Dr. Willie Soon – an astrophysicist, geoscientist, and expert on solar phenomena and global climate – was attacked online after making controversial statements about his climate change research in a recent Tucker Carlson interview.
Dr. Willie Soon (aka Dr. Wei-Hock Soon) is an astrophysicist and geoscientist. He is a leading authority on the relationship between solar phenomena and global climate.
In 2018, he founded the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES-science.com) in order to tackle a wider range of issues and topics without fears nor prejudices.
From 1991-2022, Dr. Soon was an astrophysicist at the Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics.
He served as receiving editor for New Astronomy from 2002-2016, astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory from 1992-2009.
Dr. Soon earned bachelor’s and master’s degrees in science and a Ph.D. in aerospace engineering from the University of Southern California.
Learn more at https://ceres-science.com/ and watch his videos at https://youtube.com/@ceresscience6032
“was attacked online after making controversial statements”
More victimhood. So he said something controversial and someone disagreed. So he’s been censored.
It’s more than that, though – isn’t it? Dr. Soon is studying things that challenge the political consensus view of climate science and those views are, unscientifically, being silenced and ignored. Give me an example of a scientist that supports the political consensus view that has been silenced over their scientific work? It doesn’t happen – even Mann, whose studies are the most egregious examples of bad science, is still given a platform, even though most of his fellow scientists have stated that his work is wrong, broken and even fraudulent.
Some may ignore him. They are allowed to; it isn’t censorship. But Carlson’s program is a mighty megaphone. He can’t claim to have been silenced.
When he has been personally vilified by activist organisations, because they are unable to refute his findings, then that is an attempt to silence. A few individuals, here and there, might be considered heckling but entire left-leaning, activist organisations that support the political consensus view (however wrong) is a serious attempt at censorship and silencing. Even you must admit that this has been going only one way – from the consensus to silence dissenting views.
All you are saying is that a lot of people disagree with him. That can happen. Especially if you are wrong.
Nick Stokes
February 27, 2024 2:20 am
“was attacked online after making controversial statements”
Nick Stokes
Reply to
Richard Page
February 27, 2024 4:30 am
So which is it?
Has he been censored??
Or not???
Good catch, he has been caught contradicting himself many times over the years that sometimes reach breathtaking levels.
Like most on the left, Nick feels that any tactic is valid, so long as it’s used against those who disagree with you.
Obviously not. My first comment described the victimhood logic.
So Nick-if someone’s censored, what kind of “….hood” are they supposed to feel? Both sides think they’re right. Only one side censors
I’m not weighing in on what is truth regarding the sun and climate, Dr. Soon’s work thereon, or the abundance of “climate change” propaganda. I just think more than one person here has difficulty reading correctly. Nick’s opening statement is a summary of what the article reports, not in any way an agreement with the article or certain parts thereof. It is meant to point out what he sees as a fallacy.
To use an reasonably analogous example: quite a few articles and comments thereon at this blog are critical of various statements by Biden. Is the obvious conclusion “Biden is being censored”?
If those who were upset with Biden were also using their influence and authority to force others to no longer carry statements by Biden, then yes, he would be censored.
Just when you think he can’t get any more disgraceful or disreputable he comes across with more unkind irrational just plain wrong nastiness.
What I am saying that there is a suspiciously well coordinated attempt by several organisations and many individuals, all vocal supporters of the political consensus view, to try to silence Dr. Soon. If you wish to brush all of that under the carpet with a simple ‘people disagree with him’ then that’s your prerogative. Mine is to say that ‘normal people’ that disagree with something you’ve said or written don’t try to smear you in public or attempt to get you fired from your job, or supress your research. This has not been ‘normal’ behaviour that Dr. Soon has been subjected to.
Has Biden been ‘smeared in public’ or have there been attempts to get him ‘fired’. I’m not writing this because I’m a Biden fan, I don’t understand how anyone could be a Biden fan, but lets not make something big out of a simple observation.
We were not talking about Joe Biden, a politician and POTUS, but Dr. Soon, a scientist, there are huge differences.
Which is why you get piled on when commenting about “renewable” sources of electric generation.
Hmmm Mr Stokes. A lot of people disagree with you, too. But is there an organizational effort to vilify you publically?
nick takes downvotes as vilifying.
I believe leaked e-mails uncovered the fact that John Holdren (who became BHO’s Science Advisor) bragged to fellow “alarmist scientists” that he regularly “dissed” Dr. Soon at informal academic gatherings at Harvard – because of the meta study Soon conducted arguing against the Hockey Stick.
Again, probably more – Greenpeace led a group of activist organisations, egged on by David Suzuki, to try to get Dr. Soon fired for having links to fossil fuel companies; claims which were easily refuted. It does appear to be a broad campaign to discredit him, possibly a well-organised and well-funded campaign, with ties to Getty and Rockefeller money.
Well, as we’ve seen many times with people like Suzuki, if you wag your finger and rant about how evil another person is, who’s doing exactly what you yourself constantly do, and get stonkingly rich from it (accepting gratuities from supporters), then you can deflect attention away from yourself.
With complicity from academia and media, it usually works.
Funny how those who oppose Dr. Soon and his work, have more links to “fossil fuel” companies than Dr. Soon does.
As are organized and frequently repeated criticisms of many other scientists capable of delivering data that doesn’t support the narrative, Richard Lindzen being an easy to point out example among many.
Interesting. I attended a talk by Holdren in spring of 1976 where we was arguing that “clean coal” would be safer than nuclear. He came across as an activist first and scientist second.
I learned much later that Holdren was a Paul Erlich protégé and absolutely abhorrent ideas on population control.
That’s not what you said.
Disinterested statement of fact from you. You couldn’t care less if he’s censored.
It wasn’t a statement of fact. It was a statement of the victimhood logic. It might have been clearer with a question mark. I obviously don’t think he has been censored.
So you are in DENIAL that is work is never shown or allowed on any left-wing media.
OK.
We expect nothing more than ignorance from you , Nick.
Funny-“I obviously don’t think he’s been censored”. This right after your first statement saying “so he’s been censored”. Brilliant!
My comment expressed the victimhood logic. It obviously isn’t mine.
Mr. Stokes: The “victimhood logic” you invented from whole cloth? All here should know that later in the string Mr. Stokes virtually admits he commented without watching the video, so he has no idea regarding Dr. Soon’s claim to being censored. He just wanted to attack Soon, but couldn’t be bothered to watch, so he’d know what he’s criticizing. He may try to tell me I have some writing assignment, but I declined because the point is made- Mr. Stokes pretended to know what he was commenting on. Keep that in mind.
I have serious doubt that you are able to separate your firm belief that you, personally, are a victim here, from any of your criticisms or comments.
You summarize that Dr. Soon is a victim, but isn’t censored?
Victimhood is past tense representing past events. There are victims to have victimhood logic.
You believe that Dr. Soon deserves censorship?
Otherwise, why the willful ignorance claim about censorship?
Plus you display a remarkable lack of empathy, supportive well wishes, offers to intercede and help calm a difficult critic.
Obviously, as with many of your horrid inferences and assumptions, everyone else’s eyes and ears are deemed unable to clearly see.
Just because you don’t want people to see AGWs collusive censorship and racketeering meant to harm any person with inconvenient science, influence, knowledge, work, conclusions, theories, findings, whatever.
In this particular close to home case, collusive racketeering attacks on Dr. Soon’s reputation, social life and work environment.
Hard to decide which personality trait is worst, callous, envious, jealous, selfish, greedy enough to harm others, narcissist or abusive censorious desire?
“So he’s been censored.”
That is the Stokes way.
My guess is you’re with IIID: Disinformation bureau – Abwehr.
You agree with censorship then.
No wonder Australia’s in the state it’s in with people like you living there.
Move to China, plenty of censorship there for you. Free your fellow Australians from your authoritarian inclinations.
Where is the censorship? What happened?
Moron, watch the video. You obviously haven’t.
Can you answer the question?
Try actually reading The Twitter Files or Missouri v Biden on what the US government does to media companies. “Nice business you have here, pity if something happens to it”
Can you watch the video?
Do vampires look in the mirror?
Jeez, Nick-you’re the one who said he’s being censored, and then you ask “where’s the censorship?” Why not answer your own assertion?
The headline of this WUWT article is
“Solar Flares & Climate Phenomena: Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Is Censored After Challenging Climate Change in Tucker Carlson Interview – Ask Dr. Drew”
The coordinated gaslighting employed by the regulars here to maintain the collective delusion is always incredible to behold. Do you guys have little chats behind the scenes? Or is it just a silent contract between you all?
Mr. J: When you discover that we were right, and Mr. Stokes was wrong, what will you say then? I didn’t need to chat with others behind the scene, I caught him with his own words. Are you next?
I don’t see any need to speculate about what might happen if your egregious attempts at gaslighting were to succeed on me. That’s a fantasy you’ll need to indulge in private.
Apparently, gaslighting is now defined as pushing any facts that AlanJ disagrees with.
Mr. J: Okay, you’re next. No need to go private, rather operate right out in the open, and you make it so easy. My question is “gaslighting” you if it’s intent is to drive you mad. Instead, I asked a simple question, but you can’t imagine Mr. Stokes being wrong. It forced you to watch the video, didn’t it? Is that like driving you mad?
Who cares what the evidence is. Nick must be right because you agree with his politics.
You said it:
You aren’t interested if he’s been censored. What a low life. We don’t call for your crap to be censored. But you’re happy for someone who disagrees with your bilge to be censored.
I hate to say this, but for once Stokes is correct. Willie Soon has NOT been censored, he has been CANCELLED, i.e. subjected to a well-organized and relentless campaign of abuse, vilification, ridicule, and libel.
Happy now, Stokes?
Censor vs Cancel, sorry, they are not mutually exclusive.
Instead they are likely to have strong relational components along with unique contributions.
So has Michael Mann been cancelled?
Nick is in with the crowd that CANNOT allow the public to hear the facts, or even a solid scientific opinion that counters their putrid little narrative..
Facts they know they cannot counter.
Facts that they know, once out there, will utterly destroy the AGW scam that they are shills for.
Censorship is all they have left..
You are correct.
Sorry that my commet is going to steal your usual downvotes.
I explained why Willie Soon is a climate fraud financed by the fossil fuel industry. The AGW deniers here will be going berserk.
Amazing. You failed to insult anyone in this komment.
“The AGW deniers”
How can anyone deny something that only exists between your ears?
Spreading lies is all you can.
Why is it that you, RG, like to say that you have already explained something? There are two robust problems with this. First, no one here agrees, and as anyone who has spent time behind the lectern knows, when the student fails to learn, it’s quite often the teacher’s fault. Second, many people, including Willie have explained in some detail their perspectives, hypotheses, and observations convincingly here. But you have not learned from them.
