500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon – Guess Smithsonian's answer

Guest essay by H. Sterling BurnettWillie SoonMore than 500 scientists, colleagues, and friends of Willie Soon, Ph.D. signed a letter sent, along with accompanying supporting documents, to the Smithsonian Institution’s Board of Regents defending the award-winning solar physicist against false allegations he failed to disclose conflicts of interest in publications requiring such admissions. The letter notes Soon, a researcher at the Smithsonian Astrophysical Observatory, part of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, has for a quarter of a century strictly followed Harvard-Smithsonian’s conflict of interest guidelines.

The letter was authored by Lord Christopher Monckton, David Legates, Ph.D., and statistician William Briggs, who had co-authored with Soon a highly popular study in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. As the popularity and media coverage of the Science Bulletin article grew, mainstream media outlets began to publish years-old false allegations fed to them by a Greenpeace staffer. Rather than leaping to Soon’s defense, the Smithsonian said it was launching an investigation.

No investigation or waffling on the part of the Smithsonian was warranted. The Smithsonian itself had negotiated all the contracts in question under the condition the funder’s identity was not to be published, and all the money went directly to the Smithsonian, who then paid Soon out of the grants. The Smithsonian’s internal policies assured no conflict of interest. As the letter from Monckton et al. states, “The only papers in which Soon had not disclosed his funders’ identity were those papers covered by that contractual obligation of confidentiality, for which obligation the Smithsonian, not Soon, was entirely responsible.”

The Smithsonian’s failure to respond swiftly and appropriately to quash the allegations of impropriety further harmed Soon’s reputation.

To rectify this situation, the letter’s authors and signatories requested United States Chief Justice John Roberts begin independent investigations into the Smithsonian’s possible malfeasance. By the Smithsonian’s charter, the sitting Chief Justice is an ex-officio member of its Board of Regents. The letter specifically requests:

We now ask you –

1. To instruct the Inspector-General of the Smithsonian to investigate the co-authors’ findings (pages 3–4) and the evidence in support of the findings (pages 5–14) as part of his investigation of this matter;

2. To investigate Dr Alcock’s malicious and dishonest interview (overleaf) with the Chronicle of Higher Education; his refusal to make any correction of his falsehoods upon request by Dr Soon and separately by Dr Soon’s lead author; and his failure to forward to the Smithsonian’s general counsel the lead author’s freedom of information request;

3. To request the Attorney-General of Massachusetts to investigate those aspects of the conduct of the Smithsonian in general and of Dr Alcock in particular that constitute a criminal campaign of intentional, connected and co-ordinated deceptions, persisted in despite requests to cease and desist and, therefore, intended to cause not only reputational harm but also financial loss to Dr Soon; and

4. If the report’s findings be found in substance correct, to order the Smithsonian to apologize publicly to Dr Soon and to make just and full restitution to him for the loss and damage it and its senior management have intentionally caused.

Disappointingly, there has been no response to the letter from the Smithsonian. Shame on them.

SOURCE: Petition to Harvard-Smithsonian in Defense of Willie Soon

Advertisements

113 thoughts on “500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon – Guess Smithsonian's answer

  1. “… To rectify this situation, the letter’s authors and signatories requested United States Chief Justice John Roberts begin independent investigations into the Smithsonian’s possible malfeasance.”
    I am more interested in the response, if any, of John Roberts on this matter. We all know that the Smithsonian Institution did a political hit on Dr. Soon and they are not inclined to admit that over a letter even if 500 people did sign it. Ah, but a Chief Justice getting involved, now that might get their attention.

    • Well it seems that Chief Justice Roberts of the SCOTUS, has difficulties in simply reading his way through the US Constitution; so I wouldn’t look to him for any relief for beleaguered Dr. Willie Soon.
      There may have been bigger disappointments in Supreme Court appointments that John Roberts; but offhand I can’t quite bring a name to mind.
      At least with Sotomayer, and Kagan, we all knew what we were about to receive, and have they delivered !!
      So don’t count on the Supremes for anything.

      • Unfortunately, there have been a LOT of activist SCOTUS Justices who were & are willing to lie flagrantly about the Constitution and laws, to “legislate from the bench,” producing infamously dishonest decisions like Dred Scott, Wickard v. Filburn, Schempp v. Abington School District, Griswald vs. Connecticut, Roe v. Wade, and now Obergefell v. Hodges.
        Douglas was Democrat, so it’s not surprising that he was awful. Almost all Justices appointed by Democrats have been just awful (except Justice White, on good days). So, discussing only Justices appointed by Republicans…
        These Justices were all MUCH worse than Roberts: Brennan & Warren (who Ike called his two biggest mistakes as President), Blackmun, Powell, Stevens & Souter.
        Also very disappointing were Stewart, Burger, O’Connor & Kennedy, but only at about the “Roberts level.”

    • According to the Loony Left every PhD who’s studies disagree with the IPCC is taking vast sums from the Koch brothers or their corporations. Looks like the Supremes may have a very busy season.

    • Once again, the consensus is wrong, and substitutes politics for facts. The fact is that Soon did no wrong, but who cares about facts when they can be ignored or disappeared when they’re too inconvenient, right?

    • Lol, the 500 have real credentials. The list of yours is probably full of high school drop outs who are currently flipping burgers or sweeping chimneys. But that doesn’t matter that number will soon be 8 billion signatures after NOAA gets ahold of the data.

      • credentials? give me a break… because a lot of them sure aren’t climate science…here’s a snapshot from https://www.heartland.org/sites/default/files/soon-regents-without.pdf
        Trevor Urlwin, BA (Hons.) Psych —a bachelors in Psychology
        Petter Tuvnes, MSc, Physical Metallurgy — a maters in metal work
        Michael Seward, B.Eng. Naval Architecture — a bachelors in Engineering
        John Kundrat, MD, FACS, Board Certified in Ophthalmology — “Ophthalmology is the branch of medicine that deals with the anatomy, physiology and diseases of the eye”

      • Bevan, The accusations against Soon were of a legal nature. AHEM climate scientists have as much credibility as burger flippers.
        The list that Jared references attests to Soon’s character. By professionals, Your list is merely an ignorant mob trying to overthrow the law based on on their shallow wants.
        michael

    • The 500 were scientists and acquaintances of Dr. Soon’s. The 24000 are net trolls, such as yourself.

    • LIke college freshman with work-study jobs, assistants, advocates with honorary titles, and such. We have seen your list.

      • Marty Feldman- lol!
        “More than 500 scientists, colleagues, and friends…”
        I wonder how many of that 500 are “scientists”- my guess is not very many. Names please. If you’re citing Christopher Monkton as a “scientist” you’re already scraping the bottom of the barrel…

      • Joel D. Jackson +1, thank you for that video, I had always thought from reading Wattsupwiththat, that the viscount was a legitimate scientist.

      • Siberian Husky July 17, 2015 at 5:55 pm
        “Names please” Yeah, “please oh please names please”, sigh just another beggar looking for a handout.
        Nope sorry can’t, would be just like giving a bum money; feeding your addiction
        michael

    • Perhaps a reminder to YOU Bevan, as well as the rest of us, on all sides, of all issues.
      “Thomas More: …And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned around on you–where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country’s planted thick with laws from coast to coast–man’s laws, not God’s–and if you cut them down…d’you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake.”
      ― Robert Bolt, A Man for All Seasons
      michael

    • the 97% consensus is that Soon needs to go

      Yep, you are right, How else can you maintain a 97% consensus on this climate change nonsense unless you eliminate all real scientists from the consensus? Climate science makes Russian elections look credible.
      BTW, care to explain how methane has a dipole, considering a dipole is a necessity for it to be a green house gas?

      • “Some molecules with polar bonds have no dipole moment. The C-H bonds are only slightly polar but there is no overall dipole moment in CH4 because the 4 bond dipoles cancel each other…Carbon dioxide has no dipole moment because the the two bond dipoles cancel. “

        CO2 and CH4 are have structures that make them very weak GHGs. H20 clearly is the GHG most likely do trap IR radiation because its natural state is a bipole. CO2 also is only excited by IR between 13 and 17 microns. That range doesn’t even cover temperatures above 0 Degree C.
        http://butane.chem.uiuc.edu/pshapley/GenChem1/L15/web-L15.pdf

      • “What does that have to do with the contents of the letter?”

        Just pointing out just how nonsensical this Climate Science it. They ignore even the most basic principles to make their nonsense to seem plausible. If your “science” is founded on such a pile of sand, you have to destroy anyone that is a real scientists. No real scientist would support such garbage.
        Here is just another example. This chart is deliberately made deceptive by putting the earth’s radiation at close to the absorption of CO2. The chart is clearly labeled 255 Degree K. 255 Degree K is -18 degree C. The average temp of the earth isn’t even close to -18 degree C. This “science” uses such deceitful and deceptive tactics. It is a disgrace to real science.
        http://www.ozcoasts.gov.au/indicators/images/oze_fs_009_04.gif

    • Once again, consensus means nothing :either he did wrong, or he didn’t. 97% of the world’s population could agree that you’re an idiot; will you concede if they do? Your comment is proof enough.

    • this is the problem with academics . in the real world, someone would have punched someone else in the face by now, and it would have been resolved.
      i know all you clever types are above the physical stuff, but really, some people need to grow a set of balls 🙂

    • Yes Soon needs to go because it has exposed the scam that your religion is based on, Troll!!

    • Most of those 23,800 aren’t scientists, and the text encouraging them to sign flagrantly misstated the facts, to trick people into singing who wouldn’t do so if they knew the truth.

    • And I know a number of people wanted to outright lynch a certain Lacrosse team ten years ago for alleged gang-rape. The entire team was suspended and the coach fired in the uproar. Of course then it came out that there was no evidence to support (and a lot of evidence contrary to) the accusations that ran through the media. It went so far that the district attorney was disbarred over the whole event.
      There is a reason we don’t go with mob justice. The mob is easily swayed by facts that aren’t precisely (or at all) true.
      In this case, the accusations case are clearly fanciful and arguably libellous. As the Viscount put it, the Smithsonian itself is the negotiatory and Soon was abiding by the contract that was made for him. In the worst interpretation based in fact, he could be possibly accused of forgetful or overconservative in disclosure. However, I see nothing other than him fulfilling the obligations laid out in his contracts. This certain isn’t hiding a conflict of interest.

  2. Wouldn’t it be better if we all sent letters to the appropriate members in congress to lift the funding for the Smithsonian for acting in a political manner?
    bring them before congress to explain their action.

    • Dr Soon needs to sue them for intentional/with malice defamation of character and ask for substantial monies due to damages of his professional stature. The letter produced by the regent was a bald face lie and she knew or should have known that it was, along with the process of grant funding at the Smithsonian. The new letter by Soon’s supporters places them on notice, legally, that they can and will be sued! The letter gives them an honorable way out, but will they take it?

    • Willie might want to talk to Mark Steyn before filing suit in DC, or for that matter, anywhere.

      I would imagine that this would be much easier and cut and dry than M Steyn’s suit. If the Smithsonian does have a contract and policy in place, there isn’t much more to it than reading the relevant papers. Did the Smithsonian follow the proper procedures consistent with the contract. If they did, why was Dr Soon treated differently, and why didn’t the person that administer the policy speak up? Why is Dr Soon left to defend a Smithsonian Policy and Contract? That should be over in a day.

  3. An answer was expected? The Chief Justice of the US Supreme Court is expected to order and investigation?
    Time to come back down to earth folks, never gonna happen… unfortunately. It’ll take a miracle for that to happen. And, I think miracles are going to be in short supply based on the Pope’s position on CAGW.

    • You have to exhaust all non-legal routes before filing suit. As Roberts is on the board, then this is a step in Soon’s defense. If Roberts does nothing, then Soon has exhausted all possibilities and can file suit against his employer for breach of contract or whatever else the lawyers can conjur up.

  4. My response was simple. I am not renewing my membership after 30 years. If enough people do this, or cancel, Smithsonian may get a clue.

  5. Why would the Smithsonian answer? This could, although unlikely, theoretically end up in a lawsuit. If an answer is forthcoming, it will be from their lawyers and there will be no more answers until after a process server shows up at the Smithsonian. That’s the way it works.
    As Bevan points out above, they’ve already got 23,000+ dupes, including himself presumably, to believe their pernicious crap enough to sign their POS document.

    • Well Phil, let’s get a petition going on some of the sceptic and luke warmers sites if it is quantity, rather than quality, that is so important to them. Even though it would be a waste of time. Who gives a crappola how many idiots sign something. Dr. Soon needs to file a lawsuit in civil court against the Smithsonian and the individuals involved. If he needs some financial support perhaps some people here would kick in a few $. I will, if he agrees to pursue it.
      Someone ask Dr. Soon if he would file with some help, please. Get this thing out in the open and out of the way.

      • “Well Phil, let’s get a petition going on some of the sceptic and luke warmers sites if it is quantity, rather than quality, that is so important to them. Even though it would be a waste of time. Who gives a crappola how many idiots sign something.”
        It’s like the comedy writes itself.

      • “The punishment is in the process!”
        Read up on M Mann against Mark Steyn: five years in and still no conclusion.
        Very deep pockets needed. Smithsonian has the money to drag things out for many years.

      • Speaking of lawsuits, how’s the Mann vs Steyn case coming along? Seems it’s been dragging along for several years now. Still a long way from “out in the open and out of the way”.

  6. I think its great that Dr. Willie Soon has such support from friends. I would think if the claims are true, and I am not suggesting they are not, that suing the Smithsonian would be in order.

  7. And Steve Mosher likes to tell skeptics “do your own damn science”. In this environment?

  8. Perhaps they need an English to American translation? I’d hate to accuse them of being too lazy or ignoring the letter.

    • this is how ‘climate scientists’ gain their credentials these days, so you dont really need to hire the useful idiots, they just do it for training purposes.
      there are whole classes of students just waiting to learn the latest smear tactics. of course ‘climate science’ really has nothing to do with politics hehe..

  9. I would gift Dr. Soon some money for legal action. The miracle will be just how cold it gets as the sun slumbers along. There are cold and snow events happening in both hemispheres rights now, ice gains happening both poles, the probability of the big Paris Climate Change policy / treaty bamboozle being pounded with snow and frigid temps just might signal a climate change of the cooling kind. But will they head such a signal? Nah, CAGW is a perfect boogieman, they will be crying CAGW until fifty years out with major glaciation occurring. It’s much worse than we thought!

  10. As for the SNOT that posted Lord Mockton’s “oblique” quote about a “device” that cured him, and said it could cure a “variety of diseases”…I suspect he’s referring to the Rife Ray device. The Rife Ray device is actually a “low grade Maser” which puts out a spread of microwave emissions. They are modulated by straight AM modulation, and various frequencies exist which can cause selective of say, Malaria protozoa, lyme’s disease bacteria, and their are indications it can be used on “selective” human cancer cells with well defined characteristics (coming from the source type of cells of the cancer.) As to the overall efficacy of a Rife Ray device (others term for it, I personally despise that term as it implies a “mystery” which need not be there, I highly recommend reading this paper: http://www.mpikg.mpg.de/rl/P/archive/278.pdf Note: Giant Vesicles are simulated cell walls. There are a variety of people who have built contemporanous versions of the Rife Ray, and there are plenty of videos, primarly in dark field microscopy and of Protozoa, to take advantage of size, which show them Porating (as in the well known “electroporation” mode) and self destructing under the influence of the low grade (power) modulated microwaves of various forms of the
    Rife Ray device.

    • PS: The posting of the short video is purely an attempt at Character assassination. I’d much rather see
      a reasoned and detailed critique of any or all of Lord M’s published papers.

      • no problem…here is a very detailed critique of one of Monktons papers: http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11434-015-0806-z
        The Monckton model does not match observed temperatures, and consistently underestimates them:
        http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/files/2015/06/Richardson_Hausfather_Nuccitelli_Rice_Abraham_2015_On_Monckton_EtAl.png
        which is also explained in simpler terms here
        http://scienceblogs.com/gregladen/2015/06/02/bad-climate-science-debunked/

      • Bevin, actually Monctons model comes in just slightly cooler than the “observed” and not by much, while clearing out the noise. So please provide a more accurate model which doesn’t fall to pieces a decade from now. It’s nice that you care enough to let us pick you apart.

      • Siberian Husky, don’t listen to the jealous whimpering of the alarmists. You’ll just get sucked into their tirades. I feel like you may somehow be smart enough to do quick comparison using your eyes by just looking at the graphic Bevin posted. In seconds you will discover something, but you have to stare at them for a second and rid yourself of your dogma. When you’re finished with that bit of fun. Post again

      • Siberian Husky; are you really proficient in Mandarin? You know to spot all those errors.
        also are there not over a billion Chinese?
        Very bold of you to insult their journal . “May you live in exciting times”
        michael

      • While I share your assessment of the video’s posting, you haven’t been paying attention if you think there’s been no reasoned critique of any of Lord Monckton’s papers.
        Anyone who has even a nodding acquaintance with the theory of control systems can recognize that in their irreducibly-simple-model paper he, Dr. Soon, and their co-authors had wandered in over their depth.
        In their Equation (1) Monckton et al. purport to be able to compute the response of a time-invariant system having memory by treating it as a memoryless system having a time-varying gain equal to the time-invariant system’s unit-step response. To control-systems types, this is like saying you can get the product of two numbers by taking their sum: it almost never works. As a consequence, the paper’s worked examples can be shown to be off by a factor of three or more.
        And that’s just the start of the paper’s problems.

      • Bevan, Hadcrut and BEST? Compare instead with UAH and RSS, admittedly with issues on their own, but nowhere close to the surface based data sets. CIMP5? Is that a joke? Also, the most important is really the rate. Monckton et al. seems to do a pretty good job when it comes to that.

      • Joe Born I don’t think there has been a paper written that does not have problems with it. Or someone disagreeing with it. People need to stop treating them like the “sermon on the mount”.
        For example I am I Layman, yet of all the papers and abstracts I have read this week’ I not found one that was (to Me ) flawless. But I also saw great value in almost all of them
        If nothing else they spark debate, questions, this is a good thing even if in the end, you disagree with the whole thesis of the paper.
        michael

      • I don’t think there has been a paper written that does not have problems with it.

        Well, okay then. We’ll just have to retract all the unkind things we said about Michael Mann’s papers.

      • I agree with the critiques but for different reasons. We do not have accurate measures of solar insolation in the equatorial band that would tell us how much energy is coming in or being kept out of the oceans. This missing information, if we had it, interpolated with what we know and have measured related to ENSO distribution of stored heat either staying mixed in or evaporated out would be a better model than either those used for AR reports or M’s papers. Short term ENSO models do in fact use some of this information but long term AR models do not, or don’t do it well. But even if they did, predicting the strength of long term oscillations is one thing but predicting the timing is a poor bet assumption that the random walk of climate will oscillate at a certain time and place.

  11. The grubbiness of the CfA is for all to see. However, what will become of the petition to the Chief Justice if all attempts, to date, to restore Dr. Soon’s honour and reputation have been simply ignored?
    One must also retain a sense of humour and I did chuckle at seeing the signatory:
    Snorre Naess, dog-sled builder.

  12. OK here’s a great idea, if someone write a letter in support of Willy Soon then attack one of the letter writers, don’t take on any of the content of the letter, that would be too hard. That is what I Would do if my name was Benan.

    • I am an experienced business lawyer, and It sounds to me like a very straightforward legal matter in which Dr. Soon is wholly in the right. So the number of lay opinions to the contrary is simply irrelevant. Dr. Soon should get an attorney, send appropriate demand letter(s), and prepare to sue the wrongdoers….

  13. Of course, who funds Willie Soon or Micheal Mann is irrelevant. It is their intellectual diligence and transparency. Why just today It is reported at Fox News that Gina McCarthy said,
    “The EPA totally supports both transparency as well as a strong peer-reviewed independent science process, but the bill I’m afraid I don’t think will get us there, I don’t actually need the raw data in order to develop science, that’s not how it’s done. … I do not know of what value raw data is to the general public.” 
    Now I assume that she’s not an I idiot, so that leaves something worse, that she considers us all idiots. How else could she make such a statement?
    Sorry McCarthy, but there are many contributors on the blog, including Mr. Moncton (ahem, Bevan, where are your contributions) that can run rings around you in their sleep. We demand raw data and the methods used to reach conclusions when you use it to justify policy!

  14. You just gotta love the attacks on Lord Monchton. They attack the man and totally ignore the crap produced by the real climate scientists. What a joke. How about you smearmongers that are attacking Lord Monchton defending the complete and utter failure of the IPCC models. Your personal attacks are a clear effort to distract the real issues at hand. Here, defend this:
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628×353.jpg

  15. Joel D. Jackson
    July 17, 2015 at 5:40 pm
    The viscount reminds me of Marty Feldman
    THAT’S BECAUSE HE HAS THE SAME MALADIE YOU ASSHOLE.

  16. It seems to me as if the evil-minded, bad-mannered Trolls are very very much concerned about this petition. Else they wouldn’t kick up such a fuss. So, Lord Monckton was perfectly right once again, and the narrow-minded don’t like that either.

    • ” very very much concerned about this petition”
      nope, just so funny when you have 500 people in support of Soon, 20 000+ calling for the Smithsonian to drop him, and all the commentators on here are calling everything that moves a fraud or a conspirac y

      • …20 000+ calling for the Smithsonian to drop him…

        So, then let us know who they are. I am awaiting a complete list with their names.

      • Hey, where are your 20 000+ cowards supporters? Nameless and shamefully hiding in the depths of the oceans or just ghosts from the rooms of your deformed phantasy?

  17. It seems to me as if the evil-minded, bad-mannered Trolls are very very much concerned about this petition. Else they wouldn’t kick up such a fuss. So, Lord Monckton was perfectly right once again, and the narrow-minded don’t like that either.

    The sooner everyone accepts that Climate “Science” is a complete and utter fraud, the more effective we will be fighting it. The absurdity of the Warmists attacking Dr Soon demonstrates a hypocrisy on an epic scale. The warmists violate every commonly accepted practice demanded in every real field of science. Climate “Science” makes some of the social sciences look credible, and is best categories as Propaganda or Political Science, certainly not a physical science as they would like to make it. They attack Dr Soon for funding. Nearly 100% of the Warmists are funded by organizations that are pushing CO2 as the cause of the warming. Warmists are paid to prove that CO2 is the cause, they are not paid to explain the climate as it truly is. That is why 100% of their research included some nonsensical claim of CO2. Hot water being formed by an undersea volcano can melt an arctic ice sheet and the report will claim it is due to CO2. When you are perpetrating such a fraud you have to attack the critics, just like the Wizard of Oz had to prevent people from looking behind the curtain. The mob just like Warmists know “dead men tell no tales.” It is infinitely easier to win a debate when you eliminate the person that can defeat you so you never have to debate the issue. Warmists lead Witch Hunts, they don’t debate. That is a clear sign that they have something to hide. The reality of their “science” is what they are scared of. They know they have models that are a complete joke and that they really can’t demonstrate that CO2 is the cause of warming. They know that their models will prove to be more and more nonsensical with each passing year. They know the data produced by these “scientists” totally exonerate CO2. The problem is CO2 has to be the cause if the Marxists are going to use Government regulations and laws to implement their income redistribution scheme. You don’t fund the crony capitalism based Green Economy unless you can loot the oil, coal and gas industry. To loot that industry, now that the leftists have exhausted all their tobacco money, CO2 has to be the cause. That is the basis of CO2, CO2 is the source of funding the Leftist need to fund their social agenda. It is that simple. After CO2 will be Soda, Fast Food, they will revoke the Tax Free Status of Conservative Churches and organizations that disagree with them, etc etc. The need to loot is a never ending cycle for Leftist organizations. What the Free Market won’t provide on its own, that being a free lunch, the leftist will always have to resort to looting. It is that simple. So, each time a Warmist attacks the claims of a real scientist, simply point our the hypocricy and demand that they defend the work of the Warmists. You simply don’t find a better example of crap than what the Warmists have already produced. Climate “science” is one giant pile of manure, and they know it. Don’t take my word for it, would you like to defend spending trillions of dollars, ruining countless lives and industries all based upon this pile of crap? I wouldn’t, and neither do the Warmists. Simply make them defend these results and we will eventually win the battle to make the truth known.
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628×353.jpg

    • why are you showing mid-troposphere temperature estimates from a satellite data set that has a huge number of adjustments made to it and isn’t even close to a true-measurement or anything???

      • And the radiosondes??? If the satellite data is that bad, how come the balloon data agrees with the satellites and not with the models?
        The simple inescapable fact is that Roy Spencer’s graph shows the models fail against two independent measures, not one.

  18. Exactly so, this letter is a shot across the bow. Next, and there will be a next, is legal action. I’m looking forward to it.

    This may be Climate “Science’s” Waterloo. I’ve always argued that the only way the climate “science” fraud can continue is if they can keep people from looking behind the curtain and discovering that nothing but a pile of crap is supporting all the claims against CO2. Once it goes to court, many questions can be asked, the hypocrisy can be exposed. Warmist would argue that CO2 is causing an arctic ice sheet to melt, a real scientist would argue that it is the volcano beneath the ice sheet that is melting it. I’m pretty sure there would be a consensus of voting tax payers that it is the volcano that is melting the ice. A simple graph of the IPCC models would result in a consensus of tax paying voters that beyond a reasonable doubt that the climate “scientists” have perpetrated a fraud upon the American people and looted the treasury for their own arrogance and avarice. Let’s get ready to Ruuuuummmmbbbbbllllleeeee!!!!!! Now jury on the face of the earth will side with the warmists once this chart is provided them…and the warmints know it.
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/07/spencer-models-epic-fail2-628×353.jpg

  19. For news of such deadly import as this, it is dismaying to watch both sides deteriorate into a sniper’s war of ad homs.
    Firstly, it doesn’t matter whether Monkton or (say) Naomi Klein are ‘real’ ‘scientists’. This path leads to sterility, ending up as ‘Who’s the Pope’s (or president’s etc.) favourite?’. Scientists are not priests. A cat may look at a queen. Hypotheses can be based on dreams (example: Kekule dreamed the structure of the crystal).
    What matters is the quality of the argument: how well does it predict? All hypotheses are underdetermined by the evidence. All hypotheses are subject to possible technological failure – e.g.., lack of precision or failure of measuring equipment such as cameras etc.
    The failure of AGW to predict is its greatest weakness, and needs to be addressed urgently by those who hold this view. Its technological failures also need addressing – e.g. satellite vs. thermometer, depth gauges vs. buoys (etc.). The silence on these and related matters is deafening. (in fairness, a series of ad hoc plasters are now being put over some of the holes; but these can do nothing to rescue a deteriorating paradigm which is held to be true as a matter of faith)
    However, there is a second ‘Marxist’ consideration, which to a large extent rests on money insofar as it facilitates power. The oil companies’ involvement in AGW is huge, as is the taxpayer contribution. The role of British Petroleum in financing the Hadley Climate Research Unit is a matter of public knowledge. Examples could be multiplied; however all this proves is that when powerful religious ideas grip the ruling elite, no organisation or person can escape its wrath. BP is the monkey, not the organ grinder.
    So here is the nub of the problem: Any successful counter-argument must implicitly incorporate AGW as the greatest scientific fraud in history (with the possible exception of Lysenko in the USSR). It is not a scientific theory which should be under examination; this has been weighed and found wanting. It is a sociological account of power, which, unlike the Soon witch-hunt, attempts to tell the truth based on all relevant evidence.

  20. I find this whole thing bizarre. I am amazed anyone thinks this calls soons work into question. You really need to grasp at straws to believe that. He failed to release info that his employer purposely blocked him from due to confidentiality? Doh! The work either stands on its own merit or not. Attempts to discredit someone in this manner should instead call into question the intents of those pointing at Soon. Further any attempts to discredit anyones work should be based on the work in question.
    Its a brave new world.

    • You hit the nail on the head. This is nothing but a smear campaign that has absolutely nothing to do wtih the quality of Soon’s scientific work. And Smithsonian, remaining in enigmatic silence, thus contributes and even supports that ad-hominem attack. That’s shabby and mischievous. Who will be the next scientist Smithsonian is going to play dirty games with?

    • At the very worst, all I can see is an accusation of slopiness from Soon. Anyone I know who has actually asked what happened ended up asking “is that it?” Even the pro-warmists I know tend to be baffled by the whole thing. The question is always raised, “well, did he falsify anything?” and no evidence is brought up to support that.
      In the end, I think that this may end up hurting the warmists. If their strongest argument is that one of their antagonists didn’t put funding sources down, it’s a pretty blatant ad-hominem, even if it were true. “Pounding on the table” in the old legal adage. It LOOKS like a witch hunt or a heretic burning from almost any perspective, which leads people to question “if this is their strongest point, what does the rest of their argument look like”.
      In depth investigation is our best weapon agains alarmism.

  21. BTW, any 1st year Econometrics student could diagnose the problem with these models. Clearly:
    1) They have a mis-specified model where an insignificant variable is made significant, and the independent variable (temperature) is made the dependent variable.
    2) They are clearly modeling a non-linear variable (temperature) with a linear variable (CO2). That is why CO2 continued higher, the models continued higher, and the observations flat lined.
    3) They have an underspecified model that is missing the most significant variables, ie solar, H2O, albedo, etc etc.
    4) There is an extreme level of group think in the climate community, resulting in them all forming relatively similar and relatively wrong models. These charts represent a wild goose chase, a CO2 Witch Hunt, where the conclusion, CO2, was reached before the model was created, so they all made the same mistake. They focused on CO2. That represents a bias, not science.
    5) Simply running a simple regression on CO2 and Temperature will expose the flaw in their theory. Running a “Stepwise” regression analysis will discover the true drivers of the climate, and I’m 100% certain CO2 won’t be one of the most significant variables in any model developed by an unbiased computer.
    6) Given that a computer can prove the CO2 theory pure nonsense as I’ve described above, I would work to keep this “science” out of the courts if I were a warmist.
    http://www.cfact.org/wp-content/uploads/2013/11/90-climate-temperature-models-v-observatons-628×353.jpg

    • 7) They cherry picked an unusual and unrepresentative short time period when CO2 and Temperature did correlate relatively well to establish the relationships. They modeled a coincidence, not a causative correlation. Had they used the entire 600,000 year history of CO2 and Temperature data their models would have failed before they started. Not only did they model a coincidence, they created a model similar to lung-cancer causes smoking. They reversed the Y and Xs.

  22. There is no doubt that Dr Willie Soon has been defamed. Forget the Smithsonian. Dr Soon should just go to Court and we will all contribute to his legal fees.

  23. The point of the letter centers on ill-willed gate keeping and unwarranted, unthinking, hurried response. Not okay in my book. Dr. Soon has just as much right to produce a piece of crap as does any other climate scientist. If journals accept it, fine. Doesn’t mean we the consuming public, including other scientists, have to accept its validity and reliability. We have the right, indeed the duty to scrutinize the research. But the issue here isn’t that the work was poorly done. The issue is by what evidence was the response by the institution based on? Seems reasonable that the evidence was pie crust thin and fragile. Dr. Soon has a right to that answer. He does not, and I don’t think claims, to have the right to block criticism of his science.

  24. reliable: the Joe Born’s pavlowic reacting to the ‘irreducibly-simple-model’ running on pocket calculators.
    blindly shadow fighting the very satire of themselves:
    with their SuperComputers CO2 commands Virtual Climate Reality unreasonable exaggerating temperature trends.
    ____
    so the irreducibly-simple-model must violate basic settled sciences when diverting from the dogma.
    ____
    Why costly models anyway: the solutions are preterminated.
    Hans

  25. These attacks on Dr. Soon and others are nothing more than an internet, modern day version of book burning and witch burning.
    They can’t find fault with the “book” so they try to burn the “witch”.
    Whether in the context of science or freedom of speech and religion, Pitiful.

Comments are closed.