State of Delaware Lies About Willie Soon (as a scientist)

Bloomberg News is reporting that the state of Delaware (like several other Democrat-controlled states) is filing climate suits against Exxon, Chevron and others.

Willie Soon’s name has been repeatedly used and abused in nearly all the lawsuits by state Attorney Generals (the previous one was by the State of Minnesota, Keith Ellison, June 24, 2020). But this time, it is clear that the lawyers from San Francisco representing the state of Delaware did not bother to be more careful in doing their homework. The highlighted segment by the state of Delaware about Willie Soon while referring to the 2003 paper in Climate Research can be easily proven wrong:

Perhaps such blatant lie is legally actionable? But for now, let us consider another most interesting bit of inadvertent news that was missed by the high-priced lawyers from San Francisco representing the vicious  Attorney General for the state of Delaware:

What is fun is that in this case they are helping Willie Soon to expose the whole scam and political witch-hunt that was seeded and initiated by Greenpeace and Climate Investigations Center’s Kert Davies. As early as April 29, 2020, deep during the panic on pandemic, the Smithsonian Institution has removed the offending page concerning “Willie Soon”:

https://www.si.edu/newsdesk/releases/smithsonian-statement-dr-wei-hock-willie-soon

Please see this March 2, 2015 statement by Willie Soon on WUWT:

Well, if Willie Soon had done anything wrong, he would already have been put in jail since February of 2015. But it is a fact that the Smithsonian Institution has found no wrong doing  whatsoever.  So, instead a nice quiet walk back.

Historians of science will take note of such a blatant, empty, and ugly attack. Perhaps the State of Delaware owes Willie Soon an apology?

107 thoughts on “State of Delaware Lies About Willie Soon (as a scientist)

  1. All these baseless allegations are beyond disgusting. Having had the privilege of meeting Willie Soon in person, I can say first hand he is a scientist and truth seeker first and foremost, one of those rare people whose personal integrity shines through their entire personality.

      • Having done nothing wrong, he needs no defense.
        What is it about you alarmists and your eagerness to lie about those who disagree with you?

          • Wow Mark, you’re in the big time. Now you’re a state in the Union.

            Since you’re just like Delaware, does that mean you have a demented presidential candidate hiding in your basement?

          • Poor Loydo.. only way it can express itself is through blatant LIES and DECEIT.

            Never a word of TRUTH in anything it writes.

          • This is the equivalent of “I know you are, but what am I!” How childish. This is why it is a waste of time to engage these types of posters.

          • You’re just like Delaware.

            Eh? He has a demented Presidential Candidate in his basement? He’s the corporate home of over 1,000,000 corporations? He doesn’t charge any sales tax? He voted against secession in the civil war? Please specify how he is “just like Delaware”.

      • Yes under Loydo’s logic we are all guilty of hideous crimes, what really upset her is some of us don’t even feel guilt about it. Self guilt seems to be a modern disease you see it in the vegan movement and the amusing part is they impart how they feel on others, that we should feel how they do. Ghalfrut was a classic when he/she squealed “I can’t believe you are so selfish” like how civilization works escaped the thought process.

        It escapes these peeps that country’s basically compete in near war situations over trade and economics to improve the lives of their country. We don’t sit around around and say oh you aren’t doing so well so we will stand aside and let you do all the trading. In the real world what happens is countries steal market share and then throw a few crumbs to the losers. It is amusing to watch some in Western Democracies those who have only ever benefited think that they can change the rules … the reality is the rest of us will slice and dice the suckers.

      • It is the same as suing Winchester or Smith & Wesson for murder when all they did was to produce firearms. If fossil fuels cause pollution, it’s on the hands of the users not the producers

  2. Willie Soon is one of the World’s GREAT scientists (Repeat three times)!!!

    He has continued to work towards publicizing real science, and has done so brilliantly.

    In helping up-end “consensus science,” AKA pure politics, he has taken much flack, and as you all know, when doing so, means you are squarely over the target – one deserving of obliteration!!!

    • I want the names of the scientists (and their means of financial support) … who told the CA Gov’s. and Legislature … that CA could be adequately powered without ANY fossil fuels or Nuclear power? They LIED .., big time, and should be punished.

  3. Seems like a simple defamation lawsuit here. But I’m no lawyer.
    So sad, Willie seems like such a great guy. And funny. I love the picture of the toilet made of gold in his lectures. Of course, paid for from kick-backs by the oil companies. Now that’s funny.

    • My understanding is that statements made in a complaint or other legal filing, like statements made on the floor of the Senate or House, are not actionable for defamation. If they repeated this in a press release, it might be.

  4. The problem with media slander is that even when charges against someone like Dr Soon are proved false many naive people continue to believe them because they never see severe repercussions for the accusers or media networks.

    The ancient Israelites understood the issue 3500 years ago. Their law stated that a false accuser was to be punished with the same punishment he was hoping would be imposed on the innocent victim. This would be a just solution and real deterrent. Imagine how many politicians and media people would be stripped of their jobs and wealth.

  5. I’m another big fan of Willie Soon, and hope he becomes Nick Sandmann II, you remember the kid bothered by Dances With Whiskey that CNN et al blamed for a confrontation? Nick ends up with millions from first two lawsuits and several more suits to go. This is disgusting attacking Willie Soon, but I’m sure he is a fighter, so go get them!

    • Recently a worker at the ACLU wrote an open letter declaring that the university that accepted Sandman had seriously damaged it’s reputation and the only way to repair the damage was to expel Sandman immediately. Even though viewing the entire tape shows that Sandman and his schoolmates did nothing whatsoever, the liberals won’t let go of their preferred narrative.

      Beyond that, this person completely demonstrated that the ACLU no longer cares about civil liberties, it only cares about advancing the left wing agenda.

      • Equally disturbing was a professor there saying he’d be keeping tabs on the kid and report him to the appropriate school authorities at the first opportunity.

      • At one point, the ACLU actually stood for liberty.

        This is anectodal, but I just returned from a bike ride to Home Depot. I counted 8 Trump/Pence signs and 0 signs for Biden/Harris. One lawn held numerous Democratic candidate signs but interestingly no sign for Biden. Four years ago, most of the lawn signs were for Hillary, particularly since Trump signs were either stolen or vandalized.

        I did see 3 “We believe Black Lives Matter….” signs. It appears that there is little enthusiasm for Biden in my community at least.

        • Scissor, good anectodal report. The “We believe Black Lives Matter…” signs are like garlic or crosses against vampires, and the home owners probably have silver bullets in their guns, just in case they get past the signs.

          • As someone else noted, the BLM signs are like the blood on the door frames (see: exodus 12-13) in hopes the mob will pass over the sign owners property as they loot and burn the rest of the city/town. Only the mob won’t pass them over because the mob doesn’t really care.

  6. Two of the greatest early projects, both which I can vouch for, were funded by petroleum interests. Both had their own rationale, but both knew that to get the best data and conclusions available it was necessary to hire the best and let them have at it.

    These are Shepard, F. P., F. B. Phleger, and T. H. van Andel. 1960. Recent Sediments, Northwest Gulf of Mexico. American Association of Petroleum Geologists, summarizing their project 51. The other was summarized in Mackin, J. G. and S. H. Hopkins. 1962. Studies on oyster mortality in relation to natural environments and to oil fields in Louisiana. Publications of the Institute of Marine Science University of Texas. 7:1-131. Projects 9 and 23 of the Texas A & M Research Foundation. A few libraries have the unpublished reports and correspondence. The summary is available on line but I don’t have the link handy.

    Others later I know less about, but suspect that I would have heard about any serious corruption or problems of this magnitude, including about climate. I have seen some reports where you might take issue with some conclusions and it was a big field with some consultants making money testifying or reporting for plaintiffs and defendants, including myself, not very much in my case, last in 2008. There were some problems there which I suspect got worse, often lack of homework. Bias is not new, including buying it.

    Two other large ones—Bedinger, C. A., Jr. (Ed.) 1981. Ecological investigators of petroleum production platforms in the central Gulf of Mexico. Southwest Research Institute. 2 vols, 8 parts; Ward, C. H., M. E. Bender, and D. J. Reish. (Eds.) 1979. The offshore ecology investigation. Effects of oil drilling and production in a coastal environment. Rice University Studies. 65(4-5):l-589.

    There have been others, one I even worked on that I would have to look up to remember. I found that the petroleum industry was more honest than academia which clearly got worse. The industry got in trouble more quickly with any problems and may have had more trouble from settling minor cases. This appears to be guilt by association, didn’t used to be actionable. Long ago I was told by a very competent defense attorney, reinforced by a couple of others later that once the legal profession started to advertise it would corrupt them. Not the only profession advertising nowadays.

  7. Well, proof again that if you’re intending to become a climate activist, the first thing you must do is book yourself into a blue-city hospital and get –
    an ethics-ectomy;
    a sense-of-shame ectomy;
    a truthfulness-ectomy;
    a principles – ectomy

    and then while they have you in the table, get them to append to your brain –
    a clue.

  8. I am not entirely sure what statement that Delaware said that is false? In the
    passages quoted above the first section says that some scientists have received all or part of their funding for the American Petroleum Institute and the citation 117 is to a paper by Dr. Soon where he acknowledges funding from the American Petroleum Institute so that seems to be 100% correct. The next statement says that the same group of scientists have frequently failed to disclose their funding sources. And the citation here 118 is to a Smithsonian statement to the effect that Dr. Soon was under investigation for precisely that. And the statement put out by the Heartland Institute is essentially an admission by Dr. Soon that he made a mistake, by not disclosing funding i.e. “… I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices…”. So again everything here seems to be accurate. So which statement is a lie?

