Alarums And Excursions

Guest Post hosted by Willis Eschenbach.

My friend Dr. Willie Soon is both a charming man and a most courageous scientist, who has taken a lot of heat for his principled stands on climate issues. He recently wrote a piece about climate alarmism along with Kesten Green and J. Scott Armstrong which deserves much wider circulation, which WUWT is glad to provide.

the sky is falling

My thanks to Drs. Green, Armstrong and Soon for the following important analysis.


 

Alarming Climate: Expert opinions and government funding versus scientific forecasting

Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon

July 14, 2017

On June 17, we and our co-authors received a response to our letter to MIT President, Professor Reif, raising concerns about his letter to the MIT community in support of the Paris Climate Accord. Professor Reif’s response stated that he was confident in his position on the issue because it is consistent with the beliefs of experts that implementation of the Paris Accord is necessary to save the world from harmful effects of man-made global warming. We are not reassured.

Not only have leading experts expressed directly opposing beliefs—including MIT’s own Professor Lindzen, and Princeton’s Professor Dyson—Professor Reif’s argument by authority runs counter to conclusions from decades of research on the value of expert opinions about what will happen in the future. They are no more accurate than those of non-experts and—for complex situations particularly—neither is much better than guessing.

The first review of the literature on expert opinion forecasts was published in MIT’s Technology Review under the title “The Seer-Sucker Theory: The Value of Experts in Forecasting” (Armstrong 1980). Many other studies have supported that review’s conclusion that expertise on a subject does not confer superior ability to see into the future. Tetlock’s (2005) landmark book, Expert Political Judgment, is notable.

The physical sciences are not immune. Not even when leading experts make predictions about the implications of their own work. For example, when Ernest Rutherford split the atom in 1933 he predicted that the energy released was too small to ever be of practical use. Albert Einstein concurred a year later, predicting that man would never be able to harness nuclear energy from shattering atoms.

Efforts in recent years to create alarm by promoting the hypothesis of dangerous man-made global warming as a scientific fact—and to thereby influence public policy—is not a new phenomenon. Scientists acting as advocates—in concert with lobbyists and politicians—have been responsible for at least 26 analogous environmentalist alarms in the past; most of them over the last 100 years.

Green and Armstrong (2011) found that all of the alarms were the product of an unscientific forecasting method: experts’ unaided judgment. All 26 turned out to be false alarms, which suggests a strong bias towards alarm. Governments took action in response to 23 of the alarms to no apparent benefit. Indeed, the policies and regulations implemented by governments were clearly harmful in the case of most (20) of the alarms.

Given the history of environmentalist alarms, it would be a surprise if the dangerous manmade global warming alarm were an exception. It isn’t, as Green and Armstrong (2007) showed. The IPCC’s temperature projections were the outcome of procedures that violated 81% of the scientific forecasting principles that the IPCC report provided sufficient information to rate.

Surprisingly, given the extraordinary level of research grant funding that has been thrown at the topic of climate change, we are aware of only one attempt to apply scientific (evidence-based) forecasting to long-term global temperatures. That effort at scientific forecasting resulted in the Green, Armstrong, and Soon (2009) no-change forecast. As the name implies, the no-change forecast gives no cause for alarm.

Our Green-Armstrong-Soon forecast of no-change in global average temperatures over the 21st Century is consistent with the state of knowledge on climate as described in the last paragraph of Section 14.2.2.2 in Chapter 14 of the IPCC Third Assessment Report. The report states: “In climate research and modeling, we should recognize that we are dealing with a coupled non-linear chaotic system, and therefore that the long-term prediction of future climate states is not possible.” In other words, the IPCC report authors believe that forecasting long-term trends in climate is impossible.

Readers might be excused for not being familiar with that statement of profound uncertainty about the climate. It was not included in the Summary Report for Policymakers given to the media and to political leaders.

The Green, Armstrong and Soon (2009) no-change forecast has been shown to be substantially more accurate than the IPCC dangerous manmade global warming projections (Green and Armstrong 2014). The longer the forecast horizon, the less accurate are the IPCC projections. For example, the IPCC projection errors were 12 times larger than those of the no-change forecast for horizons from 91 to 100 years ahead.

The IPCC’s climate modelers recently conceded that their projections of CO2-caused global warming have been at odds with measured temperatures over the 21st Century, which have shown no trend while atmospheric CO2 levels have continued to increase unabated. As the modelers quaintly put it: “Over most of the early twenty-first century… model tropospheric warming is substantially larger than observed” (Santer et al 2017). These facts should be sufficient to reject a hypothesis that has claims to being scientific.

The extraordinary 100% false alarm rate of environmental alarms raised by scientists (Green and Armstrong 2011) is not evidence of a failure of science, but of a failure of scientists to follow the scientific method. Scientists are subject to incentives and pressures that lead them away from following the scientific method, and to instead become advocates posing as scientists.

Most damagingly to science, scientists are rewarded for obtaining large research grants—especially from government. Governments do not fund blindly, they and their agents have political agendas. Rather than scientists as the experts in their fields deciding how they can best contribute to advancing knowledge, politicians, and bureaucrats determine what to research and how. Moreover, researchers are expected to deliver findings that are consistent with political objectives.

Warnings about the harm caused by governments becoming involved in science—such as President Eisenhower delivered in his Farewell Address in 1961—have been made for decades. In Armstrong and Green (2017), we provide solutions to the deterioration in the practice of science. Our solution is in the form of a checklist of Guidelines for Science that is based on the definition of science developed by Bacon, Newton, Franklin, and other pioneers of the scientific method.

We suggest that the practice of science could be saved from its deterioration into advocacy if universities used the checklist for choosing potential new hires and for rewarding current faculty on the basis of their contributions to useful knowledge. We hope that university presidents will show leadership by taking this important step in asserting independence for their scientists and reforming scientific practice.

 


 

Regards to all on a beautiful summer afternoon,

w.

PS—As always, when you comment please QUOTE THE EXACT WORDS THAT YOU ARE REFERRING TO, so we can all be clear as to precisely what you are discussing.

Advertisements

89 thoughts on “Alarums And Excursions

  1. RE: the cartoon used to illustrate the article.

    Of course the sky is falling.

    If it wasn’t falling, it would drift off into space and we would all suffocate. That would be bad. :)

  2. Well, the advocates of climate change have bills to pay and a lifestyle to live, so naturally they know which side of the bread is buttered.

  3. Thanks Willis for posting a very sane and worthwhile piece of work – wouldn’t it be great if we saw a lot more of this approach?

    • My thoughts exactly. A clear example of the kind of rational thought that one would expect from government in a democratic country. Imagine if foreign policy was conducted like this? Some of the clear statements from this post should be the subject of a presidential address that utterly refutes the AGW disaster and places it in the political theatre where it came from and where it provides political ammo going forward. Playing footsie with the enviroNazis gets us nowhere. Their premise for action is indefensible.

  4. The science has been so wrong for so long, there are many ‘climate scientists’ who will have a hard time accepting the fact that they’ve wasted their entire careers chasing something that can’t exist. The ultimate scientific truth could result in a lot of newly disenfranchised climate scientists resigning in disgrace or jumping off rooftops. The check list will be needed as this should open up a lot of opportunities for climate scientists who believe in the scientific method.

    • The science hasn’t been wrong, the practice of the method is what has been tortured. In the mad rush for notoriety and headlines most of the efforts have been presented “half-baked”. Unfortunately the notoriety that will be forthcoming will not be to the charlatans’ liking.

    • I’m not sure how you define “wasted”. Most of these charlatans turned a willful blind eye to reality while enjoying cushy jobs with tenure for less good to the human race than what is provided by every garbageman on the planet at half the cost! They should be prosecuted!

      • Hi, crackers345. I see you’re new here. I don’t know if, or how, co2isnotevil might reply to you, but the short version is: the wattsupwiththat blog is ten years’ worth of (usually) multiple posts per day, all detailing exactly how the science has been wrong. You’d like co2isnotevil to summarize all that for you?

        It’s polite to read several blog entries, and many of the comments, before joining the conversation, in order to find out what the regulars consider common ground.

      • crackers345,

        The claimed climate sensitivity factor of 0.8C +/- 0.4C per W/m^2 has been wrong since it was first presumed in AR1 and has never been justified or even marginally supported by the laws of physics. At the time of its preconception, it only needed to be big enough to justify the formation of the IPCC. Despite the irreconcilable differences between the sides of the science, the magnitude of this factor is all that separates them.

        The laws of physics establish limits on the sensitivity factor to be 0.25C +/- 0.05C per W/m^2 where even the upper bound of 0.3C per W/m^2 is less than the lower bound of 0.4C per W/m^2 claimed by the IPCC.

        The IPCC can’t accept the physics bound sensitivity because to do so undermines its reason to exist. They have gone far out of their way to fuzz up the definitions and quantifications in order to hide this significant deficiency in their science.

        The limits on the sensitivity are established as the sensitivity of an ideal gray body at 288K whose emissivity is 0.62 and which emits 240 W/m^2 (0.3C per W/m^2) to offset incoming solar power and that of an ideal BB at the surface temperature of 288K (0.2C per W/m^2). In both cases, the sensitivity is EXACTLY 1/(4eoT^3), where e is the EFFECTIVE emissivity, o is the SB constant and T is the surface temperature.

        These constraints arise when you ‘connect the dots’ between the black body representation of the Moon and a body like the Earth with an atmosphere. On the Moon, the SB law for an ideal BB works exactly. Connecting the dots predicts that for Earth, the relationship between the surface temperature and planet emissions should look like a gray body. Satellite measurements show it to behave in a manner indistinguishable from an ideal gray body with an emissivity of about 0.62.

        When the LTE surface surface temperature (T) is plotted against the LTE emissions of the planet (Po), deltaT/deltaPo is measured to be 0.3C per W/m^2.

        When the T is plotted against the LTE incident power from the Sun, Pi, deltaT/deltaPi is measured to be about 0.19C per W/m^2. Note that this measurement along the input path to the planet more closely aligns with the IPCC definition of the sensitivity factor then the measured sensitivity along the output path of the planet of 0.3C per W/m^2.

    • “The ultimate scientific truth could result in a lot of newly disenfranchised climate scientists resigning in disgrace or jumping off rooftops.”

      Not likely. Scientists, like all other humans, are much more vested in getting food on the table than the usefulness of their contribution to society. They don’t have to be right. They just have to be paid. They will rise with the tide and go with the flow. They will find their niche and fill it. Case in point: Paul Erhlich. This man has been so wrong about everything for his entire career that I wouldn’t trust him to give me the correct time of day. Yet, he has no trouble filling a room with sycophants and making a living.

      Like coral reefs, scientists are much more resilient than we think they are.

      • jclarke341,
        I agree that this is the case for scientists. But applying that label to most consensus climate ‘scientists’ is somewhat disingenuous since in order to be a scientist, you must first accept that the scientific method trumps political narratives. It’s the emotional reaction we need to be prepared for since the science in climate science has been replaced with conformance to a political narrative.

        We can see the parallels in politics with the emotionally driven anti-Trump movement whose irrational fears leads to positions that defy any kind of logic. Note that most climate scientists who support the broken science are in the hate Trump camp simply because his actions will lead to correcting the science and they are generally afraid of taking that risk.

  5. Willis, “beautiful summer afternoon” is a highly subjective- and localized- description! Heat index 105 F in my little corner of the world (Richmond VA). Yeccch.

    Great post though!

    • Eustace, if you measure using scientific ranges (Celsius), you are only 36 degrees :) And just what is “heat index” a measure of? your area’s reported temperature is 97 F. …expected to hit 99 tomorrow. I would enjoy basking in that…by my subjective ideals :)

      • “Heat Index” is based on the dry bulb/wet bulb temperatures. It is an estimate of the human body’s ability to reject heat to its surroundings, taking into account the humidity. So, if it’s 92°F on your thermometer with an RH of 60% and the local news says the Heat Index is 105, it means as far as your body is concerned, the local conditions are the same as if it were 105°F and 20% relative humidity.

      • When I was a Plebe at the Naval Academy in 1965, the upper class were not allowed to make us run if the wet bulb globe temperature (WBGT) index was too high. WBGT is a measure of heat stress in direct sunlight that takes a number of factors into account. When we could not run because the index was too high, we would march in cadence. Instead of counting “left, right, left, right” (or 1, 2, 3, 4), we would shout “W, B, G, T.”

      • Your link took me to data for Richmond, VA, not Baltimore.

        The Annapolis paper noted that we will be having temps higer than 100 for the next few days. Buried in the article was the info that the record high local temp was 107 in 1937.

  6. Some people have excellent predictive track records on the subject of global warming, climate, energy, etc..

    However, EVERY DIRE PREDICTION THE IPCC ET AL HAVE MADE HAS FAILED TO MATERIALIZE.

    • A decrease of 1.7 degrees – that’s all we need to avert planetary disaster…come on big one seven

    • RE a successful predictive track record. We published the following in 2002*.

      “The ultimate agenda of pro-Kyoto advocates is to eliminate fossil fuels, but this would result in a catastrophic shortfall in global energy supply – the wasteful, inefficient energy solutions proposed by Kyoto advocates simply cannot replace fossil fuels.”

      We also wrote in the same article, prior to recognition that the current ~20 year “Pause” was already underway:

      “Climate science does not support the theory of catastrophic human-made global warming – the alleged warming crisis does not exist.”

      Regards to all, Allan

      * Source:
      PEGG, reprinted in edited form at their request by several other professional journals , The Globe and Mail and La Presse in translation, by Baliunas, Patterson and MacRae.
      http://www.apega.ca/members/publications/peggs/WEB11_02/kyoto_pt.htm
      http://www.friendsofscience.org/assets/documents/KyotoAPEGA2002REV1.pdf

    • @ Allan
      The IPCC does have an excellent predictive track record on global warming. You just have to invert the output. ;-)

  7. Lady Brackell is demanding to know who this pretentious Earnest Rutherford bounder imagines he is.

    • John Dorman
      Earnest Rutherford is a New Zealander and a pioneer – and the first to split the atom as stated.
      His original lab located in the first university in CHristchurch NZ, is now a top spot for visitors.
      He moved to England where he completed his work of splitting the atom, and is suitable recognised.

      A great and famous New Zealander, and someone we are proud of.

      Others are responsible for the ongoing use of splitting the atom, in both good and not so good ways.
      Regards

      • You missed his point. He knew exactly who Ernest Rutherford was, just not ‘Earnest’ Rutherford. I am another New Zealander proud of our greatest scientist and I spotted this misnaming immedaitely.

      • You are mistaken about more than the spelling of Lord Rutherford’s given name. He traveled to England in 1895, aged 24, for post-grad study at the Cavendish Lab, Cambridge.

        His early, Nobel Prize-winning work was conducted at McGill University, Canada. He then moved to Victoria University of Manchester, England, where the atom “splitting” occurred. He later became director of the Cavendish.

      • And of course another error is “For example, when Ernest Rutherford split the atom in 1933…” That happened much earlier in 1917.

    • John Dorman July 20, 2017, at 1:52 pm

      Lady Brackell is demanding to know who this pretentious Earnest Rutherford bounder imagines he is.

      Thanks, John, fixed. I hate typos.

      w.

    • For those that missed the subtlety of the joke, Lady Bracknell is the key character in the OScar Wilde play, ,b>The Importance of being Earnest

      This play has a few insights that are pertinent to Climate Science and cAGW.

      “The truth is rarely pure and never simple. Modern life would be very tedious if it were either”

      “In matters of grave importance, style, not sincerity, is the vital thing.”

      “Oh! it is absurd to have a hard-and-fast rule about what one should read and what one shouldn’t. More than half of modern culture depends on what one shouldn’t read.”

      “I do not approve of anything that tampers with natural ignorance. Ignorance is like a delicate exotic fruit; touch it and the bloom is gone. The whole theory of modern education is radically unsound. Fortunately in England, at any rate, education produces no effect whatsoever.”

      “Well I won’t argue about the matter. You always want to argue about things.
      That is exactly what things were originally made for.”

      “I know. In fact, I am never wrong.”

      “That certainly seems a satisfactory explanation, does it not?
      – Yes dear, if you can believe him.
      – I don’t. But that does not affect the wonderful beauty of his answer.”

      “When I see a spade I call it a spade.
      I’m glad to say I have never seen a spade!”

      “To lose one parent, Mr. Worthing, may be regarded as a misfortune; to lose both looks like carelessness. ”

      “I ask merely for information.”

      It is a play full of wit.

  8. “We hope that university presidents will show leadership by taking this important step in asserting independence for their scientists and reforming scientific practice.”

    Fat chance.

    Current University presidents are embroiled in the politically correct issues of free speech (who gets to speak and upon which topics); minority issue groups demanding sensitivity training of others as well as their demands for safe space on campus; extending Title IX Federal enforcement to areas of protection of women during accusations of sexual assault, prohibiting the accused of due process; admission policies to recruit out of state/out of country students with their higher tuition requirements; protecting faculty who bring in large Federal grants; disavowing faculty who are accused of incorrect views on climate, sexual orientation, political members; keeping athletic programs with positive revenue streams so that alumni keep donating (a major source of non-earmarked money), red flagging faculty or staff who express views of the administration not in keeping with how the administration views itself.

    There are other areas of course. In the distant past, University president’s job was to find sex for the students and parking for the faculty. Then, during the Viet Nam era the requirements were somewhat reversed; i.e., sex for the faculty and parking for the students. Now, of course the politically correct winds are blowing.

    • There are other areas of course. In the distant past, University president’s job was to find sex for the students and parking for the faculty. Then, during the Viet Nam era the requirements were somewhat reversed; i.e., sex for the faculty and parking for the students. Now, of course the politically correct winds are blowing.That is so spot on!

      Quite the wit! And spot on.
      I actually rode a motorcycle in Columbia, Mo. during the winter so I could park fairly close. I have NO fond memories of my college years.

  9. “…Professor Reif’s argument by authority runs counter to conclusions from decades of research on the value of expert opinions about what will happen in the future. They are no more accurate than those of non-experts and—for complex situations particularly—neither is much better than guessing.”

    For a subset of arguments from authority, in which the authority represents a cultural consensus rather than a reasoning process (albeit one dealing with uncertainties), these ones are much worse than guesses. The authority is wrong for sure, because all cultural consensuses are wrong; they form to serve a social purpose not to represent reality. The way in which they form is incompatible with ever representing reality. Social data says the climate consensus is indeed an emergent cultural consensus, with a central narrative that imminent (decades) climate catastrophe is certain. Whether ACO2 turns out to be good, bad, or indifferent, we know this certainty is wrong – like all cultural consensuses, it is a just fairy tale.

    • This actually means that expert opinion is WORSE than guessing! Nobody acts on what is known to be a guess, whereas people and their governments are inclined to act on expert opinion. This being said, the fact that governments repeatedly FAIL to act on real problems ( low public sector efficiency, coherent health care policy, etc.) makes it clear that the urgent focus on a non-existent problem like climate change is a complete fabrication to suit a political purpose. There are many enemies of Capitalism all over the world. I’m not completely sold on it myself as an all encompassing economic system, but nobody has a better idea. The only real competition is Socialism, which is still staggering around the planet with it’s shorts around it’s ankles pretending to be The Champ!
      Socialism is the only path to power for the wannabes and losers on the Left so they ignore it’s utter failure and attempt to convince the young that it is the answer to all their prayers and the “out” to having to work for anything.

  10. Willie Soon is indeed courageous.
    Whatever else may happen in this world, I wish to register my acknowledgement of his courage here.

  11. The basis of the IPCC – CAGW warmusts theory is that —
    CO2 ppm values start increasing at the bottom of the glacial cycle causing the temperatures to rise.
    At or about the interglacial CO2 ppm values stop rising and so does the temperature.

    This is the cornerstone, the basis of modelling work.CO2 density increases causing temperature to rise.

    There is one monumental outstanding issue. They did not prove their theory that CO2 density increases prior and during warming.. They simply continued with the assumption that it did, shielded by political intention and a deep well of money. Make it work somehow.

    This is their undoing, their demise. If you do not prove the basis of your theory, how can you model?

    They did not, and still do not understand the difference between ppm and density, or question other related events. CO2 ppm is not density unless you have a temperature and understand the direction of the temperature at that point.

    CO2 DENSITY is LOWEST during the glacial to interglacial phase – no question.

    This low CO2 density during the temperature rise is the evolutionary period that causes plant specie evolve from C3 to C4. This is the period where biospheres including millions of sq km – complete forests are created placing enormous demands on atmospheric CO2. Plus other biosphere peak activity. From mid interglacial to the coldest part of the next glacial CO2 density is highest.

    They did not prove their own theory – and then ask why the models do not work.

  12. Failing to recognize that CO2 has no significant effect on climate is an egregious mistake but is dwarfed by the potential disasters of ignoring what actually does.

    The still-rising water vapor (WV) is rising about three times as fast as expected from water temperature increase alone (feedback). The rising WV, about 8% increase since 1960, coincides with rising irrigation, especially spray irrigation on fields and lawns. The warming (WV is a ghg) is welcome (countering the average global cooling which would otherwise be occurring as a result of declining net effect of ocean cycles and a declining proxy which is the time-integral of SSN anomalies) but the added WV increases the risk of precipitation related flooding. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?

    • It’s not that simple. In fact, it is so complex, that it may be impossible to ever answer your question. They only way you could answer it, is by keeping everything the same, and only increasing the amount of water vapor in the atmosphere, and then see what happens. But we can’t do that. Everything is in flux, and it always has been.

      Best thing to do is not build in a flood plain, but if you do, factor in that it just might flood some day and plan accordingly.

    • If there is an 8% increase in water vapour, I am unaware of it. If this is a fact, it would pretty much explain a rise in temperature, especially for night time temperatures. Don’t let the Warmunists know about it. They will be screaming that we’re all going to drown from high humidity within months!

      • The increasing WV is certainly countering the temperature decline which would otherwise be occurring. IMO the quiet sun and net declining ocean cycles will eventually prevail. WV feedback will steepen the temperature decline. Not good.

        I expect an increase in drownings from precipitation related flooding.

  13. Here is an alternative set of Ethical guidelines for scientific conduct.
    Ҥ1 State clearly the premises, inferences, and conclusions of an argument.
    §2 Verify that premises comply with the principles of science, identify premises and their sources and make sure that these are readily available for independent verification.
    Cite precisely the referred source and identify all information that is used as a premise.
    §3 Use logically valid inferences.
    Whenever the truth of the premises does not guarantee the truth of the conclusion, identify clearly the argument as a feeling, judgement, belief, opinion or hypothesis.
    §4 Put forward conclusions in such a manner that an independent party can verify that the conclusion is correctly deduced from axioms, definitions, theorems, measured properties, and validated scientific concepts.
    §5 Put forward concepts in such a manner that an independent party can verify that the concept is correctly deduced from logically valid conclusions, axioms, definitions or theorems.
    §6 Define a concept, its capability, and applicable context in such a manner that the concept can be independently tested.
    §7 Validate concepts by comparison of predictions from that concept with observations. Only refer to concepts as validated when predictions repeatedly match observations within combined uncertainty of the measurements and the claimed capability of the concept.
    Ensure that those who are influenced, curbed, or entitled to the propounded concept or product are also entitled to independently test the concept or product.
    §8 Only refer to a concept as validated for the context covered by the validating tests.
    §9 Base statements on verifiable data and make sure that data and precise information about how that data was obtained are readily available for independent verification. Whenever data are corrected or disregarded, provide both uncorrected and corrected data together with a scientific argument for the correction.
    §10 Ensure that measurement reports contain traceable values, units, and stated uncertainty for well-defined measurands in a well-defined context.
    §11 Ensure that prediction reports contain values, units and claimed capability for well-defined measurands in well-defined contexts.”

  14. “Professor Reif’s response stated that he was confident in his position on the issue because it is consistent with the beliefs of experts that implementation of the Paris Accord is necessary to save the world from harmful effects of man-made global warming. ”

    This from the MIT’s President?

    To use the cliché – he, of all the people, one would think would champion the scientific method over the “consensus” belief of some “experts”.

    Very disconcerting.

    • As the President of MIT, Mr. Reif is far more concerned with the politics of running his institution, than the sanctity of the scientific method. If you really want to know what an expert thinks, you will have to corner them in a bar after they have had a few, and get them talking. Everything else goes through the required PC filter.

    • Not Soros.
      What an inane comment/veiled accusation.
      How many “climate-scientist” work for free?
      Who does the funding only matters if they are told what conclusion to reach before they do the research.
      (PS Who tried to get him fired, not because his research was faulty but because they didn’t like his conclusions?)

      • I think crackers345 is projecting – he seems to think that because so many “climate scientists” give their opinions based on who is paying them that all scientists do that.

        I can see how he might think that.

        Heck, if Dr. Willie Soon wanted to get rich quick, all he would have to do is come out in support of CAGW and maybe get his picture taken next to Bill Nye.

        /grin

      • “Which is the argument which has lead to so much criticism of Dr Soon.”

        The argument which led to the criticism of Dr. Soon was entirely based on lies designed to discredit experts who didn’t subscribe to ‘The Cause’ from the likes of you – a habit which your mendacious attack on Dr. Crockford clearly demonstrates you still engage in.

        You are entirely shameless, aren’t you?

    • @crackers345-
      So you can’t fault his statements and you don’t use your real name and we don’t know who you work for. But your questions are relevant? Take a hike!

    • crackers345 July 20, 2017 at 3:08 pm

      Who’s funding Soon these days?

      Start by telling us who’s funding YOU, you most congenial gentleman.

      Then follow that up with your real name. At that point we can settle the question of your funding.

      Willie’s funding I don’t care about, he’s an honest scientist, he doesn’t dance to anyone’s tune. You, I’m not so sure of …

      w.

      PS—Willie is funded by the Harvard–Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics these days. Find a problem with that, you charming fellow. You would have known that with a quick Google search but nooo, you had to be a real prince about it.

      If you come back here, let me recommend that you either man up and use your real name or that you change your alias, because “crackers345” has totally destroyed his own reputation with this ugly ad-hominem attack … which of course may be the reason you use an alias.

      So you can deny and disown your own words …

    • NOT the same people funding the Al Gore School of Climate Hyperbole…like funding from NOAA or NASA or the EPA make everything oh so legit….

    • That’s what my good friend Donald says too, and he needs all the help he can get to drain it. Hopefully creeps like Crackers345 won’t clog up the pump too much.

  15. How much of recent flooding (with incidences reported world wide) is simply bad luck in the randomness of weather and how much is because of the ‘thumb on the scale’ of added water vapor?

    Sounds like an hypothesis.
    How would it be tested?

  16. I loved this article and the work of these scientists. It was refreshing to read about real science for a change.

  17. A non-climate related example is the low fat high carb diet recommended by government scientists that has resulted in a diabetes epidemic in the US and elsewhere. 97% of government scientists backed this diet recommendation. The science was settled. Now, not so much.

    • Consider, however, that if the intent were to diminish population, the high carb diet has been a splendid success.

      • Of course, the high carb diet was promoted by the experts, as well as not eating foods with cholesterol. Neither of these were supported by good science.
        Now, the US Government has recanted the no-cholesterol guidelines, but that issue is not as politically charged as Global Warming. I fear that no matter how much evidence is provided that Anthropogenic Global Warming is not causing complete civilizational disaster, there is too much to be gained by politicians and bureaucrats for it to ever be recanted.

  18. Willis here’s another (earlier) reference by the same authors that adds fuel to the fire:

    “GLOBAL WARMING: FORECASTS BY SCIENTISTS VERSUS SCIENTIFIC FORECASTS”
    Kesten C. Green and J. Scott Armstrong, ENERGY & ENVIRONMENT VOLUME 18 No. 7+8 2007

  19. We can’t even predict the evolution — a chaotic process — of human life from conception with reproducible accuracy. Well, other than anthropogenic end of life, anyway. Choice is a closed, political event.

  20. Dr Soon has attracted criticism simply because he appears to have taken money from a special interest group to do specific research which related to that special interest group, without declaring it.

    I don’t know the truth in that allegation. I don’t see however he has been absolved of misconduct.

    Any article to do with the good doctor therefore still requires that that point be addressed….

    • Whatever happened innocent until proven guilty Griff? He is still under employment which means Harvard Smithsonian isn’t about to be pressing charges soon (since it appears they handle the funding vehicle). Besides, your own bias and reputation around here requires us to measure your posts with caution. I know I’ve found many of your links lacking. My favorite was the “back of the napkin” calculation on how little electric vehicles will impact a grid. Sadly, reality always brings unknowns and few things are ever straightforward.

      • Well, at least I put in links whenever I can.

        And I do not ever call people names or accuse them of lying.

      • @Griff – And I do not ever call people names or accuse them of lying.

        A good practice in general, unfortunately we are all guilty of it, whether we type it or not. My biggest issue is you always seem to try to post counter arguments, but you never seem aware of the issues concerned with the links you provide. True many responses to you can get ugly, but you never seem to address the good responses. As with any site there will be a bias, and countering the bias can broaden the discussion. A true word of advice, look a little more under the surface. Based on past posts you are very much into “renewables.” Nothing wrong with that, many people are not completely opposed to them, but many are opposed to brute force methods of implementation. Implementation and integration are never simple, even on small projects, much less large scale. Try to find the common ground you do have with others and find a way to discuss that further, gets you much farther than trying to convince everyone to your own viewpoint.

        Finally, as far as your post about Soon, the topic has been discussed extensively here at WUWT over the last two years and if we are to judge all of Soon’s work on supposed ties to commercial industry should we not also judge many of the others on both sides of this argument with their ties to interested parties? Does that supposed collusion make this current paper/letter wrong? The implication you make is take Soon’s words with a grain of salt. That’s fine, that would mean we should look at what he is saying and compare to actual evidence/data. Let’s go ahead and do the same with Mann, Gore, and not least the IPCC assessments.

      • “And I do not ever call people names or accuse them of lying.”

        Except when they happen to be female polar bear experts, right?

    • Ol’ Griff, when will your side ever learn? It isn’t that you have not seen that Dr Soon has been absolved of misconduct, it is that you’ve never seen any hard evidence that any skeptic climate scientist is in any kind of pay-for-performance arrangement with the fossil fuel industry or any other sources of illicit money. Look at the 20-year history of the accusation – all there ever is is “he was paid X”, not “X payments can be directly placed to Y lies which are irrefutably debunked by Z evidence, where all parties involved are proven by AA leaked documents to have openly agreed on what lies were to be spread to the public.” And in case you missed it, I covered what was wrong with that particular NYT article and others related to it which relied on one single highly questionable source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/26/the-origin-of-climate-smear/

      Thanks for demonstrating how your side is a one-trick pony. You are welcome to comment here, but you embarrass yourself each time you do.

    • Griff, Willie Soon is traveling and unable to respond. However, he pointed me to this WUWT post …

      This stuff is all public record. If the Smithsonian has problems with Willie, I’m sure they will deal with it. So far it has not been a problem for them.

      Next, you say:

      Any article to do with the good doctor therefore still requires that that point be addressed….

      Nope. The part you don’t seem to get is that arguments against funding are ad hominem arguments. These are arguments against the man rather than against his science. Regardless of who funded it, either his scientific claims and conclusions are valid or they are not …

      And that is why this funding argument is so popular with the NYT and with alarmists like yourself. It’s also why this argument is so damaging to your reputation. Because you are either unable or unwilling to attack his science, instead you attack the man … doesn’t make you look good, Griff.

      Finally, bear in mind that I often disagree with Willie, particularly regarding his claims for a large solar role in climate variations. But I don’t give a rat’s caboose who is funding him …

      w.

      • There is the theme that only “industry” has bias that must be automatically disclosed, and the people funded by “industry” are hacks. As if governments and advocacy groups do not have biases, and only seek “truth”.

      • “Because you are either unable or unwilling to attack his science, instead you attack the man”

        Or the woman…

    • Ol’ Griff, when will your side ever learn? It isn’t that you have not seen that Dr Soon has been absolved of misconduct, it is that you’ve never seen any hard evidence that any skeptic climate scientist is in any kind of pay-for-performance arrangement with the fossil fuel industry or any other sources of illicit money. Look at the 20-year history of the accusation – all there ever is is “he was paid X”, not “X payments can be directly placed to Y lies which are irrefutably debunked by Z evidence, where all parties involved are proven by AA leaked documents to have openly agreed on what lies were to be spread to the public.” And in case you missed it, I covered what was wrong with that particular NYT article and others related to it which relied on one single highly questionable source: https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/02/26/the-origin-of-climate-smear/

      Thanks for demonstrating how your side is a one-trick pony. You are welcome to comment here, but you embarrass yourself each time you do.

    • I don’t know the truth in that allegation. I don’t see however he has been absolved of misconduct.

      Any article to do with the good doctor therefore still requires that that point be addressed….

      Then you neither followed-up nor paid attention, Griff.

Comments are closed.