Dr. Willie Soon Interviewed by Professor Franco Battaglia: October 7, 2022 La Verita Newspaper

All the replies to these seven questions can also be studied in the video form at:


The full interview in English is given below.

1. Is Dr. Willie Soon in the pay of the fossil fuel industry?


This was a fabrication invented by Greenpeace activists and others to discredit me because my research was contradicting their fundraising narrative.

Since 1991, I was employed by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA for short). Throughout my scientific career, my research at CfA was funded by grants from NASA, NSF, US Airforce Office of Scientific Research (AFOSR) among others. In the early 2000s, I noticed that it was becoming more difficult   to get taxpayer-funded grants unless the research proposal supported the politically correct narrative on climate change. For this reason, from 2001-2015 the CfA’s funding for my research included corporate groups as well as government grants. When you add up all the funds from these sources that CfA received over this period, it comes to more than $1.2 million. My total salary from the CfA over this period was only 60% of this (before tax). In other words, over the period my average annual salary was between $40-75k per year (before tax).

To be honest, I was making far more money when my salary was drawn purely from government grants. I wrestled hard in choosing my scientific path. Should I get rich with a cushy full-tenured professorship at an Ivy League university by abandoning scientific integrity and following my colleagues down the “manmade global warming” money trail? Or should I keep my soul? In the end, I chose my soul and happily I was able to continue to pursue true science.  

We need a proper discussion on how science should be funded. This current model

of only funding research that supports the required political narrative is

shutting down genuine scientific research. We are trying a new approach at


Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/EcXzZwo8_qg

2. Why Greenpeace is looking for a piece of your green?

Greenpeace activists have been very unhappy with my hard-earned scientific results and understanding.  So, they have been carefully and systematically trying to smear me and my scientific integrity. They were somewhat “successful” in that they were able to supply a well-prepared narrative and details for NYT to print their hit-job on me at the front page of NYT on Sunday February 22, 2015.

I became very curious about Greenpeace and with my colleagues, including Dr. Patrick Moore formerly of Greenpeace, we published this detailed report documenting the strategy and operating principles of Greenpeace in 2018:


The bottom line is that Greenpeace has transformed from initially being an altruistic and passionate organization seeking to save the whales and to prevent the mutual self-destructive path of total nuclear war to their anti-human environmental actions and money-gaining campaigns today. We documented specifically that Greenpeace is a very cash-rich enterprise with about two thirds of their $200-300 million dollars assets in cash form. We have also shown that Greenpeace spent on average of $34 million dollars per year from 1994-2015 interval on their campaign to demonize CO2-climate change issue as a very sound fund-raising investment from their point of view. While Exxon-Mobil, according to   Greenpeace’s own analysis only spent about $1.8 million dollars per year from 1998-2014. It is clear from such statistics that if one were to worry about the influence of Exxon-Mobil, as a fossil fuel company and industry, in swaying public opinion on the topic of climate change, then one should be even far more concerned about the impacts from Greenpeace massively funded media campaigns.

Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/anAt4o1043o

3. Why “97% consensus on climate change” claims are wrong?

This idea and notion that science operates through consensus agreements is indeed the most anti-scientific aspect of the whole puzzle. Demonizing CO2, which is so essential for life on earth, as the satanic gas that is destroying the environment and humanity is bizarre.

In 2013, a group of activists led by John Cook published a rather strange paper announcing the now popular notion that there is a “97% consensus on climate change” being caused by rising anthropogenic CO2 in the atmosphere. Such pronouncement, unchecked and unchallenged, has even led to the then President of the United States to openly declare that “Ninety-seven percent of scientists agree. Climate change is real, man-made and dangerous.”

Around the same time, my colleague Professor David Legates of the University of Delaware and I and Professor William M. Briggs and Lord Christopher Monckton, researched this question that led to the publication of our investigation in a 2015 peer-reviewed paper in Science & Education: https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11191-013-9647-9  

We reanalyzed Cook et al. (2013) underlying database and we found that they were very misleading in how they described their results. 2/3 of their abstracts offered no opinion on the causes of climate change. Of those that offered an opinion most simply implied that human activity could be a factor. According to their results, only 64 of their 11,944 abstracts (or 0.5%) explicitly said that climate change was mostly human-caused. We examined those 64 and found only 41 (so only 0.3%) actually endorsed the claimed “consensus”.

This is a rather shocking result, and we urge anyone who may still be willing to spread this untruthful claim to stop parroting this most damaging and anti-science campaign.

Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/-ExrTgigXzE

4. Are the UN’s IPCC climate reports scientifically objective?

Briefly, no.

But it may be easier to understand why IPCC’s reports are not scientific efforts if we recognize that according to the IPCC their primary objective is “to provide governments at all levels with scientific information that they can use to develop climate policies.”  That is, their goal is to help governments in international negotiations – not to advance the “scientific understanding of climate change”. They provide “regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change…” [if we define “regular” as every 6 or 7 years!] But, as a scientist actively publishing in the field, I also “provide regular assessments of the scientific basis of climate change”.

Another important contrast between IPCC’s approach and a scientist is that IPCC requires uniform “scientific consensus” on all issues to prevent the development of  “climate action hesitancy”. A scientist performs open-minded scientific inquiry on all issues in order to prevent the development of “confirmation biases”.

Another important “acid test” on science is the fact that when any scientific disagreements are identified they need to be investigated or at least openly acknowledged rather than being ignored, downplayed, or dismissed as already resolved, a technique that is often used in IPCC reports. At least two of my own scientific publications were incorrectly treated in this manner in the most recent IPCC AR6 report (2021).

              Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/Go1l1TQCJ0U

5. The “hockey stick” debate: Was there a Medieval Warm Period?

Yes there was a well-documented Medieval Warm Period across the world.

In 2003, I published two papers that disagreed with the conclusions of a very prominent study from 1999 that was commonly known as “the hockey stick graph”: Soon and Baliunas (2003) and Soon et al. (2013) . The nature of Medieval Warm Period has now also been confirmed and clarified in the latest study by Luning and Lengsfeld (2022).

“The hockey stick graph” by Mann, Bradley & Hughes (1999), had applied some non-standard statistical techniques to a selective collection of “temperature proxy” records. Temperature proxies are indirect temperature measures from e.g., tree rings, ice cores. They claimed to have proven that from 1000 to 1900, temperatures had been almost constant, but then they sky-rocketed, like “the blade of a hockey stick” in the last 100 years. They claimed that the 1990s were the hottest in at least 1,000 years! Mann was a lead author of IPCC AR3 (2001)and his hockey stick graph featured prominently in the AR3 report.

So, my colleagues and I decided to check how realistic the hockey stick graph was. We concluded in our two papers that there was clearly an identifiable Little Ice Age interval from about 1300-1900 and a Medieval Warm Period from 800-1300 AD. In addition, we documented that the 20th century warming was neither the warmest nor the most extreme in the last 1000-2000 years.

The ensuing political and scientific corruptions were also recently documented in a talk in Washington, DC on April 11, 2022 by me.

Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/O8QVylaGnWo

6. How much of a role does the Sun play in climate change?

The role of the Sun on recent climate change has been comprehensively reviewed

 in a paper by Connolly, Soon et al. (2021). We objectively discuss both the detailed

quality of the temperature records and the Total Solar Irradiance estimates if  

this question is to be answered seriously and correctly.

Briefly, we pointed out that the issue of whether one uses the temperature record

containing both the rural and urban thermometer records or just the rural-only

weather stations must be raised and resolved. In addition, we discussed the wide-

ranging of TSI reconstruction products, minimally sixteen different estimates, that

can be classified into low-amplitude and high-amplitude estimates. We highlight the

fact that the high-amplitude TSI results were somewhat selectively dismissed in the

IPCC reports while favoring their “consensus”-driven low-amplitude TSI records.

In our invited review paper, we showed that the IPCC’s conclusion that nearly all the

recent temperature change can be explained by the rising anthropogenic CO2 in the

air, only works  if:

a. you use the combined rural and urban temperature records and

b. if you only use the low-amplitude TSI estimates.

In a sharp contrast, you can conclude that the recent temperature rise is entirely

natural if you:

a. use only the rural temperatures

b. use one of the available high-amplitude estimates of TSI.

Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/dZF4mDmKs_w

7. Are “fact checks” checking facts or checking narratives?

This is based on a direct experience we recently encountered after we have published Connolly, Soon et al. (2021) when a journalist from The Epoch Times, Mr. Alex Newman, decided to report on our findings and compare and contrast with the latest IPCC AR6 report. Mr. Newman asked IPCC’s press officer some straightforward questions concerning why our invited review paper were not included in the last AR6 report (2021) and why at least two of our previously published papers were either cited incorrectly or mis-represented in the AR6 report.

Apparently such an objective inquiry and press communications have offended the narrative defender of the big tech platforms, so a “fact-checking” group called Climate Feedback wrote an extremely negative (but wrong) review of Alex Newman’s article and deemed the article to be “Incorrect”.

As neutral and objective observers, we do not find Climate Feedback’s hit piece to be credible plus we have uncovered several additional issues and problems in their reporting. So we have decided to issue an open letter to the publishers of Climate Feedback. Thus far, we have received no reply.

Indeed, I want to alert and openly discuss here the rather dangerous new fashion in the media and technology platform of invoking fact checking and fact checkers to try to silent debate or discussion. Big technology platforms like Google, Facebook and Wikipedia seem to have lost their way. They are increasingly limiting public information access to narrative-approved “facts”, rather than allowing free discussion & research.

Please study this video clip for more details: https://youtu.be/yCjMUOUMje0

5 33 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
October 7, 2022 10:14 pm

The Spanish Inquisition was a fact checking exercise.

Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 8, 2022 12:02 am

It had a fairly long, distinguished run. Almost everyone was on-board, no arguments.

Nick Graves
Reply to  Stephen Wilde
October 8, 2022 1:52 am

I didn’t expect that!

Reply to  Nick Graves
October 8, 2022 4:50 am

Nobody does

Dave Fair
October 7, 2022 11:58 pm

Some scary anti-scientific shit with hundreds of trillions of dollars in consequences. Your government lies to you. Leftists lie to you. FJB

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 8, 2022 1:16 am

The word “consenus” should not appear in climate science. There are too many unknowns about the Sun’s variability. These changes can have serious implications in the stratosphere and higher layers of the atmosphere, with implications for climate. The troposphere is only about 6 km on average in high latitudes in winter.

Ireneusz Palmowski
October 8, 2022 1:40 am

For example, what is the “consenus” regarding the ozone hole over Antarctica? If so, why does it grow the most from September to December since 2020?
comment image
comment image

Last edited 8 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
Ireneusz Palmowski
October 8, 2022 1:49 am

How does the stratosphere interfere with winter weather?
comment image

Last edited 8 months ago by Ireneusz Palmowski
October 8, 2022 2:03 am

Three words in either language sum it up

Non e vero

It isn’t true

Coeur de Lion
October 8, 2022 2:45 am

Soon on the Cook (2013) 97% paper does not mention the devastating analysis by Andrew Montford fot the DWPF showing how activists gleefully connived to exclude sceptic scientists- “enough to invalidate the whole study {’ J Duarte). And other gross flaws.
WRT the Hockey Stick, don’t forget McIntyre and McKitrick’ s destruction. Climate Science? Oh dearie me.

Tom Abbott
Reply to  Coeur de Lion
October 8, 2022 6:10 pm

Don’t forget James Hansen saying 1934 was hotter than 1998.

October 8, 2022 4:49 am

My good friend Willie Soon is a great scientist and a great American. He is one of the smartest people I know, and the absolute best person to chat with over a beer.
We’ve drained a few cold beers in Calgary, just the two of us and also with Benny Peiser of the GWPF and polar bear expert Susan Crockford.
We also had a four-hour breakfast meeting in Boston with Willie and his colleague Sallie Baliunas. These are some of the smartest, most ethical people on the planet – I wish I could see them more often.

Last edited 8 months ago by Allan MacRae
October 8, 2022 5:04 am

you know, it’s like with covid vaccine: people want to hear that the vaccine is good and protect them. This same principle rules the CO2 narrative: my neighbour reads the Süddeutsche Zeitung, and wants to be considered a good man and part of that is being pro climate (against CO2 “pollution”) help immigrants of any sort, but not Europeans, for instance from east Europe, because they do it only for money, while the others do it for need (but not money …nooo..:-) ).
And you cannot convince him that we do not have good data on the sun and therefore that when IPCC disregards the sun it makes a big mistake. You cannot convince him that IPCC is politically driven and that politicians have found a good topic to breach into people minds and win their votes. You cannot convince him that comparison of the world average temperature in 1910 and in 2020 cannot be done for an infinite number of reasons purely of measurement technique, data points and so on (he is engineer, but apparently has no clue of engineering matters).
So there are no points of contact, no possibility to discuss.

In the middle age the church was stealing money to the poor to grant salvation (the so called Indulgence). Today climate religion is doing the same, but they call it science now and so they are in peace with their consciousness.

Imagine now they admit the CO2 story is crap. They should admit that they are stupid, that they have been cheated for years and they have not realized that for years. So this will never happen. Same with covid vaccine: you see people that have the weirdest problems now, but it’s never the vaccine, because they should admit they have been cheated and believed the politicians.

Barnes Moore
Reply to  Luigi
October 8, 2022 6:32 am

It’s called Mass Formation Psychosis – no amount of actual data, be it about covid or climate – will convince far too many people that they have been lied to and that they have swallowed the lie hook, line and sinker.

Janice Moore
Reply to  Barnes Moore
October 8, 2022 12:21 pm

Pride. It sends many a lost soul farther and farther down the wrong road…..

comment image

dodgy geezer
October 8, 2022 5:52 am

Well done, Dr Soon, for providing the answers to these questions.

However, your responses are totally pointless. What is happening is a social phenomenon rather than a scientific one. A social group is trying to impress its world view on society and politics – aided by modern communications systems.

So what is happening is NOT a ‘scientific discussion’. It is much more in the nature of a propaganda exercise. Someone who is producing propaganda is not open to considering proofs that it is wrong – instead they are only interested in closing down the source of disruption to their plans. You have surely found this out already?

The aim of propaganda is to ensure compliance amongst the mass of the people in whatever the leaders want to do, Once these leaders have established this compliance, they can then undertake any activity they like without fear of disagreement – be it removing all coal-fired power stations, subjecting everyone to untested but profitable medication, forcing a diet change, or even shipping off a portion of the population to concentration camps and death.

we need to recognise the nature of the beast we are up against. And logical scientific discussion, though praiseworthy, is not going to have any impact whatsoever…..

Last edited 8 months ago by Dodgy Geezer
James Stagg
Reply to  dodgy geezer
October 8, 2022 11:43 am

Outstanding analysis and one that we need to honor. The “useful idiots”, like described by Luigi above, will never accept evidence of their stupidity. The mindset is as described in Patriot Post this morning: OCTOBER 8, 2022
Pending Next Outragecomment image?w=1024

October 8, 2022 8:46 am

Honestly, Dr. Soon is more an acitivist than a scientist. He quotes a lot of (critical) common places, but there is beyond that.

Janice Moore
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 8, 2022 12:24 pm

Dr. Soon, astrophysicist, answered the questions he was asked.

Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 8, 2022 2:54 pm

Nothing honest in your presumptions and falsehoods, at all.

Gunga Din
Reply to  E. Schaffer
October 8, 2022 4:25 pm

Because he doesn’t bend over to the supposed consensus?
Is Mann an activist? Hanson? Gavin?
Is any of Brandon’s science advisors in any field NOT an activist?

October 8, 2022 12:40 pm

Google, Facebook, and Wiki….have NOT “Lost their way”… as Soon put it.

Lying Globalist Civilization Destroying Propaganda is the central to their Business Plans. Making $$$ is secondary.

Ed Zuiderwijk
October 8, 2022 12:48 pm

Methinks Dr Soon is too polite in his replies. Just tell it as it is, that the hockey stick was a fraud that the fact finders are disseminating falsehoods.

October 8, 2022 1:20 pm

I am so glad this was in print form, as much as I admire and respect Dr. Soon I can’t understand him. He is a giant.

Laws of Nature
October 8, 2022 5:18 pm

In the past I often thought of Willie´s work as critical of the consensus, but itself rather incomplete. For example compare his climate simulations for the sun´s possible influence with the work of Javier Vinós and Andy May reported here an at Climate etc.

But he is getting better at focusing on the key arguments and most importantly he seems to be one of very few scientists exposing the harassment critical thinkers experience in climate science, something that is very bad and unethical!

Willie, if you are reading this, I think you have a long way to go, but I do applaud you for the steps you are taking!

One thing I am particular curious, as I believe it should be in the headlines everyday:
What do you think of Ross McKitirck´s work on attribution and the apparent lack of any response to his finding?

Thank you,

Reply to  Laws of Nature
October 8, 2022 8:03 pm

It has been replied to. It went somewhat like this:
That may be wrong but it is old and outdated, it isn’t needed anymore. We have everyday evidence now, without needing that kind of analysis.

Laws of Nature
Reply to  AndyHce
October 9, 2022 6:54 am

Oh of course, my bad.. I was looking for a scientific factual response.

>> We have everyday evidence now
If there is any real evidence for a high CO2-feedback, why does no one publish about it?

October 9, 2022 11:19 am

Soon nailed it as usual, especially question #1. Ike warned us of the consequences of runaway S-TE’s (Scientific-Technological Elites) in his Farewell Address…his deepest fears have indeed come to pass.

Jeff Alberts
October 11, 2022 8:12 pm

Is Dr. Willie Soon in the pay of the fossil fuel industry?

Why do they never ask that of the CRU “scientists”? They were getting a lot of grants from Big Oil.

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights