Guest essay by Eric Worrall
The BBC has belatedly decided they need at least a little input from one of the targets of their latest big oil climate conspiracy propaganda piece. Dr. Willie Soon does not hold back in his response.
Note some of the links take you to a “You are leaving the mail.com service” page. This is a harmless artefact caused by copying Dr. Soon’s email, click continue to see the referenced document.
Dear Ms. Keane,
I am wary of responding to your false allegations, since your questions seem somewhat loaded. Disappointingly, they appear to repeat the dishonest and misleading claims of the former Greenpeace USA research director, Kert Davies (now running the so-called “Climate Investigations Center”), whose research we have shown to be disingenuous in Section 2 of our attached 2018 report on Greenpeace (Attachment 1). Unfortunately, the premise of your series seems to be the dangerous conspiracy theories promoted by Naomi Oreskes and Erik Conway in their 2010 book Merchants of Doubt: How a Handful of Scientists Obscured the Truth on Issues from Tobacco Smoke to Climate Change and their 2014 film of the same name. I’ve attached a short 3-page .pdf (Attachment 2) summarizing just a few examples of the poor scholarship and bizarre hypocrisies in Oreskes & Conway’s conspiracy theories.
The BBC has an established history of stifling genuine scientific inquiry and nuanced debate on climate change since its infamous 2006 Climate Change – the Challenge to Broadcasting? seminar, as described in detail in Andrew Montford’s short book The Propaganda Bureau and summarized in various blogs in 2012, e.g., here, here, here and here.
It is also regrettable that you attempted to contact me in such a roundabout way, i.e., by going through the Heartland Institute, rather than emailing me directly here at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. I am not pleased that you saw fit to circulate your letter, with its numerous libellous comments, to a third party.
The BBC seems to encourage the unethical pseudo-journalistic practice of selectively quoting and cherry-picking out-of-context interviewees who disagree with the narrative of the program, in order to make the interviewees seem foolish or uninformed. Richard North, summarized this unethical practice well in this 2011 essay: https://eureferendum.blogspot.com/2011/01/on-being-stitched-up.htmlThis was a particular concern when I considered whether to reply to your allegations.
I am hoping that you have more journalistic integrity than your BBC colleagues who have carried out unethical “hatchet jobs” in the past. I suspect that you may not be planning to “fairly and accurately reflect any comments” as you promised me.
Nonetheless, given the number of false allegations you are threatening to broadcast, I feel compelled to respond. I have copied this letter a number of friends and colleagues who might be interested to see the questions you have asked me and my responses.
I have copied and pasted your letter to me below. Your letter is in bold face: and my responses are in Roman face.
Will you change course in your grave misunderstanding on this timely subject and uphold honest debate and discussion on climate science?
Yours faithfully,
Willie Soon
Phoebe Keane
BBC Radio Current Affairs
BBC New Broadcasting House
Portland Place
London
W1A 1AA
Dear Wei Hok ‘Willie’ Soon,
My Chinese name given by my father is Wei-Hock. There is no need to put a quote on Willie as this is my name.
I’m making a BBC Radio series about the way oil companies have over emphasized the uncertainty around climate change. The series will be broadcast on BBC Radio 4 in the UK and we intend for it to be available as a podcast internationally and may appear as an online article. It is a 10 part series, each episode is 15 minutes long.
The series is currently titled ‘How they made us doubt everything’ and will discuss how the oil industry has carried out a campaign to make us doubt climate change. It explores how it drew on a ‘playbook’ of tactics developed by the tobacco industry and PR company Hill & Knowlton to make us doubt the connection between smoking and cancer. We’ll set out that these tactics weaponised doubt and enabled both the tobacco and oil industries to undermine science, but also has fed into a broader sense of distrust in facts and experts which has spread far beyond climate change.
I should strongly urge you to reconsider the current premise of your proposed series which seems to be based on the flawed conspiracy theories promoted by Naomi Oreskes & Erik Conway in their 2010 book (and 2014 film), “Merchants of Doubt”. I would recommend you read the attached 3-page critique (Attachment 2) of this pseudo-scientific conspiracy theory by Oreskes & Conway.
Instead, if you genuinely want to address the vested interests who are most seriously hindering and undermining scientific inquiry into climate change, I would urge you to read our 2018 analysis of the anti-science, anti-education and ultimately anti-environment behaviour that Greenpeace has engaged in. In particular, I would refer you to Section 2, in which we specifically review the dishonest and insidious misinformation campaigns which Kert Davies spearheaded while he was Greenpeace USA’s Research Director. I’ve attached a .pdf copy (Attachment 1), but you can also download a copy from the Heartland Institute’s website here: https://www.heartland.org/publications-resources/publications/analysis-of-greenpeace-business-model.
