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.
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
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly Aran the Troll:
1. Open your eyes.
and
2. Enlighten yourself.
@ur momisugly 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 @ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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.
@ur momisugly 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
@ur momisugly 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 score:
Willie Soon’s Pocket Calculator 1 Climate Models 0
+1
Let’s not conflate issues. I have nothing but admiration for Dr. Soon’s convictions and nothing but contempt for those who attempt to use overly technical interpretations of disclosure rules to attack him.
But I am vicariously embarrassed by his lending his name to that pocket-calculator paper. As is Lord Monckton’s wont, he has taken what may be a valid point and made embarrassingly bad arguments in support. Dr. Soon was ill advised to lend his name to such a poorly reasoned work. I really wish he had thought it through more deliberately.
Joe, your attack here is without evidence of any kind, and therefore meaningless.
It’s a divide and conquer tactic. Split them apart by making them doubt each other (and/or their own judgement), and attack them individually and mercilessly. The desperation now on show is amazing to behold. Feels like the end-game is upon us.
My most sincere best regards to Dr Soon to keep up the good work
Reblogged this on Norah4you's Weblog and commented:
Dr. Willie soon might be right and Aran commenting below article might be wrong or vice versa. That’s not the point. The point is that sound Science always acknowledge that God is God and Man is Man, no matter if the scientist believe in God or not.
In the words Human is Human and not without faults and defects the essense of Science is shown: If you believe in a human produced thesis, remember that others not beliving same way as you has same rights as you do and are worth same as you. It’s by using sound Science methods and valid arguments, not Fallacies, You show that you are a scientist. Not by using Ad Hoc, Ad Hominem and even worse.
AWG-believers no matter if they believe in God or not forgotten all that. They also forgotten that:
In Theories of Science it’s never ever possible to prove a thesis right. Only to falsify a thesisTheories of Science – Basic knowledge
That those who made AWG their faith forgotten first paragraph in Human Rights is obvious.
Article 1.
All human beings are born free and equal in dignity and rights. They are endowed with reason and conscience and should act towards one another in a spirit of brotherhood.
not to mention that they forgotten or never acknowledged/understood
Thou shalt have no other gods before me
God have never chosen Man to be God. God never selected a group of Scientists to be the only one understanding anything. AWG is a political neither a sound Science belief nor a “gift” given by God to Humans who believe themselves to be above others. Why shouldn’t every human who really believe in God at least try to understand God’s words?
“Aran
March 2, 2015 at 8:06 pm
Personally I don’t care about his non-disclosure, but I can imagine his employer does.”
Are you saying you think Dr Soon mislead the Smithsonian? That they were his employers and were unaware his work was being funded by Southern Company?
Yes, apparently, The Smithsonian was unaware that they were paying Dr. Soon with “tainted” money. You see, they failed to disclose to themselves that they had contracted with Southern and were thus unaware of the conflict.
Mark
It would be difficult for them to be unaware, given that they receive the grant money, take 40% off the top, and then administer the rest to Dr. Soon.
Like many posting on this subject you are mistaken about what is being investigated.
The statement by the Smithsonian reads:
“The Smithsonian is conducting inquiries to address the allegations that Dr. Wei-Hock (Willie) Soon failed to disclose to journals the funding sources for his climate change research.”
The Smithsonian of course knows the source of Soon’s funding since they co-signed the application and charged overhead on it. However the Smithsonian doesn’t require pre-approval of journal publications and so would be unaware of whether Soon had complied with the journals publication policies.
Thank you, Dr Soon for staying the course and being a voice of true science in a sea of irrational and highly biased emotion.
Ya, know, Anthony? It was so COOL of you to publish Dr. Soon’s statement. It is really a shame that this thread, so full of what might have been very encouraging to a true hero, has been polluted by jerks like Aran.
Suggestion: How about creating an edited version (not to publish on WUWT) and sending it to Dr. Soon? Anyone previewing what he reads off the internet would have to recommend that he not read this thread in the polluted state it is in. Yes, the thread is FINE (well done, Anthony, for allowing such freedom of speech!) for a blog thread, but, not for Willie Soon, someone who has had more than enough unfair criticism thrown at him.
No Janice, too much editing (adjustments) going on elsewhere,…lets not start that here !!
Do you honestly think Dr Soon will be upset by the intellectual prowess of Aran ???
You could do a count of numbers for & against….count me in for ‘unfettered science Soon’.
Or how about starting a petition ‘Hands off our Willie’ !!!
Both sides get there say, here, though, Janice.
There’s a story I heard once. A visiting dignitary picked up a newspaper in the white house and read all sorts of vicious, personal attacks on Pres. Jefferson. He asked him why such things were allowed. Jefferson is said to have responded, keep the paper, and if anyone questions the reality of American freedom of the press, show them this paper — and tell them where you found it.
1saveenergy and, even moreso, evanmjones,
Next time (ahem)… please read ALL of my comment before rebuking me. I did NOT advocate editing what would remain, as is, PUBLISHED on WUWT:
“… an edited version not to publish on WUWT … Yes, the thread is FINE (well done Anthony for allowing such freedom of speech!) ….” me at 8:28pm yesterday.
The edited version was only for a little gift of encouragement to Dr. Soon.
I thought it would be encouraging to Dr. Soon to read the POSITIVE comments without the troll slime oozing amongst them. Of COURSE he could only shake his head in disgust at their dullness, but filling one’s mind with MORE criticism when one has had far too much of it already is not healthy. Thus, he will likey miss out on all the positive for he likely won’t read this thread at all. OKAY, he may not have been likely to in the first place, but, with the troll slime, he almost certainly never going to be encouraged by it.
Just wanted to clarify because others reading your responses and not reading my original comment might think I advocate censorship.
That wasn’t a rebuke, Janice.
I know that you would not endorse deleting comments.
I do want those who disagree to feel free to comment here.
Dr. Soon….your integrity matches your honesty. Your science speaks for itself.