      • Of course it was the Smithsonian that got the funding. That is how it works. The API gave the money to the Smithsonian to employ Dr. Soon.

        • And what exactly is the problem with the Smithonian getting funding from a reputable source?

          How much funding for climate alarmists comes from Soros or any of the “renewable” scammers !

          • Yes, The Delaware AG is LYING. Its what leftists do.

            Willie Soon got his funding from the Smithonian.. end of story.

          • Fred,
            that claim is technically true but in all important regards false. Dr. Soon acknowledged funding from the American Petroleum Industry in his papers and they gave a grant to the Smithsonian Institute solely to fund Dr. Soon. That is how research funding works. The funder gives the money to the institution that employs the researcher. If you want to claim that only direct money into someone’s bank account counts as funding then almost no academic researchers would receive any government funding or in fact any funding at all.

          • “Dr. Soon acknowledged funding from the American Petroleum Industry”

            Thanks for showing that the Delaware AG is LYING !!

            They should not have used Willie Soon’s papers as examples in their slimy attempt to put his name into disrepute..

            They are LYING , like leftists do.

          • “How much funding for climate alarmists comes from Soros or any of the “renewable” scammers !”

            Soros is probably funding this witch hunt against Willie Soon.

            I think some anti-racketeering laws probably apply to Soros and his ongoing efforts to undermine the Democratic process.

    • I spent 40 years looking at and occasionally conducting scientific research in a number of fields. I can say without a doubt, that government funded research was far more biased and agenda driven than research funded by industry associations. There was an obvious reason for this. Almost all the research involved was ultimately applied in government regulatory programs. Researches working under government contracts knew they had to support the sponsoring agencies goals, or they’d not likely get another contract. Industry sponsored researchers and their sponsors knew that the results had to be iron clad and replicable because the government regulators would try their best to discredit them.

      There are a number of areas where the same large research organizations work for both government and industry clients. Southwest Research Institute, Battel Memorial, and even some national laboratories like Brookhaven and Oakridge come to mind. Industries have figured out that hiring the same organization the government uses in a specific area makes it harder for the government to ignore the results.

      It is amazing to me that these warmist activist DAs would question Dr. Soon’s ethics when his funding comes through the Smithsonian and Harvard whom I suspect are delighted with any funding they can get from industry. To suggest that a scientist of Willy Soon’s stature would act unethically to support some perceived funder’s desires is truly stupid and undoubtedly libelous. If you want to find examples of scientific malfeasance, I suggest a review of the “Climategate” emails.

    • I also found the article, and many of the comments, confusing. What exactly is the alleged lie: that Dr Soons was funded by the petroleum industry, or that he didn’t acknowledge that he was? Or both?

      In the area of environment impact, most studies are done under government regulation, but are funded by the developers. That doesn’t mean the research itself is biased towards the developers and is “corrupt”. Problems tend to arise when the government is determined the development will go ahead and ignore or bury the recommendations and warnings in the industry funded studies. Or the developers think/know the government is on side and go ahead anyway. See Rio Tinto’s current problem in Australia.

  9. Another example of the Streisand effect. This by itself blows up the Delaware lawsuit as filed, requiring amendment and weakening the rest of the case. Sort of like Mann’s original suit against Steyn Claiming he was a Nobel prize winner. He wasn’t, and had to amend.

    • He’d need more than just Nick’s Lawyer, unless Nick’s lawyer is gonna work pro-bono. He’ll need money to pay the legal fees until such time as a ruling is made in his favor. Lawsuits like this are not cheap, they take time and time costs money (particularly at a lawyer’s hourly rate) and the payoff, if any, can be many years away (just ask Dr Ball).

  10. The oil companies have deep pockets, cut off fuel and gas supplies to the state of Delaware until the state decides it needs fuel supplies.

  11. This personal attack on Dr Soon is really a just a message to other early- and mid-career and scientists to not challenge the climate orthodoxy. Same with Dr Ridd at JCU in Australia. The actions taken against them, both direct (funding and indirect reputation smears) are meant to send a message to other scientists if they don’t want to be reputationally smeared and funding cut-off, don’t veer from the climate scam message.

    • This is not a personal attack on Dr. Soon. The lawsuit linked to is a 222 page PDF that has precisely 2 mentions of Dr. Soon both in the footnotes. The first of which states correctly that Dr. Soon amoung others got funding from the fossil fuel industry. Similarly the second footnote states that he was investigated for failing to properly disclose his funding. Which is again 100% correct.