So, instead of pointing out that somewhere at some time you explained something, why don’t you take a minute and consider whether you have so done, and whether you are equal to the same challenge.
Soon and Mann have a lot in comment
They both started with a false conclusion and then cherry picked inappropriate proxy data they claim supported their conclusion
Mann False Conclusion
Natural causes of climate change are negligible
Soon FLSE Conclusion
CO2 climate effects are negligible
All contrary data have been ignored BY BOTH LOSERS
They repeat their conclusions for many decades as if repetition makes a false conclusion true
Two losers … Although Soon gets partial credit for saying that more CO2 benefits the environment.
The AGW deniers here are losing their minds … again.
‘CO2 climate effects are negligible’
Richard, what evidence do you have that this is ‘FLSE’?
Where is your evidence that CO2 has any influence on climate? At least you are prepared to admit that it benefits the environment but, that being the case, where is the proof that it has an adverse effect on climate? Where indeed is the proof that “the climate” is doing anything at all other than continue the pattern of millennia — now it’s warm and dry; tomorrow it will be cold and wet. Nothing to see here; move along.
What contrary data? You don’t know what data is because you sure don’t produce any.
“CO2 climate effects are negligible”
CORRECT.!
Well done, albeit by total accident.
You have proven over and over again, that there is no evidence of CO2 affecting the climate.
I’m still waiting for you to prove Soon is financed by the fossil fuel industry.
Also I’ll let Laura Logan explain to you how it works when people like her and Soon, and so many others have gone up against the machine.
https://twitter.com/laralogan/status/1762180067202060333/mediaViewer?currentTweet=1762180067202060333¤tTweetUser=laralogan
All you will get is a regurgitation of far-left AGW-cultist-nutter LIES and MALINFORMATION.
“The AGW deniers here are losing their minds”
Really!?
Where is AGW?
That is, alleged man caused AGW that is distinguishable from natural cycles and weather?
There isn’t any.
Not since the clown’s predictions back in 1989 has any portion of anthropogenic AGW been shown to exist.
Every predicted indicator is been proven nonexistent, instead.
Every anthropogenic AGW prediction or projection has failed.
Every anthropogenic AGW claim has been pure opinion and assumptions. Alleged government climate agencies adjust the natural temperatures to portray specious warming.
As the IPCC and all of it’s supporters regularly prove, they decide the outcomes and then fashion alleged science to get there.
Just as Mann did with his MBH98 graphic.
The best part is that more and more people are ignoring AGW alarmists.
The worse alarmists act and seek to cancel good people or scientists, the fewer people believe AGW alarmists.
A fact that has been accelerating these past few years. AGW alarmists have been acting worse socially and offending more people, driving away many people not receiving glory or funding from anthropogenic AGW revenue sources.
We skeptics are here to discuss weather, climate and anything remotely scientific or mathematic.
Anthropogenic AGWers are here to stymie discussion and attempt to prevent education.
Every one of you are religious believers or bought and paid for trollops.
We skeptics aren’t losing any iota of our minds.
Anthropogenic AGWers have lost their souls and/or their minds before ever arriving here.
But Dr. Soon is NOT financed by the fossil fuel industry which undermines your entire argument. The leftist organisations that have been trying to silence him, on the other hand, ARE financed by oil money foundations. Ironic, isn’t it?
Dickie the AGW-CULT-NUTTER likes to regurgitate ALL the lies and malinformation that his fellow AGW-cult-nutters put out.
DENIAL of solar effects, is just one of the many anti-science idiocies that he prattles on with.
Richard you are irredeemable apparently.
We can say that Dr Soon is a bit inarticulate. (Please record us a video essay in Malay and then I’ll take that more seriously). We can say that he contaminates his argument with too much emotion. We can question whether he sometimes pulls religion into the discussion where it isn’t appropriate, although not in this case.
But this absolute bullshit you’re spewing about fossil fuel financing just proves that you’re the epitome of the revenge of the D students that we hear about in this video. Parroting narratives that you are INCAPABLE of understanding.
If only the fossil fuel industry would defend itself just a little.
This BS has been debunked a billion times. Soon was not financed by the fossil fuel industry.
this is pure slander and needs to stop on this site.
Is there any topic that you don’t have at least 2 conflicting opinions?
So say’s the man in tights.
Prove he’s financed by the fossil fuel industry. 🤡
As usual, RG believes that his opinion is of more value than mere facts.
As usual, RG believes that his opinion is of more value than mere facts.
I have no idea how that got duplicated.
BTW, didn’t there used to be a filter that complained if you tried to enter a duplicate post?
What is an AGW denier??
Nobody here denies warming by urban heat.
YOU are the one DENYING the NATURAL WARMING of the SUN… because it hurts your brain-washed AGW-Cultism.
You are the one totally unable to produce evidence of warming by human released CO2.
“Financed by fossil fuel industry”. As opposed to alarmists being financed by governments around the world? Got it. If you can show where he’s wrong, then who finances or doesn’t finance him is irrelevant.
Not a chance. We have an equal amount of downvotes for you both and your trollito kindred.
Following your reasoning, you have to be censored here. Be happy you aren’t 😀
Following the reasoning of the article, I have been censored. I have been downvoted.
Not to compare, as your comments can still be read. But don’t wonder only people like R. Greene like them. Be ashamed.
BINGO!!!
That is [fallacious] Stokean reasoning
“I have been censored. I have been downvoted.”
Nick, do try to ditch the hyperbole.
If you were downvoted – something I don’t do – it means someone disagreed or disliked what you had to say. You komment is still there….
“Nick, do try to ditch the hyperbole.”
It mirrors the hyperbole of this article, which says that Soon has been censored because people said he was wrong. Lots of people here say that I am wrong. Does that mean I have been censored?
You seem to be drawn to conflation, now. YOu can re-read what I told you.
Can you show me the last time a sceptic – any sceptic whatsoever was on the BBC, ITV, C4, C5 etc etc etc?
Some might just say….
I haven’t been on those either. But here we have Soon on Tucker Carlson, further amplified by Fox.
Hardly mainstream outside the US – ie the channels I named
Can you tell me the last time a sceptic – any sceptic whatsoever – was on the BBC, ITV, C4, C5 etc etc etc?
You are, after all, an expert on the UK.
A bit anachronistic? You did hear Carlson was fired by Fox?
‘After’ Nick, as the heading clearly states, it was after he appeared on Carlson’s show. Using his appearance on the show as proof he wasn’t censored because of his appearance on the show is comletely nonsensical but typical of most climate activists that mix up cause and effect.
In responses to two or three of my complaints to the BBC about the content of some their climate and weather rel6articles they say that they don’t censor climate change sceptics. But because they don’t agree with settled science they are not given as much prominence.
In my appeal I said that was a lie and had been since Richard Black worked there; and to send a link to their website to prove me wrong.
“”not given as much prominence.””
ie none whatsoever, not a nanosecond
Your very first comment… and first on the thread…
“…So he’s been censored”
Even you say he’s been censored
Yea, but you are wrong, all the time.
Soon is censored because he’s right.
Nick, you are not important nor impactful enough to be censored.
He also works for the team that is doing all of the censoring.
“Nick, you are not important”
Comedy relief should never be censored.
We all get a laugh from his inane posts. !
If you did not get downvoted by the Nutters here, then you probably need to doublecheck your comment !
CO2 Does Nothing Nutters here
The CO2 is 97% Natural Nutters
There IS NO AGW Nutters
EL Ninos Cause All Global Warming Nutters
Underseas Volcanoes Cause All Global Warming Nutters
There Is No Greenhouse Effect Nutters
CO2 Causes Global Cooling Nutters
It’s All The Sun Nutters
Peta of Newark
(A Stand Alone Nutter)
This comment section is a variety of Mixed Nutters
What they all have in common, besides their junk a science, is claiming nearly 100% of scientists are wrong to claim humans can affect the climate.
Not how much the AGW effect is — that is debatable
The Nutters can’t tolerate the simple claim that there are some manmade causes of climate change … that have been harmless for the past 48 years.
Just the thought of AGW makes the Nutters go berserk.
Tens of thousands of scientific studies over the past century support the existence of AGW. They must all be wrong if you are a Nutter.
Even tha comment is a complete lie.
You can better
Please identify what kind of Nutter you are, Hairy Krishna
ANyone who disagrees with you is just a nutter.
Nice that you have such a high opinion of yourself. Too bad that’s another opinion that you alone support.
And you are a Slanderer
Libeler.
Apparently defamatory comments on the web, no matter how much they might have a casual disregard for the truth, cannot be libelous, only slanderous. At least in the US.
There may be a can of mixed nuts here but at least we aren’t Fascists trying to silence opposition. You still have a voice here
If RG were a nut, he’d be an acorn. Too bitter to swallow and gives nothing but indigestion, leaving a bad taste in your mouth.
“… there are some manmade causes of climate change … that have been harmless for the past 48 years.”
Name five. And if they have been harmless why does the Climate Lobby make such a fuss about them?
Five manmade causes of global warming (aka AGW)
(1) CO2 emissions
(2) Reduced SO2 emissions
(3) Increased UHI / economic growth in vicinity of land weather stations
(4) Land use changes such as clear cutting forests for farming or solar farms
(5) Measurement / statistics errors, unintentional or deliberate, to create a global warming trend on paper where none existed in reality. Or to exaggerate actual global warming.
That’s five
I’m glad you didn’t request six
“why does the Climate Lobby make such a fuss about them?”
Leftists lie about EVERYTHING they believe in. Why would climate be an exception?
Deleted by me
AGW is defined by the IPCC as warming by enhanced atmospheric CO2
You still have not presented any evidence at all that this is happening.
All you have is your mindless, empty gibberish and deranged AGW nuttery.
The climatic effect of CO2 emissions is negligible. ECS is at most 1.7 degrees C. It could be less than the 1.1 degrees C without feedback effects, ie net feedbacks might be negative, which is far more common in nature than positive.
“” the Nutters here””
If you are not a nutter, why are you here?
AGW is all the mind – your mind
I like Nuts
“I like Nuts”
You like playing with them, you mean. !
Makes you a ***ker. !
Richard, if you cannot be civil and stop calling everyone that you, personally and without evidence, disagree with ‘nutters’ thus insulting them, I shall have to ask that your posts are moderated to remove such language. The rest of us have shown restraint (on the whole) and complied with Charles’ request that we stop the insulting language, you have not – time to end this insulting behaviour and be civil. Try using evidence to support your opinion, for once, instead of just being very insulting.
I’m a free speech absolutist – let him vent; it reveals an awful lot about the character… or lack thereof…
True but many of the rest of us are reigning in the insults after being rapped over the knuckles by Charles just the other day. Why should Richard Greene have free reign and get to insult everybody when nobody else can?