We’d like to offer you the opportunity to respond to the points we intend to broadcast. We therefore draw your attention to the following:
1) You received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015 from fossil fuel interests including Southern Company, American Petroleum Institute, Exxon Mobil Foundation. Is that the case? Would you like to respond?
WS: This is definitely not the case. I have definitely not “received millions of dollars for your research through 2000 up to 2015”. My employer, Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, is simply not that generous. Frankly, if making money was my main priority, I would not have gone into science. Indeed, if I did not care about science or the environment, maybe I would have found it more lucrative to work for an advocacy group like Greenpeace, which as we discuss in the attached report has an annual turnover of about $400 million.
My salary has come from the Center since I started as a staff position in 1997. Until about 2008, I had no involvement in where the Center received its funding. After my immediate supervisor retired in 2009, one of my additional duties was to write grant proposals on behalf of the Center, which has received funding from many sources including government, industry, charities, foundations and many others. This includes the three groups you mentioned, amongst many others.
However, most employees (including me) receive their salary through the Center. This has the advantage that our research is uninfluenced by the Center’s funding sources. In any case, I am a scientist. I believe it is important to follow the science wherever it leads. I appreciate that there probably are some “scientists” out there who might alter their research results to facilitate vested interests, but the idea is abhorrent to me.
2) Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Centre says your research was used to slow down progress on climate change. Would you like to respond?
On the contrary, in my opinion, the dishonest and unethical misinformation spearheaded by Kert Davies of the Climate Investigations Center (and previously Greenpeace USA) has been used to slow down progress on genuine climate change research. See for example, Section 2 of our Greenpeace attached report, where we describe what he did through his “ExxonSecrets” campaigns.
3) Our guests outline that this played into a broader campaign to misrepresent the data on climate change, leading to many people doubting legitimate climate change science. Would you like to respond to this?
Again, on the contrary, in my opinion, it is the misinformation promoted by Kert Davies and others like him that is “leading to many people doubting legitimate climate change science”. Often the original sources of this misinformation seem to have arisen from people associated with campaigning groups who have a vested interest in downplaying the extensive ongoing scientific debate within the scientific community on many aspects of climate change: for instance, Greenpeace, Friends of the Earth, the David Suzuki Foundation (in particular, see the DeSmogBlog website co-founded by the Chair of this foundation, James Hoggan), the Union of Concerned Scientists, etc.
If you visit the websites of any of these groups, you will quickly find that many of their campaigns explicitly rely on the assumption that “97% of scientists agree” and “the science is settled”. In fact, as Legates et al. (2015), of which I was a co-author, demonstrated that the widely-quoted Cook et al. (2013) paper that purported to find 97.1% of 11,944 peer-reviewed climate papers published in the 21 years 1991-2011 all agreed that climate change is mostly human caused, was based on flawed analysis and bad science. Upon a close inspection of their data, they had only found 64 papers or 0.5% of their sample had explicitly argued that climate change was mostly human caused. A subsequent examination showed that only 41 of these, or 0.3% of the original sample, had made that statement. On the other hand, 27 papers concluded the exact opposite that i.e., climate change is mostly natural. Vast majority of the papers did not make any statements one way or the other. For more details on the 97% consensus myth, please read here.
As we discussed in our Greenpeace report, these campaigns can be very lucrative for the campaigning groups. As a result, an honest reporting of the messy and contentious scientific debates that continue to this day within the scientific community would directly harm their claims of “scientific consensus” and “settled science”.
Our case study of Greenpeace showed that it has an annual turnover of about $0.4 billion, and that from 1994-2017 they spent $521 million (i.e., more than $0.5 billion) on their “Climate/Climate & energy” campaigns. In comparison, Greenpeace’s “ExxonSecrets” campaign (led by Kert Davies) claimed that ExxonMobil allegedly spent $1.8 million/year over the period 1998-2014 on “funding climate denial” and that this supposedly substantially altered the public discourse on climate change. I encourage you to read our complete analysis in the report. Meanwhile, consider that if Kert Davies were correct that the alleged $1.8 million/year from ExxonMobil on “funding climate denial” has substantially altered the public discourse on climate change, what was the impact of Greenpeace’s $31 million/year expenditure on “Climate/Climate & energy” campaigning, 17 times greater than Exxon’s alleged expenditure?
4) You have been characterised as downplaying the impact of human activities on climate change. Is that a fair portrayal of your work?
No, definitely not. My climate change research considers all of the plausible mechanisms for climate change that are discussed in the scientific literature. I’m not sure of what definition you have in mind, but to me “downplaying” means making something appear less important than it really is. If that’s the same definition you are using, then that is the exact opposite of my research. My research involves trying to find out exactly how important each of the many proposed climate change mechanisms are in current, past and future climate change.
