Global Warming: Fact or Fiction? Featuring Physicists Willie Soon and Elliott Bloom

Published on Aug 16, 2019

HT/Zak G

0 0 vote
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
September 15, 2019 10:21 pm

Part 2. Thunderstorms: fact of fiction?

Reply to  Loydo
September 15, 2019 10:30 pm

Thunderstorms observed somewhere everyday.

Warming by atmospheric CO2…. nope, no observations anywhere.

Loy-doh draws another empty bow.

Joel O'Bryan
Reply to  Loydo
September 15, 2019 10:33 pm

Leftist’s rebuttal to Soon-Bloom, Part 1:
How unicorn flatulence can Save the Planet from Climate Change.

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 16, 2019 1:54 am

Sounds like somebody’s just horsing around. Get serious! /s

Reply to  RockyRoad
September 16, 2019 12:52 pm

you can lead a horse to water

Reply to  Realismatwork
September 17, 2019 7:25 am

but you can’t make him think

Reply to  Realismatwork
September 17, 2019 7:37 am

You can lead a horticulture but you can’t make loydo think….

Reply to  Joel O'Bryan
September 16, 2019 12:24 pm

Unicorns and rainbows. In Stork They Trust

Reply to  Loydo
September 15, 2019 11:05 pm

That was … lame.

Reply to  TeaPartyGeezer
September 16, 2019 6:35 am

You expected better?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Loydo
September 15, 2019 11:27 pm

Al Gore can’t get images on the cover of his book showing the correct rotational direction of storms in northern and southern hemispheres: Fact or fiction?

Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 6:08 am

Observations begun in 1960, show that thunderstorms are real and increasing.

Pillage Idiot
Reply to  Scissor
September 16, 2019 8:46 am

Simplified, for the non-scientist crowd.

Rain – good. F3+ tornadoes – bad.

The “bad” things are decreasing with increasing CO2.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Pillage Idiot
September 16, 2019 6:31 pm

I think those in south east Spain might have something to say about rain being a bit bad right now.

Solomon Green
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 19, 2019 5:33 am

Let us not forget that five years ago the same areas were suffering from the worst drought in 150 years.


Reply to  Scissor
September 16, 2019 10:29 am

Whose observations?
I would really like to see the “increasing in number” part of that data.
I am a bit skeptical that we only have data on thunderstorms since 1960, or is that where the cherry picking begins? Furthermore, if it is indeed the case that we only have <60 yrs of data how can any meaningful inference be drawn on a historical climatological time scale?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Scissor
September 16, 2019 12:35 pm

I’d be quite interested in how they took those observations, i.e., what methods were used to count them and measure their intensity. The FAA didn’t install WFMU’s (Weather Fixed Mapping Units) in their long range RADARs util the early 70’s and I know of no software, at least at that time, to collect thunderstorm data from them, nor of any lightening detectors installed at the sites. I guess they could have partitioned their Air Traffic controllers RADAR site technician for subjective observations but I never saw or hear of it.

Reply to  Scissor
September 17, 2019 3:57 am

Wow! Thunderstorms are real – who’d have thought it?
Increasing? What do you mean by ‘increasing’, exactly?

Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 6:34 am

People have seen thunderstorms, nobody has ever seen AGW.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2019 12:43 pm

Except St. Greta.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
September 16, 2019 6:30 pm

No. She sees CO2, CO2 is real although invisible to lesser mortals. No-one has ever seen AGW because, like global average temperatures, it is simply made up.

Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 8:59 am

How about “People cause thunderstorms: fact or fiction?”

Joel Snider
Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 9:37 am

What? No racist comments from our resident Goebbels stain, about old white guys to start your daily thread?

I guess today he just starts with his standard antagonistic smart-ass remark so he can posture as a victim when he gets slapped down.

Reply to  Loydo
September 16, 2019 10:52 am

You were quiet Loydo, now you get of bed to mock a presentation you never followed.

This makes you a BIGOT!

You have nothing to offer here, go back to school and learn to think logically.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Sunsettommy
September 16, 2019 12:28 pm

Open bigotry is acceptable for the progressive left – just so long as it’s applied to the PC-appropriate stereotyped, scape-goated demographic.

Reply to  Joel Snider
September 17, 2019 7:26 am

In the minds of the left, those who oppose them (make it harder for them to get free stuff) are less than human and have no rights.

September 15, 2019 11:38 pm

Hurricane Humberto now practically does not move.

Reply to  ren
September 16, 2019 3:11 am

well I just looked at it on nullschool and its moved quite a way and is well away from the islands and the mainland since i looked 24hrs ago

Martin Cropp
Reply to  ren
September 16, 2019 4:21 am

No need for apology it’s not your fault. There is very little energy to move it, same as last one.

Reply to  Martin Cropp
September 16, 2019 7:11 am
Paul Penrose
Reply to  ren
September 16, 2019 10:02 am

You mean “is predicted to” strengthen. Big difference from “will”.

Steven Mosher
September 15, 2019 11:52 pm

Moon landing. Fact or fiction

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 4:39 am

False equivalence.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Archer
September 16, 2019 11:22 am

A favorite progressive tactic.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Archer
September 16, 2019 8:05 pm


Look. there was an LIA !
Global warming? It is a fact.
There WAS an LIA.
It used to be colder, now it is warming.
It’s silly to debate that.
Global WARMING? Fact.
Moon landing? Fact.

1. How much EXACTLY has it warmed? That’s a fun TECHNICAL Question.
We want to look at UHI and Micro site, like Anthony.
But go ahead and ask Anthony.. Is it WARMER NOW than in the LIA?
2. How MUCH of the warming is due to man? That’s a fun question too.
Estimates vary. But No one with any brains asserts with CERTAINTY
that the human role is ZERO.

So, Global warming? FACT
How much? interesting estimates
Why? fun debates.

Title of this post? Global warming Fact or fiction.
Fact, like the moon landing.

