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
# # #
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.
@ 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!!!
Thank you, Willie, for science and for those of us here who wish knowledge and discovery to prevail.
Eat, sleep, be with family.
Let’s not make this guy some kind of hero or even worse, a martyr. He is under investigation because he has possibly not complied with the Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies. Not because of the scientific content of his publications, which, by the way, are also questionable.
so, take up his challenge and debate him
His ‘challenge’ is nothing new. His output has been criticized for many years (by people much better suited than me) with solid scientific argumentation.
ah, I’ll take that as a no
You can take it as a no. All of his research has received serious scientific criticism. I feel no need to simply repeat that.
ah come on, repeat it = show us your truth, your beliefs, or rather your evidence
Well his main line of reasoning seems to be that the large influence of the sun on climate implicates that there has to be less influence from greenhouse gases. This is a fallacy. Just as the large influence of the gravity of the earth on surface water doesn’t diminish the influence of the moon on the tides. He has never been able to provide a consistent model that can explain the recently observed changes in climate. He has focused on spurious, conveniently chosen correlations. Basically it appears that he has already formed his opinion and is publishing only the findings that support that, while ignoring all the contradictory evidence.
implicates? what is that? please provide an extent of greenhouse gases
who is denying gravity? or moon – tides?
You have a consistent model? What is recent?
isn’t that the CO2 model produces the CO2 model?
What is his opinion?
In answer to your questions:
implicates means implies
I am not sure what you mean by ‘an extent of greenhouse gases’
Nobody is denying gravity. It was used as an analogy to illustrate the logic fallacy.
Believe it or not, global warming can actually explain the changes in climate over the last century
I don’t know what you mean with ‘the CO2 model produces the CO2 model’
His opinion is very clear: ‘It’s the sun, stupid’
Aran
I write to help you.
In your illogical post at March 2, 2015 at 8:32 pm you say
Believe it or not, global warming IS the changes in climate over the last century.
And you also say
There is no empirical evidence to support the conjecture that atmospheric CO2 changes caused the changes in climate over the last century, but this conjecture is ‘the CO2 model’ of climate change, and it is programed into digital climate models.
You say of Willie Soon
Nobody knows what caused the global warming over the centuries since the Little Ice Age (LIA), but it could not have been emissions of CO2 from human activity before 1950. And those emissions are not likely to have caused the global warming after 1950 because the warming stopped more than 18 years ago but the emissions did not.
Willie Soon and others are investigating the possibility that solar effects were a significant contributor to the cause(s) of the global warming over the centuries since the LIA. He conducts his science which is of very high quality. And he calls nobody “stupid”.
Richard
Hi Richard,
Thank you for your post. I appreciate your arguments, but disagree with some of them.
At your first statement: I do not want to get into a semantics discussion. I should have been more specific and said anthropogenic global warming.
I disagree with your second statement. There is definitely empiric evidence to relate changes in CO2 to increasing average global temperatures. In fact if you were to take a very simple linear regression model, taking only CO2 and temperature and forgetting about El Nino, oceanic modulations, solar activity and everything else you would find it to fit the data better than the current IPCC models.
As for your third statement, you are right. I take back the ‘stupid’ part. I somehow thought that quote was attributed to him, but I was mistaken. I don’t think I have enough background in his field of expertise to ascertain whether or not his work was of very high quality, as you claim. I do know that most of his peers seem to think it is not, which is why his academic track record is not very impressive
@richard,
Willie Soon does call people stupid after all:
https://www.heartland.org/policy-documents/it%E2%80%99s-sun-stupid
Aran says “Believe it or not, global warming can actually explain the changes in climate over the last century”
The CAGW faithful use it to explain any and all climatic and non climatic events warming, cooling, storms, no storms, snow, no snow, droughts, no droughts, ice caps melting, ice caps increase, violence around the world, increase fertility, decreased fertility and almost anything any hair brain can think off. Not once have they been able to show a causational link for any of it.
Aran says
“Willie Soon does call people stupid after all:”
Did he take time to talk with you?
If you truly believe that, Aran, then you are either:
1. astonishingly (for a person who is interested enough in the AGW topic to frequent WUWT) ignorant of the facts of the case;
or
2. pitifully blind to their significance.
or, in his own vernacular, he is a:
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/legacy.images/smosh-pit/112010/main-troll.jpg
which was inevitable for this posting and fitting for his comment
If either of those are the case, please enlighten me
@ Bubba Cow, thanks for putting the sentence “The rest of us seem to have enough class to reply properly” as mentioned in the first reaction into some perspective.
Bubba Cow,
A Geeky Hobbit?
John
@ John Whitman March 2, 2015 at 7:18 pm
enjoy your work, John, please keep it up
Yeah, geeky hobbit is a strange image indeed, but a troll is a troll.
Please explain why you feel the need to call me a troll. I find that very offensive. I am open to debate, I have posted only facts and have not made any ad hominem or abusive comments.
And as I said before, if you think I am ignorant or blind, enlighten me.
@ Aran the Troll:
1. Open your eyes.
and
2. Enlighten yourself.
@ Aran — If you don’t like being accurately described as a “troll,” then, don’t be one.
A ran –
“I am open to debate, I have posted only facts . . .”
You have already said you won’t debate and now you have posted no facts . . . so good night.
@Janice, I am not the one calling names here or playing ad hominem
@Bubba, It is a fact that he is under investigation because of the code of ethics and disclosure and not because of the scientific content of his work. It is also a fact that his work has been heavily criticized for the past two decades.
I am asking for reasoning or facts, but all I get is name-calling and abuse. Very disappointing
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
icouldnthelpit
Typical of all your posts, your post at March 3, 2015 at 2:29 am only provides falsehoods and says in total
No. A troll is a poster whose posts attempt to deflect a thread from its subject often by use of personal and offensive remarks.
Aran’s posts in this thread are clear examples of trolling, and your support of them was predictable because your many posts on WUWT only provide trolling.
The place “to go” in this thread is to refute Aran’s falsehoods and thus to enable return to the subject of the thread. Aran has had each and every of his assertions refuted in this thread but has continued trolling the thread.
Richard
(Another wasted effort by a banned sockpuppet. Comment DELETED. -mod)
Oh, and no one needs to make a man like Dr. Soon into a hero.
Yet many do
Excellent! 🙂
Just to be clear:
Excellent comment Janice! 🙂
Aran — lol — that comment (“but many do”) just confirmed what a troll of the especially dopey kind you are (ha, ha, haaa, you outed YOURSELF).
A man who IS a hero is not “made” one by one or by “many.”
Heh, heh, Bubba Cow’s metaphorical graphic above fits you perfectly. What a putz.
Thanks, Mark and your two cats! #(:))
Hey, glad you piped up — I was just wondering last night how Mark and his two cats are… . I was afraid maybe something sad had happened and, now, you were just “Mark something else.” (as you know I love dogs… but, I know you love your cats and I sure do understand loving one’s furry friends).
Thank you for remembering us Janice! And no, nothing sad – thank goodness!
I wish you and your furry friend my best wishes 🙂
————
Thanks, Mark and your two cats! #(:))
Hey, glad you piped up — I was just wondering last night how Mark and his two cats are… . I was afraid maybe something sad had happened and, now, you were just “Mark something else.” (as you know I love dogs… but, I know you love your cats and I sure do understand loving one’s furry friends).
Aran March 2, 2015 at 6:40 pm
Aran, you seem to not be following the story. It has nothing to do with the Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies. Nothing. Zero. Zip. Nada.
You have (perhaps unwittingly) put your finger on the very problem. Folks like you tend to ignore the scientific content and instead you want to whinge about his imaginary lack of ethics … when you start busting mainstream climate scientists for taking money from Greenpeace and WWF I’ll believe that you are serious.
w.
and thank you too, Willis
… and Bubba, thanks for all your positive reinforcement for many on this thread. Your encouraging is great for our morale and morale matters!
#(:))
Personally I don’t care about his non-disclosure, but I can imagine his employer does. I do care about his scientific inaccuracies. Also if you are aware of any ‘mainstream’ climate scientist who have not followed disclosure policies I would advise you to report to their employees.
“Not because of the scientific content of his publications, which, by the way, are also questionable.”. The fact that the scientific content of his publications is NOT questionable (anyone with a Excel spreadsheet can easily check his results) is exactly why we see ad hominem attacks – we do not see anyone publishing any rebuttal based on content because they are unable to do so.
I have to leave now, but I hope some people can come with actual arguments rather that just saying ‘you’re wrong’ or calling me dopey or ignorant or a troll. That’s just doing the kind of thing you are accusing others of.
Aran, are you intentionally obtuse?
https://www.heartland.org/willie-soon
[snip -over the top – Anthony]
“His output has been criticized for many years (by people much better suited than me) with solid scientific argumentation.”
Your words, Aran. So, basically, this is an expression of faith on your part, as you volunteer that you do not personally have the scientific qualifications to judge for yourself.
Hi Bernd,
No I am not intentionally being obtuse. I don’t think I ever said that Dr. Soon violated any disclosure rules, but I said that he is under investigation for it. By the Smithsonian according to their official statement:
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon\
So actually I would say your last quote is true in the fact that the Smithsonian did not say Dr. Soon violated their disclosure rules, but they also do not say he acted accordingly. They are investigating the matter and keeping both options open.
@Bart: Yes
Aran says “Well his main line of reasoning seems to be that the large influence of the sun on climate implicates that there has to be less influence from greenhouse gases.”
Yes, I concur with your assessment. 18 years of no global warming must have a cause, since carbon dioxide continues to rise but temperature does not. Something is countering it. What is your answer?
Temperature does continue to rise
The temperature is not continuing to rise.
Sure, the past keeps getting cooler, but that is a different issue completely.
Aran says, “Also if you are aware of any ‘mainstream’ climate scientist who have not followed disclosure policies I would advise you to report to their employees.
=========================================
Please report the IPCC who did not disclose that there science came, not from peer reviewed journals, but from activist rags, like, hey what a coincidence, Greenpeace, the same crew making irresponsible and already proven wrong accusations against a distinguished scientist.
BTW. Dr. Soon is best known for his rebuttal of the hockey stick through supporting the existence of prior warm periods, as warm and warmer then the current one. His work is backed by literally hundreds of peer reviewed reports. His explanation of solar cycle influence on climate is, I am afraid, well beyond your capacity to comprehend, but the veracity of the solar assertions is not cogent to the reality of past warmer periods, nor is it relevant to the destruction of the “indefensible” Mannian hockey stick.
Aran @ March 2, 2015 at 8:38 pm
“Temperature does continue to rise”
Relative to what? Not relative to IPCC projections. Relative to those, it is falling rapidly.
This is an argument along the lines of the meaning of “is”, or children in the back seat drawing an imaginary line of demarcation, with one waving his hands near it and taunting “I’m not on your side.” A childish quibble that utterly fails to come to terms with the fact that the climate models do not reflect reality.
@ David A:
I don’t know which part of the IPCC output you are referring to, but if they did break any disclosure rules, they should be investigated as well. As far as your statement on Dr. Soon, I find it a little inconsistent that your main argument rests on the backing of scientific peer-reviewed reports, since you seem to ignore the scientific peer-reviewed reports backing the IPCC claims which vastly outnumber those backing Dr. Soon. So if you value peer-reviewed backing you should give the anthropogenic global warming theory credit where credit is due.
@ Bart: If you read back you will find that the imaginary line was drawn by Michael 2 when he claimed no warming in the last 18 years, which is a conveniently chosen line, since 1998 and to a lesser extend 1997 where particularly warm. I base my statement mainly on looking here:
http://www.ysbl.york.ac.uk/~cowtan/applets/trend/trend.html
Where no matter what dataset or period you take, you will almost always find a warming trend. Sure you can cherry pick to find a period where the warming has been less pronounced or there might even have been a slight cooling, but that is not scientifically valid since you are then looking for specific facts that support your opinion, rather than looking for an opinion based on facts. It is true that over the last decade or so, the warming trend appears to have decreased, but as far as I know, no good explanation has been given for this yet. Also not by those that claim it is due to solar activity. Finally over such a relatively short period it might even be just statistical fluctuations rather than having a clearly determined cause.
@ AndyG55: see my statement above
Aran, you are fooling yourself. Two decades is a long time, and none of it was foreseen. As a matter of fact, the temperature series are dominated by a long term trend and a ~60 year cyclic phenomenon. This pattern was laid in well before humans could have been having any impact. The most likely prognosis for the future is a continuation of this pattern:
http://i1136.photobucket.com/albums/n488/Bartemis/tempproject_zps16578eaa.jpg
Relative to what the IPCC says it should be doing, even relative to the long term trend which is not human induced, temperatures are declining. When the cycle reaches its maximum downturn, and the absolute temperatures start dropping, what will you say then?
It’s just a matter of time. I, and others, noting the readily apparent ~60 year oscillation, predicted the current turnaround years ago. People then did as you do, stuck their heads in the sand, their fingers in their ears, and chanted “no, no, it’s just spurious pattern recognition”. Yet, the “pause” arrived right on time. Now, it’s “no, no, it’s just a temporary phenomenon.”
It isn’t, Aran. At some point you, and others, most especially those who call themselves “climate scientists”, are going to have to wake up and smell the coffee. The climate response to CO2 is essentially nil. Once that is finally laid to rest, resisters of reality can start to come to terms with the fact that humans have very little impact on atmospheric CO2 concentration, too. This can readily be seen in the fact that the rate of change of CO2 tracks temperature anomaly. It is a temperature modulated process which is driving atmospheric CO2. Human inputs are not temperature modulated, hence are not the driver.
Dr, Murry Salby, author of one of the most widely used climate texts ever, has presented talks on this topic, as here. True scientists are eagerly looking forward to his upcoming talk in London:
Hi Bart,
Thank you for your well written and informative post. I am intrigued by the 60 year cycle. Are there any earlier (indirect) observations of it? Also to what would you contribute the underlying temperature increase?
I do not blindly believe the IPCC’s predictions and I hope they will be proven wrong. As Yogi Berra said: ‘It’s hard to make predictions, especially about the future’. This definitely also holds for climate science. However, as long as there is a realistic possibility that they are right, or even just in the right ball park, I think it wise to consider the risks and possible ways to mitigate them, rather than, just hoping things will not be so bad because of the inherent uncertainties in the predictions. I do very much appreciate the contributions of critical scientist trying to improve our understanding of what is going on. There are always concerns when it comes to such a complex modeling problem, and those that give constructive criticism are imperative to further our understanding. I am a bit concerned about the certainty with which you make your claims. I am not saying you are wrong, but I am not convinced of some of the claims such as the response of climate to CO2 being essentially nil. I do hope you are right about that though, and I will admit it if nature proves it in the future.
Aran,
The ~60 year cycle has been brooded about for many years. Until the latest turnaround in about 2005, there was really only one cycle definitely observable, and those who claimed it was a phantom of the way our brains are set up to recognize patterns even when they aren’t there had, at least, a tenuous point.
With the turnaround, more or less right on schedule, that became an untenable position, but it still has not fully sunk in I think. Many more scientists are now looking at it in view of the “pause”, though, and noticing the same periodicity in various ocean indices.
In the same speech where Feynman produced the above quote, he remarked:
I fear Feynman was overly optimistic that we had learned that lesson. It is taking a lot of time for climate science to climb down from its preconceived expectations in the face of mounting contrary evidence.
I am, indeed, confident in my conclusions. I do not, however, ask you to share my confidence on the basis of my say so. The only point of contention is the driving source of atmospheric CO2. If atmospheric CO2 is driven naturally, even if only partially, then the essentially nil effect of CO2 on surface temperatures necessarily follows. Otherwise, there would be an unstable, positive feedback loop which could not be stabilized even by the negative feedback of T^4 radiation, and we would not be here to remark upon it.
I recommend Salby’s lecture from the previous post to you on that point of contention.
@Bart:
Thanks for that video. I watched with great interest. Has any of this been published? It would be good to get more detail. I am especially interested in this surface conditions parameter.
Salby has not, as far as I know, been successful in publishing his work. I know it is standard on the other side to sneer at “conspiracy” theories, and proffer arguments from incredulity against it. But, the fact of the matter is that Salby has been hounded since he first announced his findings, to the point that fanatics got him fired from his position at Macquarie University under very thin pretexts. The medieval suppression of detractors from the orthodoxy is real, a throwback to pre-enlightenment values, and a disgrace.
That is why I, and I am sure many others, are so eager to hear his latest results in the upcoming lecture in London. It is, as far as I know, his first public pronouncement on these matters since the empire struck back.
All scientific publications should be questioned Aran. That is the correct nature of science
I wholeheartedly agree
@ George, Aran has deflected all of you , you realize (I hope) that he has never answered any of your questions re Dr Soon but artfully (I’ll give him that) bounced his answers between 2 or three of the posters , he is very good at what he does this way. But he has nor provided one iota of proof and has (if you read back) completely gone away from his initial statement about Dr. Soon’s statement when he alleged Dr Soon of falsehoods. Please go back and carefully read Aran’s initial accusations and then look at how he misdirects you and all others away from them.
asybot,
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/02/statement-by-dr-willie-soon/#comment-1873600
Let’s not make this guy some kind of hero or even worse, a martyr. He is under investigation because he has possibly not complied with the Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies. Not because of the scientific content of his publications, which, by the way, are also questionable.
I find no original accusation or allegation of falsehood in Aran’s initial post as cited. At best you’ve got him on naively taking Smithsonian’s word for it that their investigation of Soon isn’t otherwise politically or financially motivated.
As for the quality of Soon’s climate research, well, here’s a beginning:
http://web.archive.org/web/20070703025424/http://w3g.gkss.de/G/Mitarbeiter/storch/CR-problem/CR.editorial.pdf
… one article, by Soon and Baliunas (CR 23: 89-110), has caused considera ble controversy. The article drew severe critique, which was made public by a thorough analysis of the results in the Transaction of the AGU, EOS (vol 84, No. 27, 256). I find this critique well-taken. The major result of the Soon and Baliunas paper “Across the world, many records reveal that the 20th century is probably not the warmest nor a uniquely extreme climatic period of the last millennium.” can not be concluded from the evidence presented in that paper, even if the statement itself may be true. It is not a problem of different “opinions” but whether the methodology is adequate of not. Thus, the review process of CR failed to confront the authors with necessary and legitimate methodological questions which should have been addressed in the finally printed paper.
~Hans von Storch, [Former] Editor-in-Chief, Climate Research, July 28, 2003.
Not the kind of thing for-profit journals are wont to do on a regular basis if they wish to stay in business and enjoy a healthy impact rating. von Storch did good to get out, as did four other editors after him.
My read is that he’s artfully sidestepped personal insults from Janice Moore:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/02/statement-by-dr-willie-soon/#comment-1873617
Who has apparently forgotten her own views on the matter:
“{Alexander Graham Bell} … regard{ed} the personal attacks on him as ‘evidences of victory …
You don’t throw mud until your ammunition has run out.’,
And the WUWT standard battle cry from Bubba Cow whenever there’s an “invasion” on:
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/03/02/statement-by-dr-willie-soon/#comment-1873625
http://cdn.smosh.com/sites/default/files/legacy.images/smosh-pit/112010/main-troll.jpg
It doesn’t take a particularly “careful” reading to spot the lack of self-awareness, if not outright duplicity.
Brandon Gates
Your long-winded and untrue diatribe addressed to asybot concludes saying
One can only make sense of that assertion by understanding it to be a description of your post your post which it concludes.
Richard
Brandon Gates,
By all means, take all the rope you need.
richardscourtney,
There were calls for “proof” of Dr. Soon’s poor climate science. I provided some evidence of the first, most famous example. Now I stand accused of delivering a “long-winded and untrue diatribe”.
Such are the joys of bad faith “debate”.
I get it that you’re attempting to defend the indefensible here, but nothing exposes the vacuity of one’s position like grade-school taunting. You’d do well to withdraw, or — hope springs eternal — find a shred of integrity and call out your fellows for their jeers and jibes on a thread where the major theme is attacking persons in lieu of arguments.
Alan Robertson,
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
“There were calls for “proof” of Dr. Soon’s poor climate science. I provided some evidence of the first, most famous example.”
You didn’t provide “proof”, and moreover, your “evidence” does not establish what you claim it does. It is merely a washing of hands, not a counterfactual.
Bart,
Senior editors do that when upper management refuses to call schlocky work out for what it is. Soon may well be a fine solar astronomer … in fact I have a hard time imagining that the Smithsonian would have engaged him otherwise. S&B fracas is a well documented example of Soon’s climate work being considered sub-par — to put it diplomatically — by domain experts. You can continue to play stupid semantic games with the words “proof” and “evidence” all you’d like, but the fact remains that prestigious journals won’t touch his climate work with a ten foot pole. That means something to normal, rational people who have the barest inkling of how seriously major, for-profit science journals with good reputations to protect vet the papers they accept for publication.
It’s hilarious how you guys always presume you know the real, true hidden meanings behind what people say. Wave your hands all you like, Brandon. Nobody cares.
Bart,
That one melted two irony meters. Seriously now, do you actually read this blog?
Tu quoque is a very weak form of argument. It basically admits wrongdoing.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
He is under investigation because there is a climate conference coming up and the climate jihadis are keen to get as much publicity as possible since there is nothing going on with the weather right now that encourages their ridiculous stance on CO2.
@aran:
A bit like the “conveniently chosen” correlation between CO2 levels and GAT (although the last 18 years seem to have busted that correlation).
Exactly. Par for the course. They employ the same method which they then turnaround and claim isn’t kosher for detractors.
No, that correlation was not conveniently chosen, but based on a well-researched effect known since the mid 1800’s of IR absorption from greenhouse gases. This effect has been not been questioned by any serious opposer of anthropogenic global warming. Not that your 18 year period is conveniently chosen, since 1998 was particularly warm.
No, Aran. There is a long series of assumptions between IR absorption and heating of the Earth’s surface. In view of that, the correlation between CO2 concentration and temperature, which held only briefly and entirely superficially in the period of roughly 1970-2000, during the upswing of the natural ~60 year oscillation, was post hoc ergo propter hoc. And, it now no longer even has the post hoc going for it, as the spurious correlation has diverged for the past two decades.
@Bart: I don’t know of any model that can reproduce the warming temperatures without CO2. Most critics I know of, including Mr. Watts and Dr. Soon do acknowledge CO2 has a role in warming but claim the influence is smaller than it is currently believed to be.
Aran, a model is just a model. I can claim that no models without virgins being thrown into volcanoes can explain the end of a drought, but that does not make it the reason the drought ended.
Evidently, the models with CO2 cannot explain the “pause”. What do you do now?
Aran: “I don’t know of any model that can reproduce the warming temperatures without CO2.”
Look no further than REAL nature: it can produce warm (holocean) and cold (ice age) without CO2.
@Bernd: Sure it can, but that does not mean that CO2 has no impact
@Bart True, but if you were to have such a model that could be tested via predictions, it would lend credibility to the claim that the ends of droughts and virgins in volcanoes are unrelated.
In answer to your question: try to understand the discrepancy and improve the model
Aran – Perhaps the model cannot be improved. It’s well past time to consider that, metaphorically speaking, tossing virgins into volcanoes has no effect on drought duration, and that making such sacrifices causes great pain for no gain.
Question the content of his publications, then.
You realize this has been done?
“You realize this has been done?”
Not here. And, vague references to others of no established validity have no force of argument.
Which Smithsonian ethics and disclosure policies has he “possibly not complied with”?
I want Soon to stay alive and health and not to be “a martyr”. Please re-think your nonsense and your claim.
Yes, a mock trial of innuendo reinforced by weasel words. That is Aran’s MO.
http://newsdesk.si.edu/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon
Thank you Dr. Soon. It takes both courage and knowledge to present science in the world of today. You have shown both in an exemplary manner. Thank you again. I additionally want to thank Anthony for for giving an open forum to discuss scientific ideas freely.
Smithsonian “I’m shocked… shocked to find grants from big oil supporting Soon’s research.”
Your share of the grant, sir.
oh, thank you.
clueless
ROFL.
If OIL MONEY is good enough for the Smithsonian Institution then it’s good enough for Willie Soon? No?
What a bloody racket this is.
Your focus is on the wrong organization. You should be looking at https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/ – Despite Harvard getting upset whenever someone says Soon is connected to them, the CFA (Center for Astrophysics) is “a collaboration of Harvard College Observatory (HCO) and Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory (SAO) and home to Harvard’s Department of Astronomy.”
The SAO subpage says:
The HCO subpage says:
Unfortunately, there appears to be no independent organization that is the CfA, at least I can’t find an IRS form 990 that reports what entities donate money to them.
Thanks Ric. I was made aware of the difference before my comment as I did refer to the Smithsonian Institution. I also was aware that it was established in July 1973 as a joint venture between Harvard University and the Smithsonian Institution.
I still wanted to know whether it’s OK for the Smithsonian Institution to take oil money since you do point out they get “upset whenever someone says Soon is connected to them”? I wonder why? Could it be the oil money, which they also take?
Ric Werme, things are getting rather curious. Just today we have this post on WUWT from Monckton. Some say he is an employee of Smithsonian and not of Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics! I am getting confused.
It’s funny why the Smithsonian then gets upset if people state he is affiliated / employed by them. Soon must be affiliated (EMPLOYED) somewhere!
Sadly there will be a lot more of this before the Paris meeting later in the year. The warmists were derailed at the Copenhagen conference by the inconvenient truth of the climate gate emails and will take all steps to prevent this occurring again. No debate on the science just ad hominem attacks on those who disagree with them. Lawyer up & prepare a counter attack.
God help real scientists in this country in these days.
I normally keep my views on “climate” to myself but today I “shared” this article on my Facebook page. I have a lot of friends who won’t like this, but there comes a time to stand up for what you believe. I disagree with the Smithsonian statement on 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.”) I certainly don’t dispute that CO2 is a greenhouse gas or that humans have altered local climate through agriculture, urban development, diversion and damming of rivers, forestry, and a host of other activities. But I suspect the human impact on the Global Climate is pretty small. It may even be measurable, but small just the same.
Wayne, they deserve to know so good on you for doing the right thing.
I have lost several friends on FB due to my opinions on climate change. All of those who un-friended me a staunch believers in CO2 being the driver of that change when there is information freely available that simply disproves the IPCC conjecture. They all appeal to authority and the 97% concensus. If that’s how they feel, so be it!