342 comments on this post currently and the vast majority of them are pointless back & forths between RG and others, none of which are accomplishing anything or providing any insightful (or even non-insightful) information.
In the bottom right corner of each post that has been replied to, you will find an up arrow symbol. Pressing that button will cause all replies to post to be hidden.
I still see them in my email, but my point was mainly about the quality of the current conversation, which is abysmal. It’s going nowhere.
My science comments get insulted regularly here.
I respond to insults in kind.
I do try to provide evidence if I call someone’s a Nutter based on their science claims.
But if I get attacked by a science free insult post tossed at me, why should I respond with any science?
My science is constantly attacked, in spite of having near 100% of scientists agreeing with my modest claims …, while Nutter junk “science” here gets a free pass.
I decided to stop the free pass for Nutters policy, but the Nutters are not used to being challenged.
If the website management decides to ban me, then maybe the Nutters will be happy, but they will still be wrong.
You rarely make any “science” comments..
They are way too often just rancid AGW-cult yabberings..
They are self-opinionated waffling backed by absolutely ZERO science..
or in many cases, total ANTI-SCIENCE.
“are not used to being challenged.”
You have nothing but baseless opinion.
Not a challenge… Except not to laugh. !!
Your trolling skills are as abysmal as your grasp on reality. You seem to believe that anyone not explicitly mentioning greenhouse gases in every climate change discussion is a ‘nutter.’ Is that a case of severe reading comprehension issues or just a desperate cry for attention? Engaging in pointless online endeavors won’t fill the void of real human connections. In your minuscule digital realm, you’re a legend, but outside in the brutal truth – you’re nothing more than a pathetic online loser with nobody acknowledging your existence.
Yet another science free nsult post
“Yet another science free nsult post”
That is YOUR speciality.
Nowhere in your rambling, disjointed rants and diatribes do you produce any actual science.
All you have in child-like petty insults.. It is who you are.
Anybody paying any heed to them will just get a whole lot dumber.
Self awareness is lost on you.
Why do you come here if everyone is a nutter. You wer humiliated on The Conservative Woman and never show your face there, you whined like a b*tch when I shot you down on Manhattan Contrarian, and you are ritually humiliated here.
You are a rude, ignorant oaf who imagines that hiding behind a computer screen whilst insulting people is a display of courage.
You remind me only of one thing:
You character attacked me and insulted me at The Manhattan Contrarian
You did not shoot down any of my arguments or even attempt to.
I asked the website owner to remove your hostile insult comment and he refused. I started commenting there again this year. I no longer care is a horses’s ass like you insults me and ignores every single point I make in my comments. You don’t debate. You attack.
I was never humiliated at The Conservative Woman. Too many of my comments went into moderation for unknown reasons and I decided to significantly reduce my comments there.
You insulted me on various websites and lied about me. You make false claims about outdebating me, when you make no attempt to debate. You couldn’t beat Joe Biden in a debate. That’s why you deserve the official title of HotSpud, the Horse’s Ass.
~
Virtually everyone who comments here dislike your way of attacking people who comments in the blog, maybe it is time for YOU to look in the mirror at yourself for once since many people are strongly downvoting you in thread after thread after thread after thread because you call almost everyone a bunch of names while most don’t call you a bunch of names in return.
You really believe everyone is wrong except you about your behavior pattern when they object you……?
Why don’t you grow up and stop being an ass!!!
You are humiliating yourself with every comment you make.
You are just too dumb to realise it. !!
Wow.. what a pathetic self-delusional whinge from dickie. !!
Many of us have shot down every argument you’ve spouted, repeatedly.
Most of us posted links to the source information.
You insulted the discussions, insulted the commenters egregiously and insulted the sources.
And like other narcissists, you speciously claim to be a victim.
A victimhood that is entirely within your mind.
Even now, you spout vitriol while pretending you are proclaiming science.
A confusion that seriously damages your commentary here and destroys any appearance of logic.
Given the number of times he mentions his own blog, I can’t help but wonder if his goal is to drive traffic to his site.
“ to drive traffic to his site.”
Yet his comment style makes it the very last place anyone sane would want to visit. !
As always with dickie.. his comments do the opposite of what his delusional mind wants them to.
I wonder why RG insists on spending so much time around people he absolutely hates?
Immaturity, childishness, narcissism, envy, jealousy, too long in their parent/grandparent basement, bad fish fingers at school, irrational at the best of their day, messianic delusion, whatever.
Basically EVERYTHING you just said is going to make anyone that takes any notice of it a WHOLE LOT DUMBER
Another post truly emulating Billy Madison.. your idol !!
“… nearly 100% of scientists …” That old saw again!
Really Nick, so all the hit jobs done on Soon aren’t an attempt to censor him? The ones one right now being peddled in this thread.
Michael Mann, say, gets criticised plenty. He even gets called the Sandusky of climate science. Is that an attempt to censor him?
“Mann, say, gets criticised plenty.”
Because of his scientific maleficence, and inability to debate with anything but lawfare.
Yes, he does abuse data…
Criticism is part of the scientific process, attempts to get someone fired are not; yet Dr. Soon, Professor Curry and others have been subjected to this abnormal unscientific behaviour.
Plenty of people have tried to get Michael Mann fired.
Because Michael Mann is a liar.
Perhaps you haven’t viewed the testimony from that congressional hearing back in 2016 with Curry, Pielke, & Christy. Mann lied to Congress several times, including when he told Congress that he didn’t call Judith a denier in his opening testimony, and that he wasn’t a member of the Union of Concerned Scientists.
Name them. A random person off the street saying that Mann should be fired, is not a realistic attempt to get him fired.
A person in charge of funding the group that hires Mann saying he should be fired, is.
No they haven’t. The only ones who even wanted to censure him were the Penn State investigative committee and Spanier soon put a stop to that.
Nope but apparently it is cause for him to sue you
You really can’t get anything right, can you?
The court case demonstrated that neither Simberg nor Steyn called or suggested in any fashion that Mann is the Sandusky of climate science.
However, you just did.
‘Censured’, certainly. ‘Censored’, I don’t think so. Invest in a good dictionary.
Nick,
Downvoting is censorship?
The problem is that the influence of the sun is completely ignored as being irrelevant, because carbon dioxide is touted as the main or even the sole driving force behind climate change, which doesn’t make sense. Although the TSI changes by a small amount across the whole EM spectrum, that doesn’t mean that there aren’t significant changes in individual wavelengths, including UV and RF. There are significant changes in the magnetic fields of the Sun.
Somebody needs a dictionary. ‘Censored’ is not the same thing as ‘Censured’.
That is my point. So where is the ‘censored’?
Disingenuous Nick
Social media algorithms shadow ban what they call disinformation and malinformation. The latter is the truest form of Orwellian dystopia. It is true information that is harmful to The Narrative.
The same algorithms push a relentless stream of agitprop, burying any ‘maliformation’ that manages to poke its head out of the catacombs.
So what actually happened here?
You didn’t watch the video I suppose.
Links to the Willie Soon-Tucker Carlson interview are being suppressed by Fakebook and others.
Why are you wasting our time? Have you subscribed to WUWT yet, Nick? Don’t be a freeloader.
I have a simple question for Nick. In his old age, when disaster hasn’t happened despite endlessly spewing CO2 into the atmosphere, will he reconsider? I’ve been told the world is ending since “Ranger Rick,” and so far all that I can observe is slightly less cold nighttime temperatures in freezing places, and CO2 fertilization of the deserts and oceans. Will actual life experience ever change your ideology? Because it did mine.
We already have 48 years of evidence of the benefits of CO2 and global warming.
There was no bad news.
If manmade CO2 emissions caused any bad news, the 27% rise of atmospheric CO2 from 1975 to 2023 would have revealed at least sime bad news.
Where is the bad news from CO2 enrichment of the atmosphere or inside greenhouses?
CO2 is a leftist fantasy boogeyman used to increase political power and control.
The coming climate crisis is fiction and not based on any science. Just climate astrology.
Good Comment
By whom ?
On what authority ?
Quis custodiet ipsos custodes ?
Whatever happened to the “Voltairean ideal” of defending people’s right to say things, even (/ especially ?) if you personally fundamentally disagree with their opinions or beliefs ?
What is your working definition of the words “tolerant” and “tolerance” ?
How about Carl Sagan’s observation that “The cure for a fallacious argument is a better argument, not the suppression of ideas” ?
_ _ _ _ _ _
A society with a default attitude of ” ‘They’ said something that ‘offended’ someone somewhere … therefore it is only to be expected that ‘they’ were then censored ” is one to be avoided, not aimed for.
By whom ?
On what authority ?”
Those are my questions. The complaint here is that someone disagreed with him. Do they need authority to do that? Do the just have to just shut up? Wouldn’t that be censorship?
you and I both know that you are being more than a little bit hypocritical here Nick if the exact same thing was happening to one of your high priests at the same outlets and they only had one or 2 outlets that let them speak you would be screaming censorship at the top of your lungs and don’t bother trying to deny it we already consider you a liar.
nickie is invoking the fallacious appeal to authority, the argumentum ad verecundiam fallacy coupled with argumentum ad ignorantiam, argument from ignorance fallacy.
As the specious fallacies indicate, nick is purposely being dense as osmium while stirring his little false pot of censorious slander/libel.
That is, Nick is here actively trying to further censor Dr. Soon. and anybody else here who tells the truth and uses real science instead of the anti-science claptrap spouted since 1989.
Moron, if you watch the video you can see the exact platforms which Soon is claiming censorship, and those very platforms admit they are censoring.
Why can’t that be put in writing? What are they? What is the evidence?
Mr. Stokes: Why can’t you watch the video, after multiple commenters tell you that the answer to your question is found in the video? Instead of admitting that you commented without watching the video and seeing for yourself that your comment is not supported while the headline is supported, you obfuscate. So, we know it’s you, and you are not Joe Biden posting dumb comments under a pseudonym like Richard Greene. Thanks for the confirmation.
This is a forum for written discussion. If an article wants to make a claim that “Dr. Willie Soon Is Censored After Challenging Climate Change in Tucker Carlson Interview”, it should be able to write down some supporting facts. It didn’t, nor have any commenters. The problem is that if you can’t put it in writing, we can’t discuss it in writing.
Poor Nick.. can’t maintain concentration long enough to watch a short video.
How the self-mighty have fallen into the gutter !!
“short vdieo”? It is 1 hr 15 mins.
Mr. Stokes: “This is a forum for written discussion.” If you’re gonna define the site, (I don’t think you get to) you might want to note that the article is the video, not a writing, over an hour, with a brief headline and a few sentences below. Which you didn’t watch, so why are you discussing it at all? Just to complain that the Captain wouldn’t jump to your call? He is a captain, are you an admiral, or just the master handing out assignments?
No, if Dr. Soon describes censorship in the video, then you have a lot of retracting to do. Which you’ll decline to do.
If you try to define the “forum” as comments, some include graphs, like you post. I notice you don’t write out the descriptions of what’s in the graphs you post. So, not entirely a “forum” exclusively in writing, is it. Your definition fails, but don’t try harder.
btw, what we’re still “discussing” is your incorrect opening comment, where you said there was nothing about censorship in a video you still haven’t watched.
“No, if Dr. Soon describes censorship in the video”
Sounds like you haven’t watched it either.
Thanks for giving me the last laugh. No, I haven’t watched the video, but I didn’t make a comment at the top of the board implying that I had watched. An erroneous comment, no less. I don’t need to watch it, because I’m already aware of the censorship Dr. Soon has faced, and would expect he’d talk about it with any interviewer. But I have caught you out, and you still won’t admit your error. Am I laughing.
You can’t put into writing the unambiguous, empirical, replicable science that CO2 causes warming, but you still promote it.
There are at least 100,000 peer reviewed scientific studies to answer your question about aGW. Read a few of them.
Mr. greene: One million and one.
Counting the missed chances for you to prove us wrong.
Please link here the best such paper. Thanks!
Mr. Milo: If Mr. Greene responds, it’ll be one million and two, because he has no link.
I’m not holding my breath.
Either that, or he will tell us to go to his blog and provide a link to that.
“peer reviewed scientific studies… blah … blah…”
Yet you can’t produce a single one of them.
Do you know how stupid that makes you look !!
I call BS on your claim. Even Cook didn’t go that far. His work examined only 11,944 abstracts and the issues with his methodology have been thoroughly explored, not to say, pilloried.
Really? Care to point to even 1 that doesn’t include a ‘climate model’ as ‘evidence’? You know something that uses observation and goes beyond ‘correlation’? Something definitive that demonstrates unequivocally that man made CO2 has caused the planet to warm. With 100,000 papers at your disposal it should be easy to find 1 with such definitive proof.
He has failed utterly and completely so far.
Why would he change that record.
He has been attacked many times that were shown to be baseless and stupid how come you so easily forget the times this blog had to help defend him against slanderous B.S.
Here are a sample of articles posted right here exposing the slime published against Dr. Soon all from 9 years ago:
Mental Midgets Try To Bite Dr. Willie Soon’s Ankles
LINK
===
500 sign petition to Smithsonian in defense of Dr. Willie Soon – Guess Smithsonian’s answer
LINK
===
Statement by Dr. Willie Soon
LINK
You should be glad you are not getting censored here as many can see you are full of baloney and that counts for you too Richard Greene.
Mr. tommy: If Mr. Stokes were censored, we would not be treated to his baloney, and we’d need to have another commenter test our mental (and with Mr Stokes, verbal) skills. Mr. Greene, clearly not a test.
To others: Note what Mr. Stokes did here, he kept this “argument” going by refusing to listen to the video. It wasn’t an argument at all, just us yelling at an unresponsive lump. Very much like Joe Biden posting here as Mr. Greene, but too lucid to be Mr. Greene.
Agree that Nick can make solid points in his replies, but he also can also post at 3 grade level of pure baloney, he is a puzzle at being so erratic being irrational at times when he refuses to read the article or watch the video which is why it often doesn’t support his comments.
Greene is a lot of hot air with an affinity for down votes.
I like salami
Baloney is the favorite of the Nutters.
You really do have the mental equivalence of an ADHD 5-year-old don’t you, dickie. !
Mr. Greene: As I said, clearly not a test.
Yeah, he ignored my links showing that Dr. Soon gets persecuted by slimy warmist/alarmists who post a barrage of lies about him.
Twitter Files. Censorship is being coordinated illegally by the Feds. That’s a huge deal.
“So he’s been censored”. Thanks Comrade, for an alarmist example of the “scientific method”-shutting down differences of opinion.
When the “consensus” on AGW is driven solely by money (grants, kick-backs, etc.) in the absence of hard, reliable, repeatable data, it becomes merely a widespread, unsupportable opinion used to justify the biggest (and most misguided) wealth redistribution scheme in history. Mr. Stokes should stop viewing his own colonic mucosa and examine the real world for a change.
Story tip – thus far uncensored…
“It’s official. Net Zero will make us poorer. A new report finds that the British government’s climate-change policies are likely to ‘make the poor poorer, and push struggling communities further into deprivation and exclusion’.
Our Journey to Net Zero, by the Institute for Community Studies (ICS), shows that the transition to Net Zero will cause a rise in unemployment, as carbon-intensive industries are forcibly restructured. Food will become more expensive. And the eco-friendly changes we’ll all be forced to make, such as insulating our homes or switching to electric cars, will be extremely difficult ’for low-income households’. The ICS concludes that the poorest 40 per cent of households are at risk of falling into ‘transition poverty’.”
https://www.spiked-online.com/2024/02/27/net-zero-is-a-war-on-the-working-class/
Of course! Labour and Labour2 (Tories) is poverty forever for the People and Jet planes for the Davos elite (and those behind the curtain).
Despite the claims of the acolytes, socialism/communism always concentrates power and wealth into the hands of those who run the system.
Correction: ‘was attacked after making accurate and truthful statements’.
Soon has been spouting the same baloney for decades. It is puzzling about which fossil fuel companies pay him to do that. He deserves criticism, but not censorship
Soon quote from 2015″
“The warming we’ve experienced in the late 20th century could just as easily be explained by small decreases in cloud cover – natural changes in the system – and have nothing to do with CO2.
The causes of the post-1975 warming are unknown. There is evidence of greenhouse gas warming and more solar energy reaching Earth’s surface
The most likely DIRECT causes of warming after 1975 are”
(1) CO2 emissions
(2) SO2 emissions declining
(3) Economic growth; UHI increasing
Unknown changes in global average cloudiness, either fewer clouds in the day, or more clouds at night, or both. No data exist to determine if changes in globa average cloudiness are happening
Soon is a science fraud for two reasons:
(1) He is a CO2 Does Almost Nothing Nutter, ignoring all evidence of a stronger greenhouse effect, and
(2) He bloviates about solar energy which has not increased at the top of the atmosphere according to NASA satellites.
Same refuted BS for decades
What Soon has done is to take a lot of money from energy companies and he just happened to declare the sun is responsible for climate change, which is just what energy companies love to hear.
Soon did this with science fraud. By cherry picking incompetent data and ignoring all available better data that contradicted his solar theories. Then he applied circular reasoning. By claiming the data he cherry picked proved his theory was right, and also proved all other contradictory data must be wrong. That’s junk science 101,
In fact, Soon is a BS artist.
There has been no correlation of surface temperatures and estimated solar energy (sunspot proxies) since the 1690s, the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum period.
Soon has been writing and recycling an old paper for almost two decades.
Each time there is a cherry pick of a region, a series, a unique data blend, that somehow always manages to look similar (and increasingly different from any sensibly constructed time series) that correlates with the same solar activity estimate.
The paper is touted as proof that all other temperature series are suspect, but that the one “true” cherry picked series is driven by the sun.
Additional data that tell us this conclusion cannot be correct.
If the sun was driving the warming, we’d see it in the stratospheric temperatures (which are cooling in line with expectations from the impact of CO2, not warming due to the supposed increase in solar activity).
If land had extra warming caused by a rising urban heating effects, then we wouldn’t see similar warming in the oceans. But we do.
If the surface temperature data were corrupted, why do they line up with the satellite data from the independent AIRS and MSU instruments?
What we have with Soon is what happens when people are desperate to hold on to their solar narrative.
A correlation that was bogus when it was proposed three decades ago keeps being recycled by ever more desperate math gymnastics and sold as something else entirely.
Not only is the actual construction of the Soon et al narrative literally incredible, it contradicts dozens of independent lines of evidence.
Soon is a science fraud who should never be taken seriously on any science related subject.
Some conservatives are so biased against AGW, which almost 100% of scientists believe exists, that they are gullible to alternate junk science theories like Soon’s claptrap.
Note:
AGW is real and harmless
Climate change does not mean AGW
Climate change means CAGW
CAGW is a leftist fantasy climate.
You and Willie are in total agreement, Dickie.
Willie says he cannot find any evidence that CO2 causes warming.
Neither can you. !
Thing is, Willie has far more scientific knowledge and integrity than you will ever be capable of having.
Don’t be so jealous. !.
——
Choosing surface sites at are mostly unaffected by urban warming.. so as to discount too much urban influence.
And you call it “cherry-picking
That is what GISS do.. use all the urban sites and adjust the rural sites to match.
Why are you emulating GISS.. is Billy Madison enough for you ?
——
“we’d see it in the stratospheric temperatures”
You have just shown your zero understanding of stratospheric temperature.. Well done.
You merit a minus 1000 with this blathering.
wrong comment. Meant for greene. sorry.
Made me cough a little coffee through my nose, though! Well done!
I guess you believe these eight non-science words refute everything I posted about Soon?
Is that your best shot?
Pitiful.
It has been addressed a number of times over the years HERE in this blog which is why many here don’t agree with you.
No, you spoke from a position of absolute ignorance, everything had previously been refuted. Pitiful indeed.
The sunspot count trend says we should have had global cooling for the past 30 years if the sun controlled the globa; average temperature. That sunspot count is worthless.
Top of the atmosphere solar energy tells us there was no trend there since th 1970s that could have caused ANY of the global warming after 1975.
I have the data
Soon has the claptrap
“Top of the atmosphere solar energy tells us there was no trend there since th 1970s”
Yep TSI HAS BEEN VERY HIGH FOR A LONG TIME.. !!!
Thanks for pointing that out.
No wonder the world continues to get warmer. !
It doesn’t work that way, Richard. Dr. Soon has presented his study with supporting evidence and you have attempted a refutation with unsupported opinion. Like I said, ignorance.
Mr. Greene: Yes, it was too wordy, 8 words is 7 more than you merit.
How much evidence is needed to refute unsupported claims?
Earlier today RG admitted that there were many non-CO2 means by which climate can change. He even listed 5 of them.
On the other hand he attacks Soon for making the same point.
Everything you posted about Soon was just regurgitated AGW-Cult-nutter lies and slime and malinformation.
You are constantly taking in by such garbage.. because you are one of them.
But as I said…
“You and Willie are in total agreement, Dickie.
Willie says he cannot find any evidence that CO2 causes warming.
Neither can you. !”
You remain totally empty of any scientific evidence..
… and you always will.
“Climate change” Happens. You claim meaning for this and that, but the planet doesn’t give a stuff about it.
“There has been no correlation of surface temperatures and estimated solar energy (sunspot proxies) since the 1690s, the coldest decade of the Maunder Minimum period. “
Now that is just downright ignorance. !!
and
Baloney: Sunspot counts are a worthless TOA solar energy proxy
About as worthless as Tree Rings are for Temperature Proxies … when so many other factors affect tree growth
True
Mainly precipitation
Mann cherry picked an unreliable temperature proxy in 1998 to “support” the IPCC pre-existing claim from 1995 that all natural causes of climate changes added up to meaningless “noise” except in the very long term.
Mann gave the IPCC the smallest natural temperature variations for the past 1000 years of any scientist, so the IPCC bought what he was selling. A good salesman. A lousy scientist.
Then we had a 25 year Tree Ring Circus over the Mann Fraudulent Hockey Stink Chart
So is CO2.. but you are totally and AGW-cult-nutter when it comes to CO2
People who know one heck of a lot more than you will ever know, understand that sunspots are a reasonable proxy of solar activity.
ie, basically 100% of the world’s solar scientists.
Dickie says load and clear.
… that he has no evidence to counter the graph.
I’d say he couldn’t get DUMBER.. but he would treat it as a challenge.
furthermore…
More sunspot count baloney
re: “More sunspot count baloney”
Which correlates well with improved HF radio propagation conditions because of a more ‘excited’ ionosphere …
We are talking about the global average temperature, not ham radios.
re: “We are talking about the global average temperature, not ham radios.”
Abjectly stupid response. You, sir, ARE a moron.
Every approximately every 5 minutes the characteristics of the ionosphere are measured, tested, from which indicators of various characteristics such as electron density and a value termed MUF (maximum Usable Frequency) among other thing are calculated. These measuring stations (ionosondes) are located around the globe. The information is used globally by both shortwave broadcasters AND the military to determine suitable frequencies for use.
If you care to understand the system which studies and records this data, start with the links below:
GLOBAL IONOSPHERE RADIO OBSERVATORY https://giro.uml.edu/
Archived data: https://giro.uml.edu/didbase/
Alleged global average temperature is an oxymoron, as it is neither a usable average nor representative of anywhere on Earth.
Poor dickie.. IGNORANCE is his only counter argument.
Dickie again states firmly
… that he has no evidence to counter the graph.
and more…
Even more sunspot baloney
Even LESS science from dickie, the AGW-cult-nutter.
Poor dickie.. still nothing to counter the evidence
Pitiful whimpering is not evidence.
And still ZERO counterpoints from you thus your batting average is still, 00000000
Don’t forget Earth’s declining magnetic field strength fighting a more active sun.
Sunspot BS
The post-1970s NASA satellite measurements of top of the atmosphere solar energy have proven that sunspots are a worthless proxy for top of the atmosphere solar energy.
Your chart is worthless
There were no accurate measurements of TOA solar energy before the 1970s
There were no likely to be accurate measurements of the global average temperature before the use of satellite data in 1979.
The only data worthy of scientific analysis shows no correlation between TOA solar energy and the global warming after 1975.
There is also no correlation of sunspot counts (declining) and TOA satellite measurements (steady) of solar energy over the past three solar cycles
re: “The post-1970s NASA satellite measurements of top of the atmosphere solar energy have proven that sunspots are a worthless proxy for top of the atmosphere solar energy.”
Yet, a correlation exists between enhanced ionospheric reflectivity/refractivity (as observed by enhanced HF radio propagation) due to free electron creation/excitation and so-called sun spot activity.
Thanks for showing JUST HOW MUCH SOLAR ENERGY has reached the Earth over the past 40or so years . (why no dates? were they inconvenient ???)
Well done. !!
Perhaps there is hope for you understanding that the main driver of climate is the SUN.
Even now, cycle 25 is stronger than expected and because of tropical cloud changes, absorbed energy is still increasing..
PSL NOAA Timeseries is the place, where you find the data you falsely claim do not exist, clouds, humidity, spec. and rel., what you want. So stop your lies about not existing global data.
There is no global average water vapor statistic or a global average cloudiness statistic (which would need to be divided into daytime clouds and night clouds.
Local measurements are not global averages of the troposphere, which would be needed for full years AND DO NOT EXIST
Did it ever occur to you that scientists claim the average troposphere water vapor is from 2% to 3% BECAUSE there are no global measurements to be more specific? Probably not — too much thinking required.
Unable to look yourself, because you will be shocked to find s.th. that disproves you.
I am confident
you have no idea
of what you are
talking about.
Rel. humidity 2024/01
Tell me the global average troposphere water vapor percentage, to at least one decimal place, for 2000, 2021, 2022 and 2023.
I will not be holding my breath.
Mr. Greene: You said “none”, Gans showed you one. Now you want to see more??!! You are correct, you don’t come here to debate us. Debase yourself, yes.
Where one is are more, a lot of month, a lot of spec. humidity too, a lot of these graphs, you are not qualified enough to look for. You are a 100% science denier without any qualifcation.
Mr. Gans: Thanks for proper placement for Mr. Greene, where the sun don’t shine. On topic, too, with the sunspot discussion! Mr. Greene’s humble apology to you in 3..2..1……..
Any idea, why the graph disapeared ?
It’s a graph you created interactivelyon the NOAA PSL site. NOAA does not store that permanently. You have to transfer it to your own storage.
Your confidence in things already disproven is quite remarkable.
EVERYONE is confident you are CLUELESS about basically everything you write gibberish about.
A self-opinionated science-free wannabe. !
By descending to RG’s depth, you are benefiting nobody.
Mr. W: You’re right, but can Mr. Greene please remove the “kick me” sign from his back?
Just like being back in HS.
re: “There is no global average [1] water vapor statistic or a [2] global average cloudiness statistic (which would need to be divided into daytime clouds and night clouds.”
Suggest using appropriate full hemisphere (GOES Full Disk or equiv.) sat imagery for a first-pass attempt at this/these statistics 1 and 2; wonder if any researcher has tried this?
Ref: https://www.star.nesdis.noaa.gov/GOES/fulldisk.php?sat=G18#
DENIAL of the fact that decreasing tropic cloud cover anti-correlates with tropical temperature.
How much more SCIENCE DENIAL can you mange, dickie !!
“As I have already explained” you are mistaken, friend. Try to back off the ad hominem and focus more on evidence and logic. Bearing in mind that proof is a much more restrictive concept than truth, you might start with falsifying his view. You don’t seem to even want to engage with his hypothesis, but rather reject it out of hand. I find that peculiar for several reasons, none of which puts you in a good light, my boy.
As for your main point, that he is putatively funded by and therefore shills for big oil, (1) he has denied this outright, and (2) so what? (1) sShow some evidence that makes him out a liar. (2) Even if he were so funded and a liar, does that ipso facto falsify his work? Oil companies and their shareholders very much so have a right to engage in research calling into question The Narrative. Just as the AGW group and their founders have a right — to say, “oh, but those fellows over there shouldn’t get a chance to defend themselves because they are the baddies” is irrational and not the way good science gets done.
Its a silly argument when people say “funded by and therefore shills for big oil”, when there is absolutely no problem at all taking funding from political activists, politically weaponized government agencies, hedge funds, rent seekers and other entities seeking propaganda to move markets and funds their way.
Can Greene even try for one moment to hide his contempt and obvious blinding bias?
Not relevant since Soon wasn’t funded by oil companies
Baloney
…Feb 21, 2015
“Over the last 14 years Willie Soon, a researcher at the Harvard-Smithsonian Centre for Astrophysics, received a total of $1.25m from Exxon Mobil, Southern Company, the American Petroleum Institute (API) and a foundation run by the ultra-conservative Koch brothers, the documents obtained by Greenpeace through freedom of information filings show”
From 2005, Southern Company gave Soon nearly $410,000. In return, Soon promised to publish research about the sun’s influence on climate change in leading journals, and to deliver lectures about his theories at national and international events, according to the correspondence
ExxonMobil gave $335,000 but stopped funding Soon in 2010, according to the documents. The astrophysicist reportedly received $274,000 from the main oil lobby, the American Petroleum Institute, and $230,000 from the Charles G Koch Foundation. He received an additional $324,000 in anonymous donations through a trust used by the Kochs and other conservative donors, the documents showed.
Companies were paying Soon to write peer-reviewed science and that relationship was never acknowledged in the peer-reviewed literature.
As was common among Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon is not on a salary. He received his compensation from outside grant money. Soon was NOT a Harvard employee.
Have a look at the ledger of the AGW/CAGW crowd?
Why are they so govt and university funded would be my question, and the govt is a fully-legal taxing authority with the color of armed ‘law’ on their side. If anything, there needs to be a ‘check’ on this forcefully compelling (and tax-dollar-taking) side of the equation.
I look at the science claims first
If they are junk science, I assume the scientists is preaching what he gets paid for.
If Soon’s science made sense I would not care who gave him money.
re: “I look at the science claims first”
Generally non-responsive. I made more of an observation, and it had little to do with any given ‘science’ being valid.
HAVE YOU LOOKED at the ledgers of the AGW/CAGW crowd? WHY is the one side being fund as they are, and funded by govts (through university funded grants) and the like by GOVERNMENTS that are fully-legal taxing authorities UNDER the color of armed ‘law’?
If anything, there needs to be a ‘check’ on this forcefully compelling (and tax-dollar-taking) side of the equation.
It seems that RG considers himself to be the sole arbiter of what is and isn’t science.
Why doesn’t it make sense? Lay out it for us please.
Apparently Dr. Soon doesn’t agree with how RG feels clouds should work.
“I look at the science claims first”
For someone basically clueless about science.. how do you manage that ?
You would actually have to understand and comprehend first, before making your AGW-cult-nutter opinion
Only that you are not able to decide, if Willy Soon is right or not, that he is right doesn’t care you.
The money went to Harvard-Smithsonian Centre, not Soon, you balloon.
Soon was not a Harvard employee and did not get a fixed salary. His income depended entirely on grants.
Other way around. Harvard Smithsonian paid Dr. Soon a salary commensurate with the grants he brought in to the organisation as a whole, most of which paid for research done by other scientists. Similarly, much of Dr. Soon’s work was funded by other grants brought in by other scientists. When I say ‘brought in’, I mean that his name on the Harvard Smithsonian grant applications helped to secure that funding, as did the names of other scientists. Your post is still hopelessly ignorant.
Looks like RG is once again doing what he accuses others of doing. IE, picking the result that he wants, then cherry picking the data that supports it.
Dickie is so “dumber” he doesn’t realise that the Smithsonian gets funds from MANY different sources.
None of that money was given to Soon directly. All of it was given to groups that Soon worked for or with. Much of it long before Soon joined the organizations. Much of the money that was given to the organizations was ear marked for non-climate related research.
In other words, all you’ve got is propaganda published by highly biased sources.
Where is your link Mr. Greene?
Meanwhile it was shown in one of my links that it was Harvard-Smithonian that got those funds not Dr. Soon.
When you accept money from fossil fuel companies and then publish a unique, minority conclusion that fully satisfies those fossil fuel companies, there MUST be suspicion of “bought science”
re: “When you accept money from fossil fuel companies and …”
In law, it is said we that we purposely have what is known as an adversarial system set up. So, with that in consideration, just who would you propose take the adversarial position to a nearly universal ‘belief’ by the govt (and govt funded university system) in the AGW/CAGW argument?
Jealousy will get you nowhere, nowhere man.
Mr. Greene: Your comments about Soon receiving money have been debunked here, but you cling to these falsehoods, for which Soon could successfully sue you. But he doesn’t chase after rodents, evidently.
Soon’s income came from grants and I supplied some fossil fuel companies and a railroad that hauled a lot of coal as some of the sources of his income. Nothing has been debunked.
Mr. Greene: Yeah, that’s not how grants work, which has been explained here, but we can see that facts don’t penetrate your skull once it has fixed on something you read. We can see that you read some CAGW talking point, and you come here to repeat it. Over and over, and (here’s the rub) with NO UNDERSTANDING WHATSOEVER of the underlying subject. You don’t have the skills to evaluate Dr. Soon’s work.
There is no direct connection between Soon and any of the grants given.
The only thing you are debunking is the belief that you are even capable of being rational.
And ignored all the Greenie and renewable and far-left institutes that also fund the Smithsonian.
Willie Soon is as much in the pay of those leftist AGW-cultists as he is in the pay of FF companies.
Why do you ignore that fact?
Is it that you can’t provide any science to counter anything he says ??
Notice that he never backs it up with a source.
I think he knows he is LYING otherwise he would have long ago posted the source.
Why? Don’t you trust scientists to be impartial? What examples of untrustworthy scientists did you have before reading about Dr. Soon and deciding he must be untrustworthy, based on your (extremely) limited understanding?
What is amazing is that rg oddly trusts those alarmist researchers who are fully funded by propagators of alarmist claims.
Falsely labeling an honest and excellent scientist, Dr. Soon for a very distant grant from fossil fuel sources while abjectly believing faux science from those sucking at the alarmist promoting green scam teat is truly oxymoronic.
It’s a “suspicion” now?
Soon’s income is from outside funding
He does not have a salary.
His minority science conclusions are based on jun science and are EXACTLY what those funders want to hear.
That is huge evidence of a financial conflict of interest that Soon NEVER mentions in his science papers = unethical at the least.
100% of his income depends on his conclusions.
There is no connection between Dr. Soon and the grants.
Your eagerness to spread lies about real scientist, does you no favors.
What a nothingburger post
Soon also deceived or outright lied about his sources of funding
I do not believe it is a coincidence that his conclusions match exactly what the fossil fuel industry wants to hear.
I explained Soon’s junk science in prior posts. You refuted nothing. Obviously, you know nothing about Soon except he is an AGW Denier and that’s all you need to hear.
No he didn’t, his attackers lied about him
I believe you (still) to be in error and stumbling under the weight of fallacious reasoning.
Frankly, I cringe a bit when I see an oil company or power company (these are not the same, as you seem to think) executive shuffle his feet and look at the floor with little wet eyes and apologize to the planet and commit his organization to ‘transformatively move beyond petroleum’ in the future. It’s nonsense. So, it’s not quite clear what you mean by Soon aligning with them.
And even if there was alignment, I go back to my point, So what? That is not a valid disproof of Soon’s points. My boy, you need something like an argument and empirical evidence. You seem to think that the gravitas and condescension of your posts should carry the day. They, quite clearly, don’t.
Mr. Willy: You haven’t seen someone stumble under the weight of contradictory posts until you watch Mr. Greene. for about thirty seconds.
Brilliant science in your comment
Mr. Greene: I make no pretense of brilliance in science, because I see how badly it hangs on you.
NO SCIENCE in any of your comments . !
Ooohh! Such a kindergarten rejoinder!
One with zero science believes any other comment is without science…
😂 🤣 🤡 😂 🤣 🤡 😂 🤣 🤡 😂 🤣 🤡 😂
BWAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
You are one hypocritical jack ass since you NEVER post the evidence/source to back your claims.
What “evidence” are you talking about ???
Please provide references to papers (/ assessment reports) that quantify just how much “stronger” whatever version of “the greenhouse effect” you have in mind has /(/ will ?) occur.
For bonus points, please include your definition of the term “the greenhouse effect” in your presentation.
Name (at least) three.
NB : In each case you need to explicitly state which of Willie Soon’s “contradictions” — copying the exact words he used — have supposedly been “debunked”, what the “correct” answer is, and provide a reference (or link) to support your otherwise completely baseless bald assertions.
Richard doesn’t do ‘evidence’, just unsupported (and usually incorrect) opinion. I did wonder about this blog thing he keeps touting – does he spout these incorrect inanities just so he can harvest the refuting evidence for his blog? Very odd behaviour though.
My blog presents a recommended reading list of other authors every morning. I rarely write anything myself, after 43 years of writing the newsletter ECONOMIC LOGIC, which was more than enough writing for a lifetime
These are the best articles I can find by conservative authors refuting CAGW and Nut Zero.
I have had over 719,000 lifetime page views. No money for me. No ads. No fame. Just a public service for conservatives
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
No money for me. No ads. No fame.
So you came here…..
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!
Great observation. Spends all his time frequenting a place he despises.
Masochists are strange people indeed.
Go play your violin.
You are the one playing [with] your own horn. !
And it is making all sorts of beginner wind and farting sounds.
It’s amazing how some people are so good at typing with one hand.
Nobody cares.
No one here, my boy, cares about your blog and its reading list. If you pitch up here and make bold statements, then you need to copy/paste links from your reading list that apodictically support the statements.
You’ve made plenty of ad hominem statements about Soon. Back them up, please.
You’ve made assertions that AGW is real and proven and significant enough to merit some mitigation. Links, please — not to shills and cracks, but links to papers that address natural variability, sun, clouds, Stefan-Boltzmann and so forth.
Just copy and paste here.
I’m waiting for anyone to summarize and defend Soon’s science but there is no evidence anyone here ever read and analyzed Soon’s science … which I did over eight years ago.
Ie Dickie cannot find any science to counter anything that Soon has said.
It just hurts dickie’s mind-numbed AGW-nutter cultism.
You do not have the scientific ability to understand Soon’s work..
Any conclusions you make are meaningless.
Thus disproving you keep a list of conservative science against cagw and agw science.
If you had actually read any of Dr. Soon’s papers you would find that Dr. Soon provides an excellent summary in every paper.
His papers are enjoyable reading apart from the stiff clumsy block print bafflegab papers that apparently believe long unintelligible words and a total lack of common sense are essential in published papers.
Of course, if you are not at Dr. Soon’s level of study, it would be like you reading an advanced physics paper using quantum physics, multivariable analysis, coupled with advanced statistics, linear algebra, metric space topology, Taylor’s theorem in several variables, inverse and implicit function theorems, advanced calculus, integrals and derivatives, etc.
Blowhard collects articles and post’s them on his wittle website.
And brags about a newsletter that can’t be found online.
43 years writing a newsletter that no one read, other than by
a Dick…..I mean Dick.My newsletter was never online. Hundreds of subscribers got hard copies in the mail or PDF files via eMail. There wee no free newsletter.
Hundreds of dumber people !!
Of course they did…….
You wrote a newsletter for 43 years. Assuming you began when you were 20 years old that brings us to 63 years. If you are 83 now and quit 20 years ago you might possibly have missed the opportunity to put up a blog to save you money on posting hard copies to subscribers. But for the past 20 years when you could have got your biggest audience ever, you stopped writing.
Not credible.
Your 719,000 lifetime page viewers are slackjawed at the utterly childlike nature of your blog.
It’s a collection of articles you plucked from the internet and linked to, including the BBC, the Daily Mail.
It’s an exercise in self congratulatory narcissism. You managed to figure out how to copy and past and slap yourself on the back for that.
Mr. Greene: So, all you need to do, to really show us, is to cite one, just one, of the many at your own blog! I’ve been reading here awhile, and can confirm the comments here, that you have never responded. NEVER. All we ever get is this “ten thousands” stuff, if you don’t have one that’s a good deflection (not). This is why the White House suspects that it is the other way ’round, and YOU are posting under Joe Biden’s name, to make him look stupid. White House asks you to please stop.
Is that what this is all about?
A desperate attempt to drive up the hits on your blog.
Is the advertising revenue falling short of what you need?
Your blog is a load of self-opiniated mostly garbage.
That’s 719,000 people who are DUMBER from reading it.
!
99% is from other authors including the best articles here
The man isn’t smart enough to fix his link to his blog problem at PSI which I administrate even after I told him how instead soon afterwards, he ran away.
UNhinged even
No evidence is ever enough for losers like you.
Any post that disagrees with one of your heroes must be a multi-page scientific paper with multiple references and peer review. And then you would still claim that proves nothing.
Soon has been refuted for several decades. Read one or two reports on his junk science. They are mainly in the past decade. But Soon has been repeating the same baloney for three decades.
Baloney? Do you have a meat fetish, Richard? You must have mentioned it at least 5 times already!
How would you know ?
No evidence has ever actually been provided by you.
No, I am asking for references to papers that support your, up to now, completely unsupported bald assertions.
An assumption on your part, AKA “assumes data not in evidence”.
I repeat, so far no “evidence” has ever actually been provided by you.
No he hasn’t.
NB : I have provided exactly the same amount of “supporting evidence” for my statement as you have (so far) provided for yours.
Please provide the DOI numbers of the “main” refutation papers you have in mind (I am not telepathic, a mind-reader or a medium).
NB : If you are unable to do so, or deflect yet again from actually answering my questions, then everyone reading this sub-thread will know, with absolute 100% certainty, that your supposed “refutations” do not actually exist.
“I am asking for references to papers”
You could find ten papers refuting Soon in 10 minutes with an online search. What is stopping you?
II I chose references, you would just claim I am biased with my selections, or the sources do not meet your approval.
Do you demand references from the various Nutters who post junk science theories here … or do you have a double standard, just challenging people you don’t agree with?
One million and three, and counting.
You are so full of hot air; it is clear you are trolling since you don’t try this idea called debate and post sources to back up your…. ahem opinions which is all you have done here.
You could find ten papers refuting Soon in 10 minutes with an online search. “
And yet dickie cannot find a single one.
Now that’s funny …. admitting to his own ineptitude. !
None that factually refute Dr. Soon, many that speciously throw up some alleged red herring, than proceed to rebut their own red herring.
No papers have actually refuted Dr. Soon.
Greene rides off into the sunset…..
There are tens of thousands of published peer reviewed scientific studies that will explain the evidence of AGW
Read one or two
Yes there are, but the article we are commenting under isn’t about the vast generic subject of “AGW / climate change”.
I have read tens … possibly even hundreds … of those “peer reviewed scientific studies” over the last 20 to 25 years.
What has that got to do with providing references to the subset of those papers that supposedly “refute” the specific “baloney” that “Soon has been spouting … for decades” ?
How am I supposed to “just know” which of the “tens of thousands” of papers that I have not read are the ones that specifically “refute Willie Soon” ?
Soon is an AGW denier
There are over 100,000 papers supporting AGW.
Soon is also a junk scientist
There are many papers refuting his junk science
I will not read them to you.
No, he isn’t.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S2095927316305448
In this study, co-authored with Monckton, he clearly is not an AGW denier. They both discuss sensitivity estimates to rising CO2 concentration and touch on the concept of over predicted warming in the models.
Poor dickie.. deliberating remains ZERO-SCIENCE and ZERO-EVIDENCE.
The usual cop-out.
I have been asking for ages about evidence for warming by atmospheric CO2
Yet dickie STILL cannot produce a single one.
So sadly pathetic.
So let me put all that evidence in a nutshell for everyone so they don’t have to read them……. ”It’s warming and co2 is increasing = co2 causes warming.”
A million-four.
🤣 😂 🤡 🤣 😂 🤡 🤣 😂 🤡 🤣 😂
Not one bit of real evidence has been produced during the 35 years since Dr. Hansen’s fallacious speech to Congress to prove AGW warming.
All alleged “measurements” are actually opinions not measurements.
Alleged estimates of AGW warming are absurd specious sophistry, nt any sort of measurement.
To date:
When truth is actually told, the only evidence of increase CO₂ are all beneficial.
Never change a good paper.
Again you Slander.
The truth is never slander
You would know the truth if it hit you over the head.
So you admit you are slandering.
Because you certainly aren’t telling the truth.
Blatant LIES and MALINFORMATION are your go to
There are several articles here on WUWT discussing Dr. Soon and his funding. The articles go back 9 or more years. They point out where and how he gets funding and none of them say he gets money directly from fossil fuel companies.
Please supply evidence of where and how he gets his funding.
Greenpeace says he does. And that’s good enough for RG.
The organization that pays Soon is funded by companies with connections to fossil fuels.
They know that
He knows that
It is not a secret
Soon is not a Harvard professor.
He depends on grants.
From 2005 to 2015, Soon had received over $1.2 million from the fossil fuel industry, while failing to disclose that conflict of interest in most of his work.[11] Of this industry funding, over half went on the Smithsonian’s facility operating costs, with the remainder going to Soon as his salary
A Climate Crusader Melts, Exposing a Profitable Link to Harvard’s Name (chronicle.com)
In 2011, it emerged that Soon received over $1 million from petroleum and coal interests since 2001.[36] Center for Astrophysics | Harvard & Smithsonian documents obtained by Greenpeace under the US Freedom of Information Act show that the Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation gave Soon two grants totaling $175,000 in 2005–06 and again in 2010. Multiple grants from the American Petroleum Institute between 2001 and 2007 totaled $274,000, and grants from Exxon Mobil totaled $335,000 between 2005 and 2010. Other coal and oil industry sources which funded him include the Mobil Foundation, the Texaco Foundation and the Electric Power Research Institute. Soon stated that he has “never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research” and “would have accepted money from Greenpeace if they had offered it to do my research
Climate sceptic Willie Soon received $1m from oil companies, papers show | Climate science scepticism and denial | The Guardian
Here is what one of the articles says:”The Smithsonian itself had negotiated all the contracts in question under the condition the funder’s identity was not to be published, and all the money went directly to the Smithsonian, who then paid Soon out of the grants. The Smithsonian’s internal policies assured no conflict of interest.”
So I think you are very mistaken about Dr. Soon. He got no money directly from fossil fuel companies and since the funder’s identity was not to be published he didn’t know where the money came from. Contrary to your assertion.
Maybe you should read the many articles here.
Dickie will aways “believe” the lies of the AGW-cultists over the actual source.
It is what he is programmed to do.
And quoting from the gruniad.. just shows how much of a far-leftist and how much of an AGW-cultist dickie really is behind his pathetic little facade . !
Well done, this has been known HERE for 9 years now when Anthony Watts first brought it up.
I posted three links of blog posts made HERE 9 years ago that properly defended Dr. Soon.
Greene and Stokes have ignored them that is all I need to know they are dishonest liars.
The Guardian? Really?
Regardless, earlier you were claiming that Soon was being paid directly.
Now you are saying that the organization he is with has connections to fossil fuel companies.
That’s a huge back-track on your part.
Nor is it evidence that Soon is influenced by fossil fuel companies.
Though I’m not surprised that you are unwilling to see that.
“The Guardian” is not a trustworthy and/or neutral source, period.
It isn’t surprising that you cite the ‘Hearsay rumor mill central’, ambulance chasing liar news source.
Instead of depending upon those people and organization closest to Dr. Soon, you turn to well known paparazzi faux quotes and general alarmism news source , La guardian.
You’ve ignored la guardian’s decades of near constant “doom, gloom with rumors of booms” propaganda and decided to devoutly believe their tripe suspicious slimy rumors.
No paying attention to organizations and investigative bodies directly involved for you, eh? The people and authorities in the know debunked ‘conflict of interest’ and ethics allegations and you, rg, worship the purveyors of specious accusations and related slander.
Don’t worry. We, now firmly believe your admission of serious ‘conflict of interest’ delusion.
We’ll simply believe that nothing in your commentary is worth our time since your preferred source(s) are at the level of ‘alien invasion’ sandwich sign wearing announcers.
‘Climate Change’ DOES mean both AGW and CAGW, the clue is in the ‘A’ – you and the other folks that believe in that nonsense have consistently refused to look at any other evidence or studies that contradict your belief system. So, Richard, I do hope you enjoy your new-age religious beliefs while you can, chances are it won’t last – these new-age cults never seem to, do they?
Climate change means CAGW
It is the prediction of CAGW in the future by leftists
It is not the prediction of harmless AGW that has existed for the past 48 years
CAGW is AGW x 2 to
AGW x 4, with a focus on the 4 (top of the IPCC ECS of CO2 range)
No Richard – ‘climate change’, CAGW and AGW are all terms used by deluded leftists who have become convinced that humans are the sole cause of climate variation and, before we started mucking about with fossil fuels, it was benign, benevolent and unchanging. Are you also one of those deluded people? Or are you completely ignorant? Or are you trying to deliberately muddy the waters?
re: “If the sun was driving the warming, we’d see it in the stratospheric temperatures”
PLEASE explain why in this solar cycle HF propagation has improved markedly over what it was from 3 or 4 yeas back, if the sun’s assumed output is such a constant, and constant across its output spectra?
It is undeniable that old sol influences upper atmosphere/the ionosphere cyclically in 11 year/22 year cycles.
The sun’s variations over an 11 year cycle are invisible in the global average temperature because they are not large enough to affect the climate by even 0.1 degrees C.
Oh dearie me.
dickie still hasn’t realised that the oceans are a great big heat sink for solar energy absorption.
Doesn’t understand that TSi is not the only solar variable…
Scientific merit.. basically NIL !
Cooling in the middle and upper stratosphere is a consequence of human-caused increases in greenhouse gases, which cause heat to be retained more effectively in the troposphere, the lowest level of the atmosphere.
If the Sun were responsible for global warming, we would expect to see warming throughout all layers of the atmosphere, from the surface to the upper atmosphere (stratosphere). But what we actually see is warming at the surface and cooling in the stratosphere.
Make it up as you go along , little-dickie. !!
Ollie is correct
YOU are wrong. !!
“If the sun was driving the warming, we’d see it in the stratospheric temperatures (which are cooling in line with expectations from the impact of CO2, not warming due to the supposed increase in solar activity).”
Factually wrong. Stratospheric temperatures increase with altitude as explained by Happer and many others. You ignore or don’t understand radiative physics.
Preceded by:
Usual unfounded, unsubstantiated, self contradictory BS from Foghorn Leghorn.
What a clown. You can’t tap out a post without blundering into your own statements and tripping over them.
The usual HotSpud science free malarkey.
Says the science-free and fact-denying AGW-cultist-nutter..
I note that you provide no evidence to support your claim that these statements by Soon are untrue.
Soon’s statements regarding clouds, is 100% accurate. The change in temperature could have been caused by changes in cloud cover and even the IPCC admits we don’t have a good handle on the behavior of clouds.
As usual you are just attacking those who know more than you do.
A change in cloud cover should have a specific pattern.
The day clouds cool the planet and the night clouds warm the planet.
It seems unlikely that there would be more clouds in the day and fewer clouds at night, or fewer clouds in the day and more clouds at night
The result would be temperature changes in the day that are the opposite of temperature changes at night.
Without annual average glpbl cloudiness data, it is all speculation, not science/
The Soon claim that all climate change could be caused by clouds REQUIRES ignoring all evidence of climate change NOT caused by clouds. That is junk science and Soon’s statement is claptrap.
You could substitute “CO2” for “clouds” and make a similar statement. Would still be junk science and claptrap
So you assert, but have no science to back up what you want to believe.
That has got to be the stupidest, most unscientific thing that you have ever written.
Who cares about types of clouds, in whatever world RG infests, all clouds are the same. There is no evidence that climate change is not caused by clouds.
Another load of evidence free nothing. !
Not one part backed by science of any kind.
Why did steadily increasing CO2 not warm the world from 1945 to 1977?
Was natural global cooling then too powerful?
Why has there been no warming at the South Pole since 1958, when record keeping began there? Why is global warming regional, not truly global, given supposedly well mixed CO2?
Why didn’t steadily increasing CO2 at a higher level pause its alleged warming effect from 1998 to 2015? Why did Earth cool from February 2016 to July 2023, under even higher concentrations?
For much of Antarctica, CO2 actually makes the radiating of heat more efficient, not less.
How about a little detail on this?
What “controversial” thing did Dr. Soon say?
And how and where was he censored?
He dared to say the Sun might have some effect on climate, How Dare He !
He must be smeared mercilessly /
Good questions !
The ATL article, which appears to be a summary (?) copied from somewhere else, only says that Dr. Soon “was attacked online”.
As far as I can tell it was Nick Stokes, in the first comment above, who transformed (/ internally translated / misunderstood / …) that term to “censored”.
I would still like to see more details about precisely what those “attacks” consisted of though.
The headline here is
“Solar Flares & Climate Phenomena: Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon Is Censored After Challenging Climate Change in Tucker Carlson Interview – Ask Dr. Drew”
Got to agree with Stokes on this point. Nick is “attacked online” quite routinely here on this blog, yet not censored. Not sure where and who is doing the censoring, if anything I’m seeing a Streisand Effect because up to now, I had no idea who Dr. Willie Soon is.
Every conservative is attecked by leftists on every subject.
Soon is not unique except he gets attacked non consensus conclusions supported with junk science that just happen to satisfy his fossil fuel donors. He is not on a salary
You’re a leftist then.
Finally, and admission.
Did you overdose on stupid pills today?
Go fund a non-conservative article on my blog
Read the home page:
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
Leftists demonize CO2 to control energy, and that allows control of people. Nut Zero is an energy control strategy to implement leftist fascism. This is reality, not a conspiracy theory. More CO2 and global warming are good news, not a climate emergency.
Editor: Richard Greene (BS, MBA) … This blog was launched on January 25, 2023
The Honest Climate Science and Energy Blog
And yet another plug for his blog, plus a plea for funding.
If you want to overdose on stupid,, Visit dickie’s blog !!
And it’s stuffed full of articles you copied and pasted from somewhere else.
No point in quoting (BS, MBA) you have no evidence for those unless you’re going to post it here, so no one believes you.
No one educated could possibly mangle a blog like you have.
I am not sure why the editors allow this to continue. There multiple articles on this site that prove Soon did not get paid by the fossil fuel industry. He is a contributor to this site in good standing and should not have to be subject to slander of his good name. If you want to argue the science that is all and good, but spreading lies like they are fact that are a direct attack on the someone’s character should by be allowed here!!!
Evidence of Soon being cancelled then.
Correct, mea culpa.
My short-term memory must be getting really bad if I’ve already forgotten the headline when I’m (re-)reading the first line of the article …
Mr. BLR: Before you say you’re sorry in latin, did you watch the video? Mr. Stokes didn’t, either.
I looked for a video but couldn’t find anything.
Mr. Abbott: It’s at the top, the one with the triangle in the middle. If you watch, please tell Mr. Stokes what he’s missing.
It’s not that your memory is failing, it’s that every other user on this thread is attempting to gaslight you and each other into believing something that isn’t true. It’s easy to get confused when there is an intentional campaign of deceit tailor made to confuse you.
Watch the video
For what purpose? I don’t intend to spend an hour and a quarter to (maybe) find what you call censorship. Give me a transcript. Until then, you are censoring yourself.
Get the transcript yourself.
Mr. George: Well, you’re in good company, Mr. Stokes won’t bother either.
You don’t seem to be curious, Mr. George.
You still can’t put the claimed facts in writing.
Mr. Stokes: I can, but I won’t. Too busy laughing. You are gaffed like a fish here. You criticized the headline without reading (in this case, watching) the article. I don’t need to write another word.
Your line is falling flat because in fact, hardly anyone has watched the video. It is a 1hr15min rant. So no-one except maybe you knows the basis for the censorship claim. And you won’t tell us.
If you really have watched the video, you can maybe at least tell us the time points where he actually gives some facts about this.
So Nick admits he hasn’t watched the video.
Others have.
Nick is WRONG…. and whinging about it.. he would rather waste his time making trite meaningless posts..
You owe it to yourself to watch the whole video… maybe wake up to reality.
You obviously haven’t watched it. You described it as a short video. It is 1 hr 15 mins.
Others may have, but none can say what is the actual censorship is, or even give the time slot where it is described.
YAWN !!
Mr. Stokes: Well, Mr. nice didn’t post a comment that the headline was misleading, as you did. At the top. Now you know it’s on the video, so you can’t watch it. And you’re caught out, but you still kick. Hilarious.
Unfortunately for you all, I did subject myself to the entire video (on 2x playback, small favors) and there is not one single iota of evidence of censorship presented by Soon in the entire rambling interview. At one point he suggests, based on nothing whatsoever except his own vivid imagination, that TikTok is limiting the reach of clips of his Tucker Carlson interview based on the fact that he’s not getting many views. Active censorship? Or merely a lack of interest from viewers in Soon’s paranoid, barely coherent ramblings?
Mr. J: Not affecting my fortune. I caught out Mr. Stokes for not watching, while commenting on what WASN’T in the video. I’ll wait for a credible source, like Captain Climate, to report details. You’re not reliable, as you’ve shown here many times, because (like MR. Stokes) your definition of “evidence” is not correct.
I do appreciate that the one thing we can all agree on is that none of us wants to watch this stupid video.
Mr. J: As usual, you are wrong. I disagree, I want to watch the stupid video, I’d learn something from Dr. Soon, an excellent scientist who is willing to learn. Captain Climate liked it, so you’re twice wrong. I’d learn about censorship, and maybe learn you are a liar. I didn’t watch it yet to prove a point- getting Stokes to admit he didn’t, then let him accuse me of it. And it was prophetic, he leapt in and got caught. He then said I didn’t, and the trap snapped shut. And you’re volunteering to be next?
I don’t know what evidence you have for the credibility of Captain Climate; he said I was a moron, which isn’t true, so thatn is the end of his credibility for me. But further, he claims to have watched it, but won’t say anything of what he saw. AlanJ did say, which puts him well ahead in credibility. And it is what I suspected; Soon claims he has been censored because he doesn’t get many views. It couldn’t be the usual reason that no-one wants to watch (as shown on this thread). Could it?
Not another word.
Story Tip: Opinion | A Climate Wall of Shame Would Offer a Global Warming History – The New York Times (nytimes.com)
Let’s Build a Climate Wall of Shame
Here is a proposal for the environmental movement: Pool philanthropic funds for a day, buy a small plot of land in Washington, D.C., and put up a tall marble wall to serve as a climate memorial. Carve on this memorial the names of public figures actively denying the existence of climate change. Carve the names so deep and large, our grandchildren and great-grandchildren need not search the archives.
I’d pay good money to appear on that wall of heroes alongside Richard Feynman, Mark Steyn, and so many other great people of standing and honour.
That would be a quite blank wall! I can’t think of anyone who denies that the various local and regional climates have changed over time, or who denies that current climates likely will change in the future. Should anyone make such foolish claims, they should certainly be ashamed of themselves, as should anyone who claims that what little climate changes we are currently experiencing constitute an “existential crisis”.
Author: Nate Loewentheil is the founder and managing partner of Commonweal Ventures, a venture capital firm that invests in clean energy, health and financial technologies.
What an effing surprise.
The comments section shows intellectual laziness on display. Few people watched the Dr Drew interview where Soon mentions censorship and exactly how it works. But because the original poster didn’t summarize the interview, nobody did any additional thinking. Nobody needs to censor really, because human beings are too lazy to avoid ignorance.
Are you a human being?
Or an out of control AI program?
Anything is better than being a mindless, dumb, dickie-bot !
LOL, you didn’t watch the video.
No, I consider it very arrogant to ask me to spend 1:16 hour of my time because you were too lazy to write down what it is about.
Guilty as charged, m’lud.
The relevant “Ask Dr. Drew” webpage appears to be :
https://drdrew.com/2024/solar-flares-climate-phenomena-astrophysicist-dr-willie-soon-is-censored-after-challenging-climate-change-science-in-tucker-carlson-interview-ask-dr-drew/
I’m based in France. For an article with “Censored” in the title it’s actually ironic that Rumble videos are blocked “Because of French government demands to remove creators from our platform”.
Guilty yet again, your honour.
The “podcast / audio” version is over 72 minutes long. Which “minute marker(s)” should I skip to to hear the “juicy” bits about “censorship and exactly how it works” ?
Mr. Stokes: See how MR. BLR admits he didn’t watch??
Bless him
He’s holding his ground on the assertion that the GHGE is nonsense.
He briefly got the word in that CO₂ or *any* supposed greenhousegases can NOT move Heat Energy up a thermal gradient = direct violation of the 2nd Law
So he’s looking for an alternative explanation for the supposed/observed warming.
He’s looked at Urban Heat Island, seen that it is entirely man-made down-on-the-ground phenomenon and so suggested ignoring *all* the urban observations.
Nobody will like that as that is where *most* of the temp record came from.
This is where it gets confusing – he says that the rural stations show no warming, urban heat is to be ignored BUT, is still looking for warming via sunspots, cosmic rays, total irradiance and any/all other solar happenings.
why?
Very good point! This puzzling endeavor seems common among the “luke-warmists”.
So, imagine I have a temperature station in my (fairly sheltered) back garden and I take temperature measurements every day over many years. The temperature changes, season to season but, one would have thought that it would be the same on the same day of any year – it isn’t though, is it? Why is it that there are longer term increases or decreases in temperature and such fluctuations in the weather patterns?
Why is it that you believe that there can be one, and only one cause of the warming since the end of the LIA?
Perhaps that should be “Learn more”.
Worry about solar flares, a real threat more serious than man-made climate change.
This rather poor situation includes, at its roots, the social problem of exclusion, as when child cries as a tactic to avoid taking food it does not like.
Science needs funding, but some of the feeble-minded among us now express preferences about the sources of the funding. It has reached the silly state where fossil fuel corporate sources must raise a protest cry from society, while “environmentally-progressive” bodies get praise.
There were some famous US corporates that existed largely to research and commercialise new science. 3M was one example. Bell Labs was another. The Lockheed aircraft “skunk works” a third. These corporations used their science skills to invent and produce new products that were, overall, rather liked by society back in the last half of the 1900s. But, there has been a drift away from that set of preferences.
In living memory, fossil fuel producers and energy generators used to be liked by society and were often used as examples of fine companies, doing things the way they should be done. Several grew quite large from their successes in providing goods that society demanded. Now, there are frequent efforts to demonise them. Why?
OTOH, there has been a marked rise over the last 2 decades in growth and wealth of “environmentally promoting” bodies. The majority of these have used “charity” type tax structures designed to take money from unwilling people because of government laws and regulations that let them get away with it on a massive scale.
However, society says that it is OK to praise these robber barons when they put money towards scientific research. Why?
I did some research on this question and reported some months ago on WUWT.
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2023/07/18/corruption-of-science-by-money-and-power/
IMO, it is not healthy for society to praise shady funders like Rockefeller with their anti-science projects, while demonising the real sources of past progress and honest funding for research, mineral companies and particularly fossil fuel corporations. I was in the thick of this and I know what I am talkng about, from experience.
Deliberate interference with the true and proper progress of science stinks. Have a good look at the “sustainable environment” big guys an beware the stench that you find.
Geoff S