      Making this lawsuit out to be about Dr. Soon seriously misrepresents the case unless of course it is 100% watertight apart from 2 citations which could perhaps have referenced another person.

    • Joel, and another message, as we’ve seen recently, 16 armed to the teeth federal agents will be dispatched to “bring in” anyone for questioning that has had anything to do with supporting Trump.

  12. As long as the research papers have no errors and any experiments can be repeated , it doesn’t matter where the funding came from. The problem is that if one viewpoint is overly funded by a biased organization or government there will be far fewer papers on the other side of the argument. Another problem is that the media picks which research to report.

  13. I wonder how many climate scammers do0n’t disclose all their funding,,

    ….. be it from grants to universities by far-left socialists.

    .. or from the climate trough of government payments to the green agenda eg the Parisite Farce.

    .. or payments on the backhand, from people like Soros, or any number of leftist/marxist millionaires.

    eg.. has BEST told anyone who their “anonymous” donor is?

    There is absolutely BILLIONS in play and available. !

  14. At the risk of tu quoque, the other side also receives funding from Big Oil – Schellenberger mentions it in his book – and wrt Gavin Noisome’s father, interestingly…

    Big Oil hates Nuclear, too.

    Should therefore all relevant organisations disclose all funding sources as part of disclosure in Dr Soon’s defense?

    That could be interesting…Willie Soon sue their asses off?

    • There’s little reason for big oil to hate nuclear, since very little oil is used to generate electricity.
      Much of the power that is being generated by oil (diesel generators) nuclear wouldn’t be appropriate either.

  15. Morality is a trading floor like everything else in the USA. If black lives matter then Chinese, Russia and Iranian lives emphatically don’t. It’s called moral licensing. Because BLM, it’s now mandatory to be energetically racist against the above-mentioned “bad people” racial enemies of the States. It makes perfect sense for the left fascists to persecute Willie Soon since after all racially he’s of the “Yellow Peril”. This selective racism by licensing is the only thing that unites the Republicans and Democrats.

    • Can you name an actual instance of racism on the part of Republicans?
      Not favoring a program designed to benefit a single racial group doesn’t count.

    • Mark
      The political hostility toward China, Russia and Iran steps dangerously close to racial predjudice. I don’t think it is overt personal racism, but unconscious. A lot has been said about the brutal history of slavery of Africans, but historically in the US the treatment of Chinese has been little better. Why does the US openly describe nations as “adversaries”, and bully other countries to stop trading with them? Yes I realise that politically one sometimes needs to play hardball. But why label certain countries as permanent enemies? Is friendship or at least a working relationship with these “enemies of the States” not desired at all, even in the long term? Nikki Hayley the former US ambassador to the UN said publicly that “Russians would never be the friends of America”. Why?

      • Ah yes, the standard left wing line. Anytime you disagree with a minority, you are guilty of racism.
        First off, Russians are white Europeans.
        Beyond that, you completely ignore all the bad things that China and Iran have done and continue to do.

        As to your historical examples, non-of those were done by Republicans, most of it was done by Democrats.

      • Why does the US openly describe nations as “adversaries”,

        Because those nations are adversarial (some more openly than others) towards the US and it’s interests. duh.

        When Iran chants “death to America”, you really think they’re asking to be friends? When Russia is using it’s hacker farms to spread misinformation and interfere in our elections, you really think they’re looking for a working relationship with us?

      • Is friendship or at least a working relationship with these “enemies of the States” not desired at all, even in the long term? Nikki Hayley the former US ambassador to the UN said publicly that “Russians would never be the friends of America”.

        Don’t think your selective quoting went unnoticed. Nikki went on to say: “But what I do think is, whether it’s the president sitting down with [North Korean leader] Kim [Jong Un], or whether the president sits down with Putin, those are things that have to happen,” So despite acknowledging that Russia is not our friend and won’t be, she also stated a goal of working with enemies like Russia (the “have to happen” sit down) is desired, contrary to your false premise. Pretty pathetic of you for lying by omission.

  16. Its all about the money , law firms chase these cases in the hope of the type of MASSIVE pay-outs that were seen in the case of tobacco which was in the BILLIONS. When take at least a 20% cut of that , its very big money indeed, and hence its certainly worth the effort.
    States go along because it does not cost them anything and certainly is one way of saying ‘oh look a squirrel ‘ to distract the voters from their f-ups .
    In reality none of these states would ever consider banning from sell these ‘evil fossil fuels’, because not even those running California are that dumb .

  17. If only Willie Soon made all the money he has been accused of making from the oil companies, then he could afford to counter sue for deformation of character or even libel. Or even push for racketeering investigations against the Smithsonian, Dr Alcock, the Boston Globe, etc.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *