you so desire.
Robert Grumbine,
Your apology is accepted.
I note that you apologized with a snide comment, though. I stated that I “think” AGW exists. Climate alarmists ‘believe’, while scientific skeptics ‘think’.
I also remind you that nowhere did I ever say that I “believe” that AGW exists. I always say I “think”. To claim I said I “believe in” AGW was a deliberate misrepresentation, since you even quoted that I “think” AGW exists — twice.
Why did you fabricate untrue quotes like that, Robert? Normal folks don’t do that. You really shouldn’t argue with intelligent readers. As Bob Boder points out above, it makes you appear juvenile.
Finally, I did not state that “AGW does not exist” as you falsely stated. I gave that as one of two possibilities — then I specifically rejected that possibility, saying that I think AGW exists.
Although your ethics are in question, Robert, I still accept your apology. I am happy to move on. Provided you do, too.
It’s pretty clear where the Smithsonian comes down on the “Science”. But then, you have to keep the money rolling in.
From http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-climate-change
“Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the global climate is warming as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases generated by human activities.”
They are simply protecting the millions of dollars of federal grants which would be removed if they back science rather than political agenda.. It is indeed a sad day that our institutions of higher learning have laid themselves out as whores and prostitutes to the highest bidder.
@ur momisugly BillH, “It is indeed a sad day that our institutions of higher learning have laid themselves out as whores and prostitutes to the highest bidder.”
That is why they are not institutions of higher learning.
Yet one more meaningless assertion. How much warming, since when Has that warming been beneficial or catastrophic?
I have seen zero evidence from any scientific journal or organization that indicates there exists a consensus that human caused increase in CO2 is now, or will be catastrophic.
O give me a break. The Smithsonian, ‘pandering’ and ‘keeping the money rolling in’ ? You guys wouldn’t recognize real science unless it found that Man was created in Eden, or the planet was only 9000 years old. Your attitudes about Science are disgusting.
warrenlb
Many of us here have or have had careers as scientists whereas you promote pseudoscience.
Richard
Yet another mindless, science-free comment from the troll du jour: warrenlb.
warrenlb’s “You guys” above includes the readers and commenters here. We are collectively being labeled by warrenlb as believing the planet is only 9,000 years old. But that pseudo-superior attitude is only a thin veneer that covers his insecurity and his scientific incompetence. Projection is the name of that true believer’s game.
The reason is that “O’Sullivan’s First Law” has taken over at the Smithsonian.
He is known for O’Sullivan’s First Law (O’Sullivan’s Law): “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”
The Smithsonian’s official statement on climate change, based upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a cause of global warming.
Many decades? 4 decades ago the earth was cooling and scientists like Michael Mann were predicting an approaching Ice Age.
It is approaching, actually. We are at the butt-end of the current interglacial.
Untrue.
40 years ago, 90% of peer-reviewed papers said earth was warming. It was the media that reported on the 10% of papers that said Earth was cooling.
warrenlb
Please cite whatever it is that you think is evidence for your ridiculous assertion saying
In reality, at that time it was generally asserted that the Earth was cooling and the global temperature data sets still say that global temperature fell from ~1940 to about ~1970.
Richard
“the global temperature data sets still say that global temperature fell from ~1940 to about ~1970.”
Not for much longer I suspect !!!
Richard Courtney (correcting warrenlb’s claim)
The communist propaganda at the time -very, very strongly protesting the nuclear weapons being updated in Europe to oppose the modernized new Soviet tank armies staged in the Ukraine, East Germany, Czechoslovakia, Poland and Hungary/Bulgaria/Romania and Russia itself) – used a “prevent nuclear winter” theme as well. Thus, the few science papers discussing a small cooling trend married well and complemented the much more frequent speeches and newspaper/magazine articles on nuclear winters amidst a climate of general cooling articles in the general “science” literature.
Contrary to warrnenlb’s assertion of “90%” (and I do note he did not use the more frequent meme of 97%!), I know of only two “climate” science papers that promoted today’s theme of “CO2 causes catastrophic future global warming” that were written in in the 1970’s and early 1980’s – thus pre-dating the liberal Senator’s 1988 “open-the-window-overnight” scam hearing which inflated federal funding for CO2 links to global warming.
Also relevant, I see that Dr Hansen’s original papers began his trend of exaggerating the influence of CO2 and radiation on global average temperatures. His “scores” for clouds and radiation coefficients (as a co-author even before his doctorate) for feedback and influence were highest amongst all papers compared by one judge, and were rejected for that reason.
The Star Trek Science Fiction Model of the USS Enterprise was a nice touch on the statement about the “Smithsonian’s official statement on climate change, based upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a cause of global warming.” ; I might have chosen the Wright Flyer or one of the Space Shuttles to set a more authoritative tone, but some how it’s apropos to anthropogenic global warming!
I’m thankful for Heartland Institute and their pursuit of truth regarding AGW and there willingness to help Dr. Soon counter organized alarmist groups McCarthy style smear campaign.
Thank you Dr. Soon for your contributions to science and for standing firm in the face of these attacks. I wish the best for you and your family.
But for the grace go any one of U.S..
Why do we have to see news about climate bullying every day?
Because there is no consolidated, focused, response.
We only have factions who are offended by this behavior. Many in number, but diluted from lack of organization, and subsequent voice.
How do we fix this?
We don’t. We pursue the science. That is where the real war is being fought. The rest are just rowdy fans.
Yes, politicians will pigpile; that’s what they do. The press will pile on. But they are fickle.
Know your battlefield.
I don’t know about that Evan. You care most about the science, so you call that the real battle. To call the people who exploit opportunities like those climate science provides in their quest for political power rowdy fans is to misunderstand them badly; they couldn’t possibly care less about your science, and they never did, and they never will. The climate issues provide a horse to ride like any other.
~shrug~ not saying your priorities are wrong, of course they aren’t, they’re your business. But neither are your priorities inevitable and universal.
I call them rowdy fans because they are in purely reactive mode. Science is the dog. Politics is just the brightly colored tail. What the tail does will (after the inevitable “suitable interval”) will depend on what the dog does.
I wish that were so my friend. I don’t believe it is in this case.
Today, science has been overtaken by people brought to authority and power, not by merit but by election and appointment. This is not science. It is a corruption of it. It seems any time government gets involved corruption is almost guaranteed. Mix religion and government you get witch hunts. You mix science with government and you get “MAN MADE GLOBAL WARMING”, AGW.
Stay strong Dr. Soon. History will be very kind to you and your reputation.
In science those that are remembered are very often those that went against consensus. It requires balls.
Dietary advice looks like another broken consensus. In climate science they merely call you the ‘D’ word and will have nothing to do with ideas that contradict Climastrology TM.
The original (now dubbed dubious) dietary guidelines on saturated fats and heart disease can be found if you search for the name: Ancel Benjamin Keys. The truth will always out? We’ll have to wait and see but no evidence found as per above.
Jimbo,
Keys got elected to the board of the AHA to push his bad science. From my perspective, Keys is a mass murderer. I wish I believed in hell so that I could know there is a special place there for him.
Just like the dubious findings of Ancel Benjamin Keys, there should be thorough and impartial research into Rachel Carson’s own findings of the effects of DDT which she found near her home in Maryland in 1945.
http://www.jpands.org/vol9no3/edwards.pdf
http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v486/n7404/full/486473a.html
We shall never forget what you did for us Dr. Soon, by standing up to the climate bullies. For what it is worth, you have our gratitude.
Aye aye
How can we best support Dr. Soon?
Imitate Dr. Soon’s courage.
Wherever and whenever each one of us, NO MATTER WHAT THE RISK TO OUR FORTUNES OR REPUTATION OR LIVES, has the opportunity, SPEAK THE TRUTH.
If we ALL pin the Mogen David to our jacket …. who is not a Jew?
I know who is my hero. His name is Willie Soon. My reason? Courage is the queen of all the virtues because it makes the other virtues possible. How could I not consider him a hero? I love his courage.
Honesty is the foundation of all virtues.
Dr. Soon,
If more scientists had your integrity and, even more, your courage, you never would have needed to make your above statement.
It is only tellers of a powerful truth who are as viciously and baselessly attacked as you have been.
The facts are vindicating you as we speak.
KEEP FIGHTING THE GOOD FIGHT FOR SCIENCE!
With gratitude and admiration,
Janice
Don’t be discouraged, Dr Soon. You have more friends than you think.
Very best wishes,
Richard
Good on yer Willie!
Oor Wullie
Dr. Soon,
You have my support.
John
Willie has published a dignified and acute statement.
Let this be the challenge: Willie is “willing to debate the substance of [his] research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere.”
It’s put up or shut up time. If the AGW-supporting scientists can’t or won’t debate their case, they are making a tacit admission that they have no case. Willie is easily of equal scientific stature to any climate scientist. They have no valid grounds for refusal.
It seems to me that the NYT now has an ethical obligation to arrange that debate, given the offense of their attempted character assassination.
It seems to me further that Borenstein’s offense against journalistic integrity is enough that he should be asked to resign. Maybe letters to the NYT making that case?
If no AGW “scientist” is willing to debate Willie, we could have a denier debate him as a stand-in doing devil’s-advocate. After all, one doesn’t have to know much about the AGW side of the debate since it is more belief-driven than fact-driven. – Just say the opposite of true science, and it will sound as good as any warmista.
I’ve often found that I can both understand and explain the basic premises of the hypothesis of AGW far better than most warmists can; they simply don’t know what they believe.
I should have written Justin Gillis, rather than Borenstein. Apologies to Mr. Borenstein.
Here’s the email I just sent to Mr. Sulzberger, the publisher of the NYT, with ccs to the executive and managing editors:
Dear Mr. Sulzberger,
The recent attempted character assassination against Dr. Wille Soon, launched by Mr. Justin Gillis and Mr. John Schwartz (NYT 21 February 2015) was fit for a partisan broadsheet. It was that villainous. Nevertheless, the New York Times printed it.
In so doing, you have an ethical obligation to follow up. Dr. Soon has offered to debate his position on climate with “anyone, anytime, anywhere.” Ethics demands you either put up or shut up. Arrange the debate. Let’s see who carries the argument.
If you haven’t the courage, you haven’t a case. With no case, you’re guilty of meritless defamation.
As to Mr. Gillis and Mr. Schwartz, their offense against journalistic ethics is sufficient that they should be asked to resign.
Yours,
Patrick Frank, Ph.D.
Palo Alto, CA 94301
email: xxxx@xxx.xxx
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
These things are, we conjecture, like the truth;
But as for certain truth, no one has known it.
Xenophanes, 570-500 BCE
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Well done, Dr. Frank.
Absolutely perfect, thank you Sir.
Hear, hear ..
+1000
Hurrah Dr. Willie Soon!!!