An excellent statement Willie. I and thousands of others stand behind you with all the friendly warmth and scientific confidence possible. We join you in fear that this smear campaign will have a powerful impact that silencing others. Please continue to stand tall. Best regards.
Standing Tall and “together” is an imperative….
Regards Ed
agreed
Jim
I have been a fan and follower of Soon, and Carter for many years. As a scientist, if someone attacks your scientific work you review your calculations. If instead they attack your character, you know your science is solid.
I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics…
And a stellar example for honest scientists.
nicely put.
Dr Soons polite and concise statement, so unlike many of the “other side”
Willie Soon Rocks! 🙂
Willie Soon Rocks!
He has them, too.
We feel your pain. If being brave wasn’t risky… if there was no cost… we wouldn’t call it courage. Hang tough. You are not alone. GK
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.
Then they came for the Trade Unionists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Trade Unionist.
Then they came for the Jews, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Jew.
Then they came for me—and there was no one left to speak for me.
as was said by Mahatma Gandhi ““First they ignore you, then they ridicule you, then they fight you, and then you win.”
Lance & bleakhouses –
for the first time in a long time I feel there may be hope:
http://www.westernjournalism.com/objective-behind-climate-change-economic-not-climatic/#4Q5Bv7pRxAZwryZe.97
As usual, Mark Steyn has the pithiest comment on this sad debacle, comparing Soon’s paltry funding with celebrity environmental activist Sharon Stone, who collected a $275,000 fee to appear in Ecuador for an anti-Chevron protest. She skipped the appearance and is being sued because she won’t return the fee:
I’m sure this paid appearance was a continuation of the utterly fraudulent lawsuit discussed in a WUWT post here. My comment summarizing the Chevron complaint is here.
In the 2011 comments section where you posted your comment, “Gail” referenced a paper written by J Gordon Edwards on the DDT issue. In the paper Gordon mentioned a list of 38 cases of scientific fraud that he sent to “Science” for publication. His “list” was never published. Does any one have access to the “list”?
Dr. Soon is an honest man and a true scientist facing the crucible
of lies and inuendo of those who are agents of a failed and ever
more exposed “unscientific method” utilizing populism and greed
as its engine of “research”.
Willie,
You have my utmost respect for your scientific efforts. I have watched one of your videos and was impressed with your presentation. I support your efforts and admire your courage to stand up to the smears from the left and those not willing to engage in scientific debate.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks for everything, Dr. Soon. Keep up the great work.
It is a most sad episode for Dr Soon, he does not deserve this treatment. As he expressed it is made worse when anyone who tries to bring reason to this sordid affair is equally pillared and subject to bullying in order to silence them. The Smithsonian part in this smear campaign just adds to the disgraceful behavior.
It is ironic that the climate brigade is smearing Soon while at the same time defending Mann against Steyns alleged smears. The obvious differences being one, Mann is a public figure. He publicly stated he has enjoyed emerging as a public “spokesman”. Soon has never acted as a pubic figure. Secondly Steyn and others have compelling arguments with specifics which support the opinion Mann acted fraudulently in producing scientific results. No one has made that claim about Soon’s work beyond innuendo
Why does the media mindlessly lap up Soons alleged disclosure “scandal” and are blind to the obvious obfuscation by Mann and his “Climate Defense Fund” concerning their court battle. The media does not even understand courts do not rule on scientific theory. The science is not being debated, Mann’s behavior is. A politician on trial for unethical behavior is not on trial for favoring a political party.
You’d think the media could figure out the Steyn trial is not about science but about Mann and the Soon disclosure scandal is not about Soon but about the science, that is the marginalizing of opposing scientific research.
I guess for smart people journalism is not as appealing as it used to be, so we are left with idiots who cannot recognize an orchestrated smear campaign if it was a fleet of 727s parked in their driveways with dancing zebras on the wings.
Latest sco