It is true that many scientists (in particular, several of the main computer modelling groups) have “downplayed” (to use your word) the role of solar variability and other forms in recent and historic climate change. So, by not downplaying these important factors, my work often leads to more nuanced, and in my opinion, more accurate and reliable, conclusions.
Indeed, several of my recent publications have argued that the current global and regional temperature datasets have substantially underestimated the role of a specific local form of human-caused climate change, i.e., the urban heat island phenomenon. The Urban Heat Island is a well-recognized form of local climate change that has nothing to do with greenhouse gas emissions, but is definitely a result of human activities. This is an underappreciated problem because even though urban areas only comprise 1-2% of the planet, many of the weather stations used in current global temperature datasets and most of the ones with the longest records are urbanized. This appears to have led to a sampling bias: the trends of the sampled data are unrepresentative of the global trends.
Your response would be appreciated in writing to the above by 7th July 2020 so we can fairly and accurately reflect any comments you wish to make, where appropriate. Please respond to: [redacted]
For your information we also intend to report:
1) That a 1995 draft primer to the Global Climate Coalition dismisses solar variability, which we describe as your main thesis. The primer says it’s ‘accounted for 0.1 degrees C temperature increase in the last 120 years, it is an interesting finding, but it does not allay concerns about future warming which could result from greenhouse gas emissions.’ [SOURCE: Primer sent from L S Bernstein, Exxon Mobil, Environmental health and safety department, to members of GCC, 21ST December 1995. Made publicly available as part of the court case ‘Green Mountain Chrysler Plymouth Dodge Jeep v. Crombie’ 2005.]
Are you implying that the Global Climate Coalition had already in their 1995 document reached “the definitive answers” on the complex and challenging problem of the attribution of recent and future climate change, a year before IPCC’s Second Assessment Report and nearly 20 years before its fifth? Are you suggesting that all scientific research into climate change since 1995 is redundant?
I’m not sure how you think science works, but that is utter nonsense. Climate change is a complex multi-causal phenomenon, and scientists have been debating the relative importance of different factors since the 19th century, particularly following the discovery of the ice ages.
The role of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2) is in many ways the easiest to assess, because according to the Antarctic ice core estimates, atmospheric CO2 has increased near-exponentially from pre-industrial concentrations of nearly 0.03% to a little above 0.04% today. In contrast, the role of the Sun is a much more challenging subject: there is much ongoing debate over which estimates of past “Total Solar Irradiance” (TSI), i.e., solar output, are most reliable. There are also ongoing debates over the various mechanisms by which solar variability influences the Earth’s climate.
If you are interested in learning more about the ongoing debates in the scientific literature over this, I would recommend reading our comprehensive 2015 review paper: Soon et al. (2015), Earth-Science Reviews, Vol. 150, p 409-452. You can download a copy from my CfA website here. If you don’t have time to read the full 44-page article, which is technical in places, there is a simpler overview here:
However, one of the problems inherent in the research of those groups who “downplay” (to use your word again) the role of solar variability in recent and historic climate change and instead focus on CO2 as the “primary climate driver” (as the current computer models do), is that they find it very difficult to explain climate changes before about 1950, as CO2 seems to have still been only 0.031% then.
A consequence of this is that in order to try and fit the historic global temperature trends in terms of CO2 as the primary climate driver, researchers have had to:
a. Increase the modelled “climate sensitivity” of global temperatures to CO2 concentrations; and
b. Revise the estimates of past climate changes to downplay the climate variability before about 1950.
A bizarre result of these attempts to “shoehorn” CO2 as the primary climate driver is that even the IPCC’s latest (Fifth) Assessment Report still suggests that the “Equilibrium Climate Sensitivity” (ECS) to CO2 could be anything from 1.5 °C to 4.5 °C. This year (Meehl et al, 2020, Zelinka et al. 2020) it is reported that the sixth-generation models of the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project find the spread to be 1.8-5.6 °C. ECS is the expected global warming that would occur from a doubling of CO2.
In a recent scientific paper that we published in March, we showed that the value of this metric has major implications for international climate change policies. If ECS is at the higher end of the IPCC’s “likely” range, then the 2015 Paris Agreement would be broken in a few decades if we continue “business-as-usual”. However, if ECS is less than 2 °C, then if we continued “business-as-usual” for the rest of the century, the Paris Agreement wouldn’t be broken until at least the 22nd century. That seems to me a pretty important point that the BBC should be discussing.
In case you’re interested, you can download our 2020 “Business-as-usual” paper here: Connolly et al. (2020), Energies, Vol. 13, 1365. Again, it is a rather long paper. However, I hope you appreciate by now that these are complex problems, and that there is a lot of ongoing scientific debate within the scientific community on these issues.
2) That you published a paper in 2006 relating to Polar Bears which concluded that there was no reason for alarm for their continued safety. Please let me know if that’s incorrect.
WS: Incorrect.
I’m not sure what “2006” paper you are referring to. I did co-author three scientific papers which looked at polar bear populations around that time, but none in 2006. It is possible that you’re referring to Dyck et al. (2007) as that was accepted for publication subject to minor revisions in October 2006 (after a lengthy peer review process), but it was not officially published until April 2007.
In any case, that was not the conclusion of the paper.
I also co-authored a follow-on paper, Dyck et al. (2008), in response to some comments on the 2007 paper, and I was a co-author on a separate paper, Armstrong et al. (2008) which also looked at forecasting of polar bear populations.
The three papers are:
· Dyck et al. (2007), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 4., p 73-84. Pdf available here.
· Dyck et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 5, p 289-302. Pdf available here.
This was a response to comments in Stirling et al. (2008), Ecological Complexity, Vol. 5, p 193-201. Pdf available here.
· Armstrong et al. (2008), Interfaces, Vol. 38, p 382-405. Pdf available here.
I would recommend reading the papers to find out the exact details of what we found in those papers, in particular, the Dyck et al. (2007) which I suspect is probably the “2006” paper you were referring to. However, in brief, two researchers (Ian Stirling and Andrew Derocher) and colleagues had published a series of papers in which they concluded that the primary factor in the local polar bear populations in the western Hudson Bay region was global warming from increasing CO2. Specifically, they argued that the long-term spring-time warming since the 1970s in the region was: (a) due to increasing CO2, (b) was reducing local sea ice cover and (c) leading to reductions in local polar bear population.
We looked at the basis for their claims and realized that their analysis was scientifically flawed for multiple reasons. For instance, they apparently hadn’t realized that while the Arctic has warmed since the 1970s, it followed a period of Arctic cooling from the 1940s-1970s, and there was a similar warm period to present during the early 20th century. If their theory was correct, then the polar bear populations should have responded accordingly during those pre-1970s periods. They didn’t. Instead, we found that the local polar bear populations appear to be more influenced by other factors, such as the numbers of bears that are allowed to be hunted.
More recently, I have co-authored a study in which we reconstructed Arctic sea ice cover back to 1900, and found that the variability in Arctic sea ice cover is a lot greater than the IPCC had assumed in their latest reports: Connolly et al. (2017), Hydrological Sciences Journal, vol. 62, p1317-1340. I also co-authored a study in 2019 in which we compared the observed snow cover trends for the entire Northern Hemisphere since 1967 to the trends which the IPCC computer models say should have occurred – according to their assumption that CO2 is the primary climate driver. The results were shocking. The current computer models are unable to explain the observed trends in snow cover for either winter, spring, summer or fall. None of the 196 computer model simulations that the IPCC used for their most recent report succeeded in replicating the observed 1967-2018 trends for any of the seasons. The paper is: Connolly et al. (2019), Geosciences, vol. 9, 135.
As a result, these two recent papers reveal that the computer models which Stirling and Derocher as well as the IPCC had been relying on for their analysis of the Arctic seriously “downplayed” the natural variability in Arctic sea ice and seriously “up-played” the role of CO2in recent trends.
Yours faithfully,
Phoebe Keane
BBC Radio Current Affairs; [redacted]
A final thought: I think it important that you should understand that science is not a matter of mere politics: it is an earnest, continuing and rigorous search for the objective truth. In this reply I have given you some indication of the fact that your underlying premise – that there is only one scientific viewpoint on the climate question and that all other scientific opinions are bought and paid for by vested interests running counter to the vested interest of the BBC – is in all respects wholly false.
Are you a campaigner for a cause that is rooted in such bad science, or are you a proper journalist willing to ask real questions? The moment you begin to look at the climate question not through the eyes of blind faith, not through the lens of political zeal, but through the searing prism of logic and scientific method, you will realize that there are two sides to the climate question based on the data currently available.
Attachment 1 – Analysis of Greenpeace’s business model
Attachment 2 – Paradoxes of the Merchants of Doubt conspiracy theory
If Phoebe had any decency at all and just a little bit of journalistic competency and stop trying to be an activist herself she would also make a radio series addressing the way alarmist scientists have exaggerated and distorted the certainty of their so called science. And then let the public decide rather tell us what to think. She could ask Willie for his knowledge of their shenanigans and ask the alarmists to support scientifically all their assertions i.e. put the boot on the other foot. She would be surprised and rather incredulous I am sure. She could then ask Lindzen and Curry and many others for their comments. In time she might realize just how big and powerful Big Green is and just how devious some politicians have been.
No, she should not ask Curry or Lindzen for their comments on real science, she should ask Mann and Oreskes for their comments and see how they justify their psuedo science.
As a former journalist in the UK I can tell you that BBC ‘journalism’ is a disgrace to the profession. People like little Phoebe have no concept of truly investigative reporting. Unlike true journalists, she will not approach this programme with an open mind – indeed, the tone and content of her priggish email to Dr Soon will have professional, time-served journalists cringing with embarrassment.
The other thing, of course, is that even if Phoebe did try to produce a balanced account she would damage her long-term career prospects with her employer. You have to ‘play the game’ to get on at the BBC. Dr Soon’s careful and fact-packed response is, of course, lost on little Phoebe – it’s too difficult to her head around. She will parrot her findings, as far as she is capable of understanding them, back to her producer who will carefully guide her next steps.
But thanks for the response Dr Soon. By the way, this empty-headed, unthinking, uninvestigative, biased, nodding donkey approach to the issues of the day is prevalent in all aspects of the BBC’s output and has to be suffered every day by the British people.
Yet another English Graduate and Drama Queen tackles “Climate Change”. This time Phoebe Keene will have a read problem with Willie’s response. One can almost feel for her. She has effectively asked Willie has he stopped beating his wife hoping for a one word answer that would sink him. Instead she has got something that, given her agenda, she can at best only try to misrepresent. I can imagine those heated discussion that she will be having with that other notorious English Graduate, Roger Harrabin. We will have to wait and see. This could be very interesting.
Look at her introductory remarks – “making a series about how big oil has influenced the debate away from human caused global warming”.
Thus the question has already been decided – it were t’ oil cumpnies wat did it.
Typical BBC very biased reporting. Decide the question first then look for support for the BBC’s already decided position on the issue.
The BBC is long past its sellby date.
Brian j in UK.
“it were t’ oil cumpnies wat did it.”
I totally read that with a Northern accent, Brian. Made me laugh!
It is simpler than this. Smoking, lead in petrol, CFCs, are dangerous at any level.
If temperature response is low, CO2 is a benefit to the planet. This is well known established science going back centuries. In this 100% of scientists agree.
If temperature response is high, CO2 is a potential risk to the planet. This is very young science with no real proof, just postulation.
This is why the BBC cant lump climate change and smoking in the same basket. This is their fundamental dishonesty. Point this out to them, and this alone. It devastates their argument.
“lead in petrol,”
Yes, obviously it was the lead that damaged the brains of the current generation of teachers, leading to the creation of the ‘woke’ generation that didn’t learn to think.
I am of the belief that the use of mutagenic poison gases in WWI has done a number on successive generations of UK thinkers. Either that, or the application of similar poisons to ivy covered walls in academia has profoundly damaged their occupants’ brains.
Climate history plainly shows CO2 to have NO “climate driving” power. 17 times as much as today’s level couldn’t induce the “runaway global warming” that is supposedly going to be cause by 400+ ppm today. 10 times as much as today (and INCREASING to 11 times as much as today) couldn’t STOP the Earth from descending into a full blown ICE AGE from a “hot house” period.
The supposed “effect” of CO2 on temperature depends on the all-important scientific caveat “all other things held equal.” Here in the real world, this purely hypothetical effect does not exist, since the required condition of “all other things” remaining unchanged has never existed, does not exist now, and will not exist in the future. The Earth’s climate feedbacks are plainly negative, offsetting feedbacks, not positive, amplifying feedbacks, else the Earth would have turned into Venus long before there were humans to blame it on, based on historical CO2 levels.
Thus we must deny the accuracy of paleoclimate proxy data, hypothesize a low TSI in eons past, deny that there has ever been any substantial variation in climate since the start of the current interstadial, invoke mega volcanoes to account for cold events, and generally torture the data until they say what is expected.
If the BBC is concerned about expressions of doubt about climate change, doubts fuelled by claims (spurious) of millions of dollars from the oil gas and coal companies to scientists such as Dr Soon , what will they make of the latest item picked up at Notricks zone by Kenneth Richard :
https://notrickszone.com/2020/07/13/most-of-the-globe-could-experience-no-warming-for-30-years-due-to-temperature-driving-internal-variability/
looking at the paper (open access from Environ Res Lett)
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1748-9326/ab7d02/meta
and the abstract:
-“Abstract
On short (15-year) to mid-term (30-year) time-scales how the Earth’s surface temperature evolves can be dominated by internal variability as demonstrated by the global-warming pause or ‘hiatus’. In this study, we use six single model initial-condition large ensembles (SMILEs) and the Coupled Model Intercomparison Project 5 (CMIP5) to visualise the role of internal variability in controlling possible observable surface temperature trends in the short-term and mid-term projections from 2019 onwards. We confirm that in the short-term, surface temperature trend projections are dominated by internal variability, with little influence of structural model differences or warming pathway. Additionally we demonstrate that this result is independent of the model-dependent estimate of the magnitude of internal variability. Indeed, and perhaps counter intuitively, in all models a lack of warming, or even a cooling trend could be observed at all individual points on the globe, even under the largest greenhouse gas emissions. The near-equivalence of all six SMILEs and CMIP5 demonstrates the robustness of this result to the choice of models used. On the mid-term time-scale, we confirm that structural model differences and scenario uncertainties play a larger role in controlling surface temperature trend projections than they did on the shorter time-scale. In addition we show that whether internal variability still dominates, or whether model uncertainties and internal variability are a similar magnitude, depends on the estimate of internal variability, which differs between the SMILEs. Finally we show that even out to thirty years large parts of the globe (or most of the globe in MPI-GE and CMIP5) could still experience no-warming due to internal variability.”-
The paper continues a series on the possible significance of internal variability and the importance of considering it in the general climate change debate .
I am sure that the paper will attract the customary “Nick-picking” but if it generates a debate, the rumours of which drift back to the BBC, perhaps it might spur a more objective approach by the latter. Probably a forlorn hope alas.
Great response, but I think it was a waste of time. If the BBC reports on any of Dr. Soon’s responses, they will spin it to question Dr. Son’s credibility and motive.
BBC crap journalism on full display.
My God and the brits are forced to pay for tis. There are elderly people in prison for refusing.
Willie should have reported on Dr Susan Crockford’s book and paper : that the polar bears population is higher than ever. https://susancrockford.com/ Crockford, S.J. 2015. “Global polar bear population estimate about 26,000 (20,000-32,000), despite PBSG waffling.” http://polarbearscience.com/2015/05/31/global-polar-bear-population-size-is-about-26000-20000-32000-despite-pbsg-waffling/ [Critique and deconstruction of the IUCN PBSG population estimates]
As a Brit I am utterly disgusted that I am forced, by law, to pay for these insults and defamation.
So the BBC have started to get desperate as its collective deliberate deception of the public on climate change has failed to convince most British people that there is any kind of real emergency. Going after individual targets to intimidate others is now what the BBC intends and I fully distrust their real motives for approaching Dr Soon, whatever the glove puppet producer thinks she has been instructed to do.
I think Dr Soon should issue a public letter setting out why the BBC deserves no trust or confidence from him or anyone else on the basis of their track record or motives and refuse to help them.
I would compare being asked to help the BBC on a programme about climate change to being invited to roll about in a vat of sewage. The BBC is a disgrace and needs defunding by a public who increasingly despises it.
I always feel so good after reading or listening to Dr. Willie Soon, and he didn’t fail me this time either.
On small thing I may question, is his last statement:
My assumption is that there is a huge amount of viewpoints. Even here on WUWT there are as many opinions and “facts” as there are colors in Bifrost.
I am going to complain again, expressing my shock and horror that the British Broadcasting Company should have so carelessly smeared itself on a global basis thereby affecting the reputation of my country. (I always tick the box requiring a reply. BBC is running a couple of months astern at the moment. Keep it up)
Chris Curwen July 13, 2020 at 11:51 pm stated:-
“Phoebe Keane is on LinkedIn. She is a graduate in English Literature and Drama, with a Masters in “Broadcast Journalism”. She obviously doesn’t have a clue what she’s talking about where the science is concerned, and appears to be putting together another of the BBC’s hatchet jobs on a real climate scientist. The whole basis of her series is preconceived and biased assertion.”
I, rather differently from most responders to date, don’t blame Phoebe Keane for this. I would suggest that she was given a brief and put in charge of the project. That she may not have been aware of the details of the climate change controversy is very likely, given her background. As such, “she was dropped in it.”
It would be very interesting to see what comes of the program, and if it becomes a reasonable summary of the assertions that “the oil industry has carried out a campaign to make us doubt climate change.” Will it support that alleged campaign, or will it expose the reverse campaign by ‘alarmists’. Whose tactics weaponised doubt? Have the ‘climate alarmists’ managed to undermine science, and create a “sense of distrust in facts and experts which has spread far beyond climate change”?
Unfortunately here in Australia it seems impossible to get the BBC – you have to sign up and pay MONEY – would it be possible for someone in the UK to record the program and then put it on You Tube for us all to see and hear?
If you have ever tried to make a pig go backwards you will know what it is like to try and change a closed BBC “mind”.
Ivor Ward. To make a pig go backward, put a bucket over its head and watch it back up, with speed. I recovered two escpaed pigs that way.
Well done, Dr. Soon. Well done. The BBC should be privatized and confined to the dustbins of their own distorted arguments. Why hasn’t Boris Johnson already done away with the TV license fee in the UK? If I were a Brit, I wouldn’t be paying that ridiculous license fee. Not with the propaganda BBC puts out on a daily basis.
The problem is that it’s classed as a tax, and it’s a criminal offence to evade it. You can only legally not pay it if you never watch any live TV from any source, even from outside the UK. They do enforce itz same conviction can meant a criminal record.
Having once again had to respond to the nonsense that he gets ‘millions’ from evil ff/oil barons, I’d lay odds that the BBC will still stick to their meme and continue to slander (libel?) Willie. What will it take to shut down such a fake story?
I am not sure why Dr. Soon objects to being contacted through the Heartland Institute. The Heartland
Insitute has a prominent webpage entitled “Who We Are – Willie Soon” and on it it states clearly
“Contact Willie Soon” and gives the email address “media@heartland.org”. So if Willie Soon does not want
to be contacted this way then all he needs to do is stop accepting payment from the Heartland Institute and to be removed from their website.
You know, it’s usual to have a private and a job email account.
To be asked privately, it’s usual to use the private email account.
Izaak,
I didn’t get the impression or imagine Willie was objecting to the Heartland institute in any way. He was saying it is a strange way to contact someone via the club or association they support, rather than via their place of professional employment of direct mail to his home.
From this entire article you took that away?
That’s the only thing the troll could grab onto.
He’s like Nick, looking for a way to distract attention from the real issues.
Isn’t it obvious Izaak? It’s right there in the response.
“I am not pleased that you saw fit to circulate your letter, with its numerous libellous comments, to a third party.”
Clearly Dr. Soon objects to the “libellous comments” included in the letter about him and proffered to the Heartland Institute via the BBC conquistadoress. If you were a member of prestigious organization like Heartland, would YOU want some assuming BBC hack indiscriminately pushing conspiracy theories about you to that organization?
I mean, good grief he said right there in the letter???
Again if Dr. Soon doesn’t want to be contacted through the Heartland Institute he needs to change their website where it states “Contact Willie Soon” and gives the email address “media@heartland.org”. Furthermore the Heartland Institute is not a third party but an employer of Dr. Soon.
And he might make it easier for people to contact him. For instance his Google Scholar page states “no verified email address” and he is not listed on the Harvard Staff directory nor does he have his own webpage at the Harvard Centre for Astrophysics. If I was a reporter trying to meet a deadline then I would spend a reasonable amount of time trying to find an email address for Dr. Soon and failing that go back to the Heartland Institute which is the only place that lists a contact address for him.
– For instance his Google Scholar page states “no verified email address”
Izaak,
As an alumni of University College London I have an uclmail dot net email address granted to me as graduate of the college. One purpose of this address is to allow me to demonstrate my bone fides as an independent researcher. I have tried many times to get Google Scholar to recognise that this is an address rising from a legitimate academic location. Does Google Scholar respond in any way?
So, like Willie Soon I too have no recognised email address on my Google Scholar profile. Just to add insult to injury Google Scholar recently asked me to add an email address. Can I do so? No, the automatic system still fails to recognize my uclmail address as being authentic, but they send emails to my private address!
Well, “again,” that isn’t exactly what he said is it? What he said was, “It is also regrettable that you attempted to contact me in such a roundabout way, i.e., by going through the Heartland Institute, rather than emailing me directly here at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.” And in context his main issue with that method was the libelous material he believed the individual “circulated” to the 3rd party, Heartland.
Sounds to me like the inside story is this person may have attempted to contact others before Dr. Soon, and included the offending material in her attempt to contact him through them. For example, forwarding her “journalistic” request to others to forward to Dr. Soon.
Interesting, is this because you know better than Dr. Soon himself who are his “employers” and how he should reference them?
I guess it really isn’t for you or I to decide on his behalf whether Dr. Soon should “make it easier for people” to contact Dr. Soon, or would you disagree? Beyond this I assume you mean “make it easier” because no real journalist would ever think to access Harvard’s contact page to call and speak with someone who can direct them to Dr. Soon?
https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/about/contact
I don’t think you should be a journalist, Izaak. Even I can find Dr. Willie Soon without Heartland, and I’m just a simpleton. It would appear neither you nor Phoebe are particularly suited for the craft, if your defense of her actions is accurate.
If I’m on a deadline I’m going to do a Google search and then call Harvard. But that’s just me, what do I know, I’m not a journalist? Maybe it’s required one do it the hard way. Maybe it’s required one include libelous material in one’s 3rd party contact requests, and first forward that to whomever one may in their search for a particular individual. I wouldn’t, but then I’m not a “journalist.”
Now just to be clear, I can’t speak to whether or not she included the libelous material maliciously. I’m happy to believe that she’s pretty much what you’ve described her as here, i.e., a bit of a “blonde,” and not too smart, if you get my drift.
What say you?
The web address you give is a generic one that does not list Willie Soon explicitly. In contract the Heartland Institute webpage entitled “Who we are — Willie Soon” has an
explicit link stating “contact Willie Soon”. If Dr. Soon does not wish to contacted through the Heartland Institute then he should ask them to remove that link. I assume that he is aware of it and the web page and approves of it. Thus he only has himself to be blamed if he gets contacted that way.
Why does it have to again? In context that web address was given after I said this: “Beyond this I assume you mean ‘make it easier’ because no real journalist would ever think to access Harvard’s contact page to call and speak with someone who can direct them to Dr. Soon?”
So you would argue that the web address where one could make a phone call to contact Dr. Soon doesn’t list Dr. Soon explicitly and thus should prevent our wondrous BBC reporter of various feminine issues turned investigative powerhouse climate change reporter from satisfaction in contacting him?
Because the first return in a Google search for “Willie Soon” lists him at Harvard?
“Again,” I don’t think that’s what he’s saying, Izaak. I think he’s looking for interested parties who wish to contact him via 3rd party websites to forego including libelous allegations in those contact requests. Hardly an unreasonable desire don’t you agree?
Maybe he should put a disclaimer on that link at Heartland:
“If you’re a member of the BBC’s distinguished ‘Female 0rgasm,’ ‘Pain During Sex,’ and ‘Why Do We Cheat’ turned powerhouse investigate reporter of climate change journalism team, who’s oddly extraordinarily inept at research using the world’s #1 search engine to discover where I’m actually employed full time, and you wish to contact me via this 3rd party website without thinking about the libelous material that exists in the body of your email, please refrain from doing so. Please send your callous requests to dr.william.soon@tardbox-journalists.com”
What about that?
I’m joking of course, but I mean really, Izaak. Are you so obtuse as this?
No, he’s just a troll who is looking for anything to latch onto to distract from the substance of Dr Soon’s reply. Sad and Pathetic.
In less than two minutes with a search engine, I found this page: https://www.cfa.harvard.edu/contact/ssp
where Dr. Soon’s email address at the Center for Astrophysics is clearly indicated. Any “journalist” who deliberately chooses to contact him via the Heartland Institute rather than the CfA — his primary employer! — is clearly choosing to grind their axe…
A few years ago BBC staff were forbidden, on pain of dismissal, to broadcast anything which contradicted the “concensus” on CAGW, on the grounds that the science is settled.
If Phoebe broadcasts Dr. Soon’s replies she faces being sacked.
Many thanks to Dr Soon for an excellent and measured response to Phoebe Keane’s request.
Dr Soon’s response must have taken a significant amount of his valuable time. I do hope that Ms Phoebe Keane reads all the information provided and takes serious note of them.
Thank you Dr Soon, I learned a great deal from all that information.
Whilst I enjoyed the reply it was an opportunity missed.
One of the key points of the entire issue is getting the likes of the BBC to afford a platform allowing skeptical views parity with preachings of cagw credo. A briefer, less technical answer bereft of the prickliness MIGHT have opened that door. With a hat tip to President LB Johnson “Better to have your enemy inside your tent pissing out than outside pissing in.”
“I’m making a BBC Radio series about the way oil companies have over emphasized the uncertainty around climate change”
A great detailed technical response by Willie, but this opening line gives away that it’s an obvious setup and stitch up. The reality is that the oil companies have become part of the big green rent-seeking woke brigade many years ago and the only conspiracy worth chasing here is the one being run by outlets like the BBC who continue to push this empty barrow to sideline climate dissidents.
If I was Willie I would have responded politely “No, but if you ever get around to doing a radio series on how the BBC over-emphasises the certainly around absurdly implausible climate doomsday predictions, then please count me in”.
My guess is that The BBC will go ahead and make the programme it wants to make, and that this letter of enquiry to Dr. Willie Soon will be forgotten. Dr. Soon’s response(which of course has now been wisely, and widely shared on forums such as this one) cannot be misinterpreted to fit the required narrative, so the Beeb simply won’t mention it.
We should give due respect to Phoebe Keane for contacting Dr. Soon with regards to the upcoming series by the BBC though the series is likely meant to be just another propaganda hit job.
Dr. Soon’s excellent response is an absolute smack-down and tactfully presented.
Willie,
a great response from you to this attack! Should be very hard to overlook.
Now I am very curious about Keane’s response!
Stein