Climate changes. don’t deny it

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:59 pm

“Climate changes, don’t deny it.” Gee, thanks. You mean it’s not supposed to stay the same after 4.5 billion years? Take Mann’s fake Nobel Prize and give it to Mosher…

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 10:31 pm

Climate absolutely changes…Fact
We have a different climate today than what existed:
18,000 years ago
15,000 years ago
10,000 years ago
8,000 years ago
4,000 years ago
2,000 years ago
1,000 years ago
500 years ago
250 years ago
100 years ago
Even 70 years ago the climate appeared to be entering a cooling phase.
Climate Science ecological disaster de-jour appears to be the only thing worthy of press
There has never been what could be considered a stable climate with:
Temperatures that remain within a constant 1C span over several centuries (even during glaciation)
No Cat 3/4/5 hurricanes
No EF-3/4/5 tornados
No flooding rainfall
No droughts or mega-droughts
No sea level change
Unchanging glacier margins

We only “Know” seemingly reasonable high resolution climate statistics since the satellite era began 40 years ago, the older data is mostly far lower resolution proxy data which can’t demonstrate multiyear and decadal statistical spikes

So…TRUE…Climate Changes

How beneficial have warmer temperature induced increased growing seasons and enhanced CO2 level induced crop fertilization been for providing required food supplies for an increasing global populace?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 7:28 am

Nobody denies climate change, that’s the lie you and your fellow scam artists came up with.

Nobody denies that the world has warmed since the end of the little ice age.

What we deny is your groundless claim that most of the warming was caused by CO2.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 5:42 am


Mark Cates
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 6:07 am

Government recommended dietary guidelines. Fact or Fiction.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:08 am

Oh jeesh, that one is so tired/worn out & not even relevant here. If you want to do a drive-by, use something better than spit-balls.

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:37 am

Mosher and Loydo – kindred souls.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 10:05 am

Ulcers are cause exclusively by lifestyle choices, fact or fiction?

That was considered fact by the consensus for a long time until some heretics challenged it. Now we know it is fiction.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Paul Penrose
September 16, 2019 12:40 pm

It did take about 50 years to change the consensus though. :<)

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 12:59 pm

Steven is being disingenuous (again). Fact or fiction.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 2:38 pm

Bacteria cause stomach ulcers, fact or fiction?

Continental drift, fact or fiction?

Disease is caused by microscopic organisms and virii, fact or fiction?

Bleeding sick people harms them and does not help their illness, fact or fiction?

Hey, Steven, this is fun. I trust you get my point. I certainly got yours.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Mickey Reno
September 16, 2019 8:07 pm

Your point?
you mean the LIA was not real?
you mean it is not getting warmer?
Global Warming? fact or fiction?
LIA? fact. which means, it IS getting warmer.
Unless you want to deny the LIA?
care to go there?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 7:31 am

Once again, rather than actually make an actual point, Steve invents opinions, lays them on others than proceeds to attack these invented opinions.

The only people who have ever denied the existence of the LIA are the scamsters from your side.

Has it warmed up since the end of the LIA? Yes.
Does this prove that CO2 caused the warming? No.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 7:41 am

The clue is in your post. It IS getting warmer, from the cold LIA.
Call me when we have hippos in the Thames, as in the Eemian.

Theo Moore
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 10:45 pm

Am waiting for it to get as warm as Greenland was before the Little Ice Age. Vikings in Greenland grew grains (including barley) before the little ice age cooled it down. Is it warm enough to grow grains in Greenland again?

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Theo Moore
September 18, 2019 5:46 am

We have another winner! The real climate “deniers” are those who deny that the Medieval Warm Period was warmer than today, for no other reason than how “inconvenient” it is for their “CO2 induced climate catastrophe” bullshit.

Steven Mosher
September 15, 2019 11:58 pm

The image

bald heads

Too funny.

Pro tip

if you are going to preach to the choir, pick one with more longevity.

Hokey Schtick
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 12:55 am

When i read your comments they always make me feel like i an reading the smartest wittiest cleverest comments ever made by the most brilliant person.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Hokey Schtick
September 16, 2019 3:18 am

Absolutely no need for a /sarc off tag there…none. Zip! Nadda!

Mr. Mosher you are “funny”. You have some nice surprises waiting for you in your 50’s, 60’s and, if the climate does not get you first, 70’s…

Enjoy your climate destroying bitcoin mining, while it lasts!

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 16, 2019 5:06 am

You dont get it patrick.

The “debate” will be settled politically.
Skeptics, for the most part are old and dying.

1. They dont write papers that will be read and used by others
2. They dont teach new grad students.
3. They preach to the Choir.. Like here!

Its just a matter of time.

Basically you guys have NO ANSWER for this fact. So ya’ll attack me when I am just
telling you the truth.

Skeptics are old and getting older. No shame in that.
Next, they are doing NOTHING to convince the young.
Next they are doing nothing to EDUCATE the young, or young adults — grad students.
next, they couldnt even FIELD A RED TEAM when they had political power !!

Now, none of you can answer this. Who is Willie Soon teaching? who will take his place
who will build on his work? No one, because there is no work. There are slides
and a couple of hack job papers. No graduate student in his right mind will follow in
Willies foot steps

Hey, WHO follows in Steven Mcintryes footsteps?

NO ONE. No one picks up his great work and carries on.

Science is a living thing. ya’ll stuck in the past

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 5:34 am

Mosher, you truely live in La La Land.

Everybody is waking up to the lies of Global Warming. Young and old.
Only in politics, where you expect your salvation from, they haven’t smelled the coffee yet. In 10 years, when the world is supposed to end, the only thing that has ended is the Global Warming scare. And you and your ilk will be the laughing stock for decades to come.

Enjoy it while it lasts. Maybe some more ad hominem insults you can spew?
Something like: “anyway your dad was smart. I suspect your mom liked the milkman”?
Just to remind you. Forever.

Peter Buchan
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 5:48 am

Steven Mosher: “The “debate” will be settled politically. Skeptics, for the most part are old and dying”.

Mr Mosher, there are so many, and multivariate, presuppositions and ahistorical errors of logic embedded within the position you seek to take that your emotive, ideologically possessed post is hardly worth rebutting. Save, perhaps, for the following: Kahnemann and Tversky described the tendency for homo sapiens to fall into what they name the “what you see is all there is” (WYSIATI) trap – hence the metronomic tendency for society (and elite/educated officialdom) to have been blind-sided throughout history; Big Stuff almost never arrives from the direction we expect it. So a modest proposal: step back and consider what you and your elite PhD friends are possibly not seeing: that the post-WWII world order, the US’s “unipolar moment”, and the age of coordinated Central Bank action are drawing to a close, and that the impact on ordinary citizens across the world will make 1-2 Deg C, whatever the ultimate cause, utterly irrelevant. You might be kinder to yourself if you ripped your gaze away from your feedback-looped spread sheets, sat back and reached for some popcorn instead. Prediction: if the climate-fundamentalists ever actually managed to pull any real levers in their passion-driven attempt to constrain (and then direct) global economic development by constraining CO2, they’ll inevitably be ground up and spat out by the same mob they expediently sweep up to carry their doom-placards today. Human society IS at a major inflection point, Mr Mosher. You just happen to be facing in the wrong direction.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 5:49 am

Cheerleading for the inevitability of the idiocracy now is it?
The silent majority will speak up right around the time the jackass two thirds of humanity have put themselves on a permanent diet of Slurm® and D-Con Brand RoachPaste™ shakes.
But you keep that cheery vision of FakeNews© becoming reality.

Martin Cropp
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 6:07 am

Yes you are correct, not because of your self appreciated intellect, it’s just so bloody obvious.

Where are the universities that allow an alternative opinion to be discussed, let alone taught.

Where are the media channels that will air, publish a questioning or alternative view.

Skeptics are not stuck in the past, it’s that they are not I voted into the present.
Believers are trapped in a cacoon of submission, weakness and no proof. It’s easy to crow that you are the champion team when your the only one on the pitch.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 6:37 am

At least Steve admits that there is no science behind his paycheck. All that matters is that his side wins and he gets lots of money.

Bob boder
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 7:39 am

All you have to do now his bang your shoe on the podium, while you go on your idiotic rankings.
Yes kids are being indoctrinated now in massive numbers, but what happens when they grow up and realize they have been scammed and what happens to the scammers? 12 years till the world ends and when it doesn’t and nothing is really any different than what.

Gerald Machnee
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 7:45 am

I think Mosher is suggesting the end of science ifthe only ones doing it are old. The Manm-fed generation is not doing science, only repeating fables.

A C Osborn
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 8:10 am

Sorry Mr Mosher but Politics will decide nothing.
Nature will do the deciding and it won’t follow the politics.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 8:33 am

Skeptics may be getting old and dying, but what you’re really arguing here is that the null hypothesis is already dead.

You say science is a living thing, well society is also a living thing, and support for climate action has not been tested. It’s one thing to tell a pollster you’re for something. It’s another thing to write a bunch of checks. Do you really believe that the entitlement generation that thinks they have a right to free college, healthcare, and pretty much everything else is going to stay on board if and when the bills start flowing in? No, rather there will be a new wave of young skeptics to replace the old.

Sweet Old Bob
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:00 am

What ? Trump is going to be reelected ?

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:01 am

New skeptics are being made every day. As soon as they are old enough to safely retire or go emeritus, they make themselves known.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:15 am

Funny-a perfect example of “whistling past the graveyard” by Mosher

Joel Snider
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:39 am

‘they are doing NOTHING to convince the young’

You mean by using the fascist methods of recruiting the young?
Sounds like someone’s not just stuck in the past – but recreating it.

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 10:28 am

All that is required for ignorance to grow is for intelligent people to say nothing.

You may be right, Mosher, great mobs of ignorant people may win in the end and destroy civilization, but personally I won’t go down without a fight no matter how you try to convince me go give up.

William Astley
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 11:19 am

There never was a intelligent, unbiased scientific debate/discussion with facts concerning “climate change”.

What you are talking about is belief in the IPCC story, not physical reality.

It can be physically proved that humans caused no more than around 15% of the recent rise in atmospheric CO2 and the warming due to a doubling of atmospheric CO2 is no more than 0.1C to 0.2C (as per peer reviewed papers published 40 years ago ).

When will CAGW the idea die?

When either we run out of money to spend on sun and wind gathering that does not work (see Germany for the real life proof of when the scam fails) or when the planet starts to cool.

In reply to: “Science is a living thing.”

Our science is dead as we have made mistakes at the level of reality, at the level of scientific imagination.

Dead science cannot explain physical observations. We have hidden our paradoxes as they do not fit the narrative.

What caused the Younger Dryas? Earth’s temperature goes from interglacial warm to glacial cold with the 70% of the cooling occurring in less than a decade and the cold period lasting for 1200 years. This occurred when summer solar insolation at 65N was maximum.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 2:17 pm

you can politically try to escape reality, but you will lose.

Mickey Reno
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 2:53 pm

Good God, Steven, this might be the most idiotic thing you’ve written in WUWT comments. And that’s saying something.

How will brainwashed yutes (i.e. youths) change and mature, after years of stupid propaganda and chicken little predictions turn out to be false? They will react just as countless generations before them have reacted. They’ll turn more conservative, they’ll get more skeptical or even hostile toward government “solutions.” Hopefully, they will not voluntarily give up their right to bear arms because of idiots like Beto O’Rourke, before they learn.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 4:55 pm

A perfect illustration of the delusion of Mosher who suffers the green and left disease.

They forget the young grow up and get just as real world wise, skeptical and cynical as the generation before them. That is why the green lefty vote peeks in every democratic country between 5-20%.

What determines how this will all be viewed is what transpires in the next 50-100 years and little else history is like that.

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:07 pm

I will note that NONE OF YOU addressed the argument.
you attacked me.. thats cool. no problem, no whining

lemme make this super simple.

1. Ya’ll argue that science is being politicized.
2. I agree for the sake of argument.
3. I point out the following
A) you are targeting a demographic that is dying.
B) you are doing nothing to recruit the young.
C) even when you had political power, you could do nothing. no red team.

conclusion: you have a failed strategy and poor execution.

That’s a pretty simple argument.

It says NOTHING about the science. It says everything about how you are selling
your position and how you are using power when you have it.

One problem you have selling your position is that it is incoherent.

(What irritates me is that you manage to hijack a part of the thread, to have people talk about YOU and only you) SUNMOD

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 2:39 am

Here is the simple counter which you fail to grasp

1.) Life itself teaches lessons about trust
2.) The older you get the more you can’t avoid the lesson
3.) Only those to stupid to realize continue to believe in fairytales.

It is the basis of the fairytale the “Boy who cried wolf”.

There is no need to recruit anyone, life does the job nicely by itself.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 7:34 am

In little Steve’s mind, him making an allegation is equivalent to him proving his allegations.
Steve looks at one photograph that has a lot of old people in it. From that he concludes that everyone on the skeptic side is old and that no kids are skeptics.

I guess that’s what happens when you let English Lit majors pretend to be scientists.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 7:36 am

LbD, another point is that thanks to the politicization of climate science that Steve is so proud of, it can be a career ender to openly disagree with the climate cabal.
So it’s hardly a wonder that a lot of people wait to they are safely retired before going public with their opinions.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 12:47 pm

“The “debate” will be settled politically.
Skeptics, for the most part are old and dying”

Ageist generalization showing Prejudiced bias

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 8:26 pm

The “debate” will be settled politically.”

Mr. Mosher, I am relieved to see you admit it, this whole CAGW nonsense is exactly that, a political, not scientific, conjecture. The rest of your rant is equally telling. You go directly to an inverse argument-from-authority, and that is equally telling, instead of arguing the science you have retreated to an our-side-vs.-there-side standpoint. Had you stuck with the science, as you did above, (i.e., the only thing we can agree on is the world has warmed, how much for how long and everything else is open for debate) I could have agreed with you, but no, you went into a medieval fortress argument, thinking that you would be safe in denigrating the “other side”‘s lack of published papers, cites, classes taught, lectures delivered and etc., thinking that “your side” still controls all the gateways to all the most prestigious journals, blocks lectures at some historic universities and institutions, all the usual thuggishness the progressives have been known for since before the Civil War. Except you apparently haven’t noticed the crisis in confidence in the pal-review process. And people like you, or at least your “heroes”, have caused your own problems. I shouldn’t be telling you this, never interrupt your enemy in the process of making a fatal error, (“enemy” is harsh, but it was you that put us into an us-vs.-them status, that is, either on “our side” or the “enemies”, so let’s go with it), but “your side” has also demonstrated a long history of ignoring facts so I don’t think anyone on your side besides you will even read this, and certainly no one on “your side” will learn from it. Multiple surveys have found Global Warming/Climate Change ranks low on the list of things people worry about, so despite your projected confidence that “your side” controls all channels of information dissemination, the message is getting out, somehow. Probably because people are more observant than you give them credit for.

What’s even worse is your implied comment that because this is only a political decision, the science doesn’t matter. It doesn’t matter what database conforms with reality, it’s a political decision. No matter what model can most closely project future climate states (temperature is hardly representative of a climate, but I digress), it’s a political decision so it doesn’t matter. Even the record of past temperatures, that after homogenization, adjustment and “correction” bear no resemblance to what actually happened (and even change from year to year) that doesn’t matter because “…this is only a political decision…”. If that’s really what you were trying to say, that’s the saddest thing I have ever heard (read) you say.

Orson Olson
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 18, 2019 8:18 am

Steve, actually, I find that most skeptics of AGW/CAGW were formerly Believers in the orthodoxy (eg, Joanne Nova, Dr David Evans, Judith Curry,…). Those gro.wing elderly in the Realist camp but never having echoed “the consensus” are dying like Bill Gray.

Of course, that anecdote, not systematically collected data. And I doubt that this subtle difference in the sharpened quality of dissent (eg, OMG! – scientists can be duped and self-confirming!) is of interest to the orthodoxy. But I think it is important. We are betrayed and non-Soviet Lysennkoism and the consequent corruption of science is real.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 2:31 am

A room full of Gretas would make me want to vomit.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 2:38 am


That is the most brilliant rebuttal of the science I have ever heard!

Moshie, you are a God amongst….pygmies?

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 16, 2019 4:03 am

Hey, thats an insult to “pygmies” everywhere !

Steven Mosher
Reply to  Leo Smith
September 16, 2019 5:12 am

Sorry a presentation of slides AINT SCIENCE.
it might be an ADVERTISEMENT for some science done elsewhere.

hmm I looked for Willie’s references, links, data, code, from his presentation.


why? because a slide presentation ISNT THE SCIENCE.. it’s a advertisement for the science
which is done some other place.

This was a presentation. Not science. Theatre. Not science.

As such I comment on who willie is Selling his story to.

Is he selling the right crowd? NOPE.

Not even close.

When Willie PUBLISHES some science ( with data and code) then I would decide whether or not it was worth the time to debunk it. haven’t seen anything worthwhile from him in my feild.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 6:39 am

In Steve’s world, the fact that gate keepers can keep contrarian studies out of the big journals is proof that contrarians don’t do science.

Joel Snider
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2019 11:23 am

And he misspelled ‘ain’t’.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 6:40 am

BTW, the fact that the big journals are now being run by politicians is one of the big reasons behind the fact that these so called journals are losing respect and slowly dying.

John Tillman
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 8:34 am


Soon has published dozens of papers just since 2015.

Were you really unaware of that fact?

Even old skeptics will be shown correct when the world doesn’t end in 11 years. Too bad we won’t all be here then.

CO2 is a GHG. Alarmist science begins and ends there. The world warmed more 1695 to 1945 than it has since then. The early 20th century warming cycle was indistinguishable from that after the PDO flip of 1977. The early 18th century was stronger and lasted longer.

So far more plant food in the air has been wholly beneficial. Sea level rise rate is unchanged. Sea ice isn’t controlled by CO2, but rather is cyclic, based upon ocean currents. And less ice is better.

John Tillman
Reply to  John Tillman
September 16, 2019 2:57 pm


Did you denounce Fat Albert’s slide show as unscientific? You know, the untruthful one made into a movie, featuring an inconvenient pack of lies by a Big Oil profiteer?

paul courtney
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 1:12 pm

Mr. Mosher: What is your “feild”? It appears to be making predictions of things that won’t happen Soon enough to hold you accountable. Ah yes, Climate Sceince. Wanted to spell so you could understand. So you know what information young people are getting, an expert on it, right? And you’ve published on the subject? You do exactly what you criticize others of doing. And you can’t see it. Am I laughing.
After you get there, I’ll get around to debunking your view that people (including young people) are not capable of perceiving the errors of their educators and opinion makers.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 3:26 pm

Steven Mosher = ‘Fake news’

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 4:43 pm

Hey Steve, isn’t “your field” English Lit?

Steven Mosher
Reply to  MarkW
September 16, 2019 8:53 pm


started college as a Math Physics major. ya one of those guys.
But I took 2 courses that kicked my ass. Philosophy and literary Criticism.
So I switch to the field that challenged me.

In Philosophy This was my director
I did honors on Neitzsche and Sartre

In English This was my director:
Along with this guy
I did honors on Robert Frost.

So after graduating first in my class at Northwestern with honors in Philosophy
and English lit, ( phi beta kappa and a bunch of other shit )
I decided not to go to law school and accepted a full scholarship for the Phd program
in Literature at UCLA

UCLA was cool because of the early work being done on computers and the humanities.

I worked with 2 guys

George Guffey ( former geologist )
This is what George did
Concordances? Yes, listing all the words an author uses.

And I worked with this guy

Vinton was one of the first to use computers in the study of texts.

Now, most people think of literary analysis as EMOTIONAL THING. But for me and for guys like Vinton and George it was a PHYSICAL THING. Even something as Simple as
Counting words.

Now, Vinton and george didnt have good math background and they only had rudimentary programming skills. As a grad student I was free to audit ( do the work
but no grade ) classes in programming and statistics. So I did.

There were two things I was interested in.


For text generation This was my teacher at Northwestern

Now, what does text generation have to do with style analysis.

Think of it this way. your sytle is determined by the words you choose, and the words you choose are constrained by the rules of the language– grammar syntax etc.

To understand text generation ( and thus style) I needed a mathematical framework
that made sense of choice in a quantitative way.

So I read this guy

And this one too

The latter book was great in its application of information theory to text.

You following?

I started out in math/physics. I got a fellowship to study literary criticism at UCLA.
I worked on the problem of applying MATHEMATICAL and STATISTICAL tools
to the study of text generation ( NLG) and stylistic analysis

That is how I caught Glieck

And I gave Anthony and heartland a tip on which computer program to use to
verify my findings

So, during my Phd on the application of mathematical methods to the analysis of style
I found myself more fascinated by programming and statistics.

My fraternity brother got me a job at Northrop Aircraft, advanced design division.

We worked on air combat simulation.

To work on air compabt simulation you need to learn something about aircraft and yes physics. How does that happen?

Well, you get tasked with creating a model. I worked on three different systems.

A) Artifical Threats: programming aircraft to fight against each other with no
human intervention. Did a lot of cool work here.
B) Radar systems: Modelling ESA radar performance. How does an english major do this? Simple. You go to school with engineers as your teachers. you read
C) IR systems: modeling IR signatures and Missile sensors. How do you learn this?
Simple. You sit with the best IR engineers in the world and they teach you.
you read books.

After doing all this modelling you have to analyze the data. And of course that means
more statistics work. More training, more learning from smart guys.
EEs in signal theory, great teachers. and read. read read read.

The coolest analysis had to be done in 3D. Nobody knew 3D graphics. So, i read.
I was given 3 SGI machines and told to learn 3D. How? well you go to class.

The story doesnt end there. but only an idiot would stop learning after college.
Only an idiot would mistake someones degree for their skills.

This is why I love willis. he never stopped learning. and I laugh when people point out his pitiful “degrees”

Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2019 2:44 am

So basically not a scientist.

You would correctly labelled as Technician in the computer science and engineering fields.

Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2019 7:37 am

Only an idiot would stop learning after college.

So what’s your excuse Steve.

paul courtney
Reply to  MarkW
September 17, 2019 11:23 am

MarkW: Mosher may have got the better of you with his impressive CV of his learning and skills. Does he ever address Dr. Soon’s skills, or the merits of Soon’s work? I haven’t seen that. Instead, he potshots Soon. So Mr. Mosher, what kind of idiot attacks a published scientist for not publishing? What kind of idiot attacks the man but never his work? Then laces into commenters here who attack him not his work? All that learning, experience, thirst for knowledge, yet you never look in a mirror.

Reply to  MarkW
September 18, 2019 2:35 am

Okay. The guys that are passing criticisms here. Really don’t understand what they are criticising. Air combat sims and the creation thereof are fantastically complex things. You’re modelling flight dynamics, radar systems, IR in terms of sensors and weapons, weapons, electronic warfare equipment, complex databases, datastreams from other assets, very complex graphics and rendering. On often brand new equipment that nobody has ever really used before. Sometimes equipment and performance characteristics of assets are highly classified. So, it’s like working in the dark. People tend to be physicists, mathematicians, engineers and computer scientists. Often they are a blend of all of these and if they are not when they start, they probably end up being that when they finish. They often come up with novel solutions to issues/problems but due to various restrictions cannot publish them. Sometimes stuff actually gets invented or understood the wrong way round leading to very useful advances in the real world. You may for instance not understand how radar cross sections are being interpreted or processed. Invent your own method and then find that this of great interest to others. You may not like what mosh says or indeed how he might say it. But he’s most definitely qualified to have an opinion. When you try to play the man, you’re becoming like those on the CAGW side of the argument and that’s a trap we really should not fall into.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:03 pm

And Mosher, what ave you published and what have you contributed to science except poorly worded insults on skeptics, with childish language skills. Oh, let’s see, there’s one publication, the BEST paper published as a the only paper in a newly started journal of no credibilty which was part of a group that were publishing papers with fake / no peer reviews.

You’re not fit even to wipe the shoes of Willie Soon. You’re a pompous bundle of self importance and a waste of space.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 9:51 pm

Mosher-“ya’ll argue the science is being politicized.” This, about 14 hours after Mosh says “this will be settled politically”. “You’re not recruiting the young..”. If this is based on data and facts, why the need to “recruit” anyone? Cults “recruit”. But thanks for making out point…

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 8:39 am

Steven Mosher: you ask for Soon’s references, links and data. These are clearly displayed or referred to where necessary. Obviously you haven’t bothered to watch his presentation properly.
I suggest that you take the time to look and listen in detail, and critique the points he makes that you disagree with – that’s science.
Making petty derogatory comments such as those in your closing paragraph is not, and does you no credit.

Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 5:09 am
Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Yooper
September 16, 2019 5:34 am


Steven Mosher
Reply to  Yooper
September 16, 2019 8:54 pm

No that is Steven W mosher.

People have confused us since the early 1980s

Paul Penrose
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 16, 2019 10:54 am

Ageism is ugly. You can avoid of a lot things in life, but aging is not one of them. Some day you will be profoundly regretful of your actions today, but it will be too late to atone for them. I will now move you into the list of people that require no further attention from me.

Bryan A
Reply to  Steven Mosher
September 17, 2019 12:44 pm

“If you are going to preach to the choir, pick one with more longevity”
Sounds a little Sexist/Racist/Ageist *ist…
Like saying only Ageing, Balding, White, Men are skeptical of AGW
AND it doesn’t matter because the demographic is doomed to die off SOON.
The human condition is to “Die Off” at the end of the Lifespan.

michael hart
September 16, 2019 12:13 am

I enjoy Willie Soon’s talks but Elliott Bloom is a much harder listen. He seems a bit too ‘frail’. I found it helped to increase the playback speed to 1.75 for his section.

Alan the Brit
September 16, 2019 1:29 am

Question: Who actually denies that the earth’s climate changes, when the paleogeological evidence demonstrates it happens fairly regularly (geologically speaking) beyond a reasonable doubt? I’ve certainly never met a “denier” who has denied this fact! I wonder what the next bogeyman scary storey will be once this latest cry-witch scam passes into the night! I hear that down in beautiful Devonshire local carpenters have been commissioned to manufacture lots of ducking stools ready for judgement day! Sarc!

Mark Broderick
Reply to  Alan the Brit
September 16, 2019 1:37 am

The idiots on the left are the ones that deny that climate has been changing naturally for over 4 billion years ! They seem to think the Earth was the “Garden of Eden” until evil Humans came along……D’OH !

September 16, 2019 3:14 am

sigh..Id love to watch it but dont have the net bytes to watch over n hrs of clips
once again transcripts would be much appreciated

Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 16, 2019 4:09 am

Willie’s best points start at 54:54, where he shows the Sun-Climate relationship and provides his conclusions.

September 17, 2019 10:24 am


Willie Soon’s best points start at 54:51, where he shows the Sun-Climate relationship and provides his conclusions.

There is a strong correlation between the Daily High Temperatures and the Solar Total Irradiance (54:51 of the video):

… in the USA (55:02),

Canada (55:16),

and Mexico (55:20).

Solar Total Irradiance has now declined to ~1360 W/m2, similar to near-lows circa 1915, 1960 and 1970. Atmospheric temperatures should be cooling in the near future – maybe they already are.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  ozspeaksup
September 16, 2019 4:48 am

I do not have two hours to watch a video either.
Way too long.
Thank you for the tip Allan.

Don Vickers
September 16, 2019 3:51 am

I was at a birthday bash the other day and overheard a conversation that made me chuckle,
a bloke stated, “There have been 2 great scientific frauds of the last century, the first was Piltdown man, the second was Michael Mann.”

I snorted my beer through both nostrils!

Rod Evans
Reply to  Don Vickers
September 16, 2019 5:57 am

Mann Made Global Warming, couldn’t they have found him something useful to do?

Joe Crawford
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 16, 2019 12:48 pm


Joe Crawford
Reply to  Rod Evans
September 16, 2019 12:58 pm

Thank you Dr. Soon and Dr. Bloom for a very interesting talk. I thoroughly enjoyed it.

It’s just a shame there appears to be a fixed amount of common sense in the world today, and with the increasing human population, definitely not enough to spread around. Maybe mankind will eventually find another source :<)

September 16, 2019 3:54 am

I’m watching Willie Soon’s talk, but the video is almost two hours long. As usual, Willie knows what he is talking about. Willie says early in his talk that the only significant impact of increasing atmospheric CO2 is greatly improved plant and crop yields. CO2 does not significantly drive global warming or climate. That is correct.

Informed people have known decades that the CO2-driven catastrophic global warming scare is a blatant falsehood. CAGW hysteria is promoted by scoundrels and imbeciles – it is a great steaming pile of “hevonpaska”, my new word-for-the-day (it’s Finnish – look it up on Google Translate).

ENERGY – that is really important – and ~85% of global primary energy is fossil fuels – eliminate fossil fuels ASAP as the climate scaremongers insist, and almost everyone in the developed world would be dead in a few months from starvation and exposure. It IS that simple!

Here is what happened when just 5% of global oil supply was knocked out recently by a drone strike in Saudi Arabia. Governments around the world (including the USA) intervened to release their strategic oil reserves to stave off panic and stabilize oil prices, stock markets around the world wobbled, and a global crisis was averted.


Fossil fuels keep you and your family from freezing and starving to death.

In the meantime, the Green brain trust, proponents of the Green New Deal, are suggesting that they can replace all fossil fuels with intermittent wind and solar power generation. As an energy expert, I can assure you that this Green New Deal is false nonsense. Intermittent wind and solar power are excessively costly and seriously de-stabilize the electrical grid. The green New Deal is the prattling of imbeciles – it will be a disaster.

Nicholas McGinley
September 16, 2019 4:53 am

I made a very similar comment last night w/ regard to the oil price shock, and how it demonstrates far better than words how impossible it is that anyone will be “leaving it in the ground” unless and until there is an economical replacement for every single erg of the energy the world needs.
Renewables prove the world has a lot of money to waste, and more fear than common sense built into the average person.
I always read your comments Allan, and appreciate all your hard work and dedication over the years.

Patrick MJD
September 16, 2019 4:59 am

“ALLAN MACRAE September 16, 2019 at 3:54 am

The green New Deal is the prattling of imbeciles – it will be a disaster.”

Sadly, and personally, I think it needs to happen.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 16, 2019 5:58 am

Greenhouse effect: Fact or Fiction?

Reply to  Nick Schroeder
September 16, 2019 6:21 am

That’s a better question.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nick Schroeder
September 16, 2019 5:29 pm

IMO, there cannot be a GHE (If we assume and use the literal meaning and function of a greenhouse) in an open, mostly unknown, chaotic, planetary system. To believe human emissions of CO2 is the “control knob” of warming and the driver of catastrophic climate change is pure fantacy.

Nicholas McGinley
Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 16, 2019 6:01 am

Needs to happen?
What, like Thanos?
It is inevitable?
It happens to be impossible, economically, logistically, physically, and politically.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Nicholas McGinley
September 16, 2019 5:39 pm

Many times, people thought an man-made event would be impossible, economically, logistically, physically, and politically…until after it happens.

This may not apply to the US, but certainly Australia, New Zealand the UK and EU. We have right now, politicians destroying national energy supply and security. We have politicians destroying our borders. We have politicians destroying basic rights. We have politicians installing huge surveillance systems in our cities and on our roads watching 24/7. This is just the tip of the iceberg.

After WW2 no-one thought this would happen. But it is and it will end badly.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
September 16, 2019 11:00 am

ALLAN MACRAE wrote on September 16, 2019 at 3:54 am

“The green New Deal is the prattling of imbeciles – it will be a disaster.”

Patrick wrote:
“Sadly, and personally, I think it needs to happen.”

Patrick, I suggest that sooner or later there will be a disaster involving a major grid power failure in winter, probably caused by intermittent wind (or less probably) solar energy.

The harm, in terms of property damage (frozen burst pipes, etc.) and loss of life will be considerable, especially among the elderly and the poor.

Believe me, you do NOT want to have this happen.

Patrick MJD
September 16, 2019 5:25 pm

It does need to happen, call it a system reset. We already experience power outages regardless of generating source or cause. We already experience frozen pipes in winter (I know from personal experience during British and Irish winters) but it simply isn’t big enough to get people to think something isn’t quite right. We suffer natural disasters however, what is needed is some disaster that is truly man-made. Might actually get us thinking about what is important.

Orson Olsonr
September 18, 2019 8:35 am

Perhaps Germany’s Energievende will count?

Steve Z
September 16, 2019 12:35 pm

The attack on the Saudi oil refinery has much less effect now that it would have had ten years ago, when U.S. oil production was much less than it is today, thanks to fracking. Fracked oil from west Texas and North Dakota is not only plentiful, but it is much lighter and sweeter (less sulfur) than so-called Arabian Light, so that U.S. refineries prefer using fracked oil than Saudi oil, since fracked oil does not have to be shipped across the Atlantic Ocean.

If the global-warming scaremongers among the Democrat party had their way, the U.S. would become much more dependent on Saudi oil, and an attack on a Saudi production facility would be far more disruptive.

I still remember the gasoline-rationing, odd and even license plates at 6:00 AM, lines around the block at gasoline stations, and wearing sweaters indoors of the late 1970’s when we were begging pretty-please to the Saudis to send us oil at whatever price they wanted.

Increased oil production due to fracking, which started under Obama despite him, and now encouraged by Trump, has enabled the U.S. to negotiate any disruption in oil supplies from a position of strength, ready to help our allies and punish our enemies when needed.

Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
September 16, 2019 3:28 pm

Which is why I call it the “Green Leap Forward”.

AGW is not Science
Reply to  Alan Watt, Climate Denialist Level 7
September 18, 2019 6:37 am

I prefer the “Green Screw-Steal,” which is an accurate description of what it is, nothing more than government sanctioned theft.

September 18, 2019 1:40 am

Always liked the Swedish version myself “skitsnack”….. or “struntprat” even. Still living in Sweden for a good while may have unfairly influenced my preferences 🙂

Any changes have so far been net beneficial. How much of any change is CO2 related is debatable. The balance of evidence would tend to indicate that sensitivity is low, very low in comparison to the IPCC estimates. If you want to seek out human related influences I’d go with changes in land use being almost as big as a contributor as anything CO2 is capable of mustering. Main issue in models and CAGW is clouds.

Mark Broderick
September 16, 2019 5:50 am

Just for Laughs…….

“Sarah Silverman Says Jesus ‘Is This Girl’ Greta Thunberg”

“You think you will recognize Jesus when he comes back? I see him all around. He is this girl. And y’all don’t even see it.”

Yup, they’re all nuts !

Gordon Dressler
Reply to  Mark Broderick
September 16, 2019 7:10 am

“Professing themselves to be wise, they became fools.” — Romans 1:22, Bible, KJV

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Gordon Dressler
September 16, 2019 9:13 am

There’s a lot of that going around! 🙂

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Mark Broderick
September 16, 2019 6:35 pm

Sarah, and the guy (South African can’t recall his name) shown along side Greta, are both comedians. I think this is a joke!

Nick Schroeder
September 16, 2019 6:50 am

The US imports about 14% of its total energy. (EIA)

It’s not about energy supply dependence, it’s about pump price and what that does to the economy.

“They” can’t command and control the economy if “they” can’t command and control energy prices.

Nick Schroeder
September 16, 2019 8:22 am

Radiative Green House Effect theory postulates that the earth is 33 C warmer with an atmosphere than without.

This difference is the result of 15 C, 288 K, the alleged average surface temperature, minus 255 K, the alleged surface temperature without the atmosphere.

WMO is the source of 15 C, 288 K. The K-T diagram uses 16 C, 289 K to calculate 396 W/m^2 upwelling LWIR. UCLA Diviner mission claims 71.4 F, 22 C, 295 K.

288 K average surface temperature = Fiction 1.

The 255 K is the S-B equilibrium balance temperature while keeping the 30% albedo and 240 W/m^2 OLR.

Without the atmosphere the earth’s albedo would be similar to the moon’s 0.11.

255 K without an atmosphere = Fiction 2.

NOAA’s slide deck on “What makes earth habitable” claims that without an atmosphere the earth would become a frozen ice ball at -430 F. (slide 14)

Without an atmosphere there would be no water vapor, no clouds, no ice or snow, no vegetation, no oceans (atmospheric pressure keeps the ocean liquid). The earth would become an airless celestial body (Nikolov) much like the barren, hot lit side/cold dark side, moon. (as analog, Kramm & UCLA Diviner)

Earth without atmosphere -430 F ice ball = Fiction 3.

Fiction 1 + Fiction 2 + Fiction 3 = RGHE theory = Fiction^3.

Zero RGHE = Zero GHG warming = Zero man caused climate change

September 16, 2019 12:05 pm

For Pete’s sake Nick, the slide deck you refer too about the -430 F ice ball Earth was made by some summer students working on an NOAA kid’s tour presentation. It is not official NOAA documentation….isn’t even high school documentation. NOAA would tell you 255 K, about 0 F, with an Albedo of 0.3, probably ignoring that without clouds, Earth’s Albedo would be around 0.13….with a temperature of higher than today’s average 288. But once you and your sheep’s pic are on the ’net, it’s difficult…..

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 16, 2019 1:22 pm

Remove the atmosphere/albedo and the earth would get 25% more kJ/h which results in getting warmer.

Have your furnace kick out 25% more kJ/h and see what happens.

That alone trashes RGHE.

Nick Schroeder
Reply to  DMacKenzie
September 16, 2019 1:23 pm

We’re the same summer students responsible for the K-T diagram?

Mary Kullis
September 16, 2019 12:19 pm

Willie Soon was awesome.
Also that woman who, in her question, mentioned the politicization of an incredibly deadly syndrome, or what was deemed one.

September 16, 2019 1:04 pm

Global Warming/Climate Change – A statistic conceived in a think tank, and born in a political consensus.

Anthropogenic Global Warming/ACC a quasi-religious belief progressed through inference.

Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming/CACC a twilight faith (“penumbra”) with wicked ambitions.

Mark Silbert
September 16, 2019 1:43 pm

I’ve seen Willie’s shtick (meant in a positive sense) many times so I focused on Elliot Bloom’s presentation which basically said that he found John Christy’s work compelling.

To me the interesting stuff was in the audience Q&A at about 1 hr 28 min in. I didn’t realize there were that many people left in Northern California that seem to have an open mind as well as some knowledge. I guess there are still some non-Moshers around in the Oakland area.

Prof. Bloom’s comment about being prevented from inviting climate skeptics to participate in his Stanford department’s discussion forum and symposia was pretty revealing. There was also a discussion on brainwashing of young children in school.

Ulric Lyons
September 16, 2019 5:06 pm

1970’s global cooling was not about lower solar irradiance, but stronger solar wind states driving colder ocean phases, which increases low cloud cover.

Spalding Craft
September 16, 2019 6:11 pm

Stephen Mosher says 2 things that are undeniably true:

1. The academy has populated itself with consensus climate scientists. There are a few “skeptics” there, but they all seem to be retired guys with tenure. On twitter, all the young phds and post-docs that I run across are consensus types. And young academics are very active on social media, including twitter.
2. The climate “debate” will be decided politically, and not in the academy. Believers have a head start just about everywhere except in the U.S. This is a very complex situation, but a simple fact is that the President is elected directly, which produces an unpredictable quadrennial event where populism can carry the day. And the U.S. has huge wealth, enabled by fossil fuels, and if fossil fuels are threatened the populace doesn’t like it.

The politics of climate change hasn’t sold well in the U.S. It could do better if it strikes an alliance with its nemesis, the fossil fuel interests.

George Towson
September 18, 2019 3:13 pm

Given his shady resume, what is it about Willie Soon that readers of this thread find convincing?

Solomon Green
September 19, 2019 6:21 am

George Towson,

Perhaps it is because they can recognise an intellect that not only sees through the flaws in climate science as presented by the consensus but has the ability to draw attention to them in terms simple enough for the average layman, like myself, to understand.

It is a tribute to Dr. Soon that the consensus appear to fear him as an opponent so much that, instead of attempting to refute his arguments, they sling mud at him, as demonstrated by Mr. Mosher and yourself.

By the way I found Mr. Mosher’s CV impressive. It is a great pity that he appears to lack the ability to express his often sensible contributions more fluently.

%d bloggers like this: