Dr. Wei-Hock Soon’s Peers Fire Back Against Global Warming Witch Hunt

hit pieceEditor’s Note: As reported by Breitbart News, the New York Times over the weekend ran a hit piece on astrophysicist Willie Soon, pressuring his superiors, Charles R. Alcock of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center and W. John Kress of the Smithsonian in Washington, DC, to punish him after the publication of a peer-reviewed paper debunking climate models that predict carbon dioxide will lead to catastrophic global warming.

Two of Soon’s peers, Bob Carter and Lord Christopher Monckton, have each written letters to Dr. Alcock and other colleagues of Soon’s, defending his professional integrity against the misleading charges brought by NYT authors Justin Gillis and John Schwartz. We reprint these letters here with the permission of their authors.

carterProf Bob CarterDear Dr Alcock,

I was horrified to read yesterday the defamatory articles about Willie Soon written by reporters for the New York Times and the Guardian, and now spilling on to various web publications and blogs.

From the outside it is very clear that the attack on Willie is being co-ordinated, probably by the same persons who have sought to muddy his name in the past – Greenpeace being a prime suspect in this regard.

The accusations that Willie’s funding sources dictate what he writes in his research papers are of course untrue; as they would also be untrue if alleged against the many other distinguished scientists that you employ whose funding is derived from external sources.

​Despite the transparency of the attack as a co-ordinated attempt at character assassination, I realise that as the senior executive involved you will probably have no choice but to instigate a review of the matter, consulting closely with Willie to make sure that his side of the issue receives due weight and consideration.

​In such circumstances, would you please furnish the Chairperson of any Committee with the following assessment of Willie, which is extracted from a recent reference that I wrote for him:

The respect accorded to Willie Soon’s public contributions to the climate change debate stems from the rigorous professional and personal standards that he sets in his presentations and writing. Having read many of his written articles, and attended several of his plenary lectures, I can attest that Willie is scrupulous in attending to the basic scientific veracity of everything that he presents in public about scientific matters. He is careful not only in that regard, but also in the attention he pays to drawing reasonable and balanced conclusions, and in rigorously eschewing the unfortunate ad hominem arguments that too often characterize public “debate” about human-caused climate change.

In essence, Willie Soon is a highly original, laterally thinking and communicative solar physicist who epitomizes the balanced theoretical-empirical, agnostic approach that all scientists should apply to scientific issues that relate to societal matters. Seen from overseas, he forms part of a quartet with Fred Singer, Richard Lindzen and Roy Spencer – as an equal member of the four U.S. climate scientists who are most respected by their international peers for the unfailing intelligence, insightfulness and independence of their cogent views on the difficult climate change issue.

If one wanted to sum up Willie Soon in a single sentence, it would be that he radiates scientific expertise, obeisance to empirical data, enthusiasm, commitment to communication, concern for both scientific and personal integrity and good humour in roughly equal measure.​

I stand fully by those words, and note that it follows that the current media attack upon Dr Soon is repugnant.

Having reassured itself of the essential facts of the matter, it is surely the duty of the Smithsonian Institute to defend the reputation and honor of a scientist of such outstanding ability, integrity and courage.

The New York Times and other papers that have published the false accusations should be asked to withdraw them.

​Yours sincerely,
​Bob Carter

Professor Robert (Bob) M. Carter
FAIMM, Hon. Fellow RSNZ​
Emeritus Fellow, Institute of Public Affairs, Melbourne

Lord Monckton’s letter begins here.

Lord MoncktonLord MoncktonLadies and gentlemen,

I am the lead author of the paper Why models run hot: results from an irreducibly simple climate model, published last month in the Science Bulletin, the journal of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Dr Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics was one of my three distinguished co-authors. I understand that Dr Alcock has written to all of you to say that he proposes to investigate allegations that Dr Soon failed to disclose a supposed “conflict of interest” in that he had in the past received but had not disclosed grants from fossil-fuel interests to further his studies into the influence of solar variability on terrestrial climate.

Let me contribute to Dr Alcock’s enquiry by providing the following information:

Our paper had nothing to do with any of the specific projects in relation to the Sun-climate connection for which Dr Soon has in the past been grant-funded. Its subject-matter was not the influence of the Sun on the Earth’s climate; instead, our paper (available at scibull.com and click the link to “Most-read articles”, where our paper is the all-time no. 1) presented an irreducibly simple climate-sensitivity model that allows anyone to select his or her own parameters and to reach a respectable determination of climate sensitivity in minutes on nothing more elaborate than a pocket calculator.

Dr Soon first kindly wrote to me some eight years ago to raise with me some scientific points arising from a popular article on climate sensitivity that I had published in the London Sunday Telegraph. Over the years he has been kind enough to correct many errors in my scientific understanding and to give me instruction in the elements of climatological physics. It is largely thanks to his generous assistance that I acquired enough knowledge to draft our paper for the Science Bulletin. He was, therefore, a worthy co-author who had earned his name on the paper over eight patient years, and without any financial reward at any stage.

Neither Dr Soon nor any of the authors of our paper received a single penny for our months of work preparing the paper and then answering some very detailed and helpful questions from our three anonymous peer-reviewers. I greatly admire Dr Soon for his courage in being ready to follow wherever the science may lead.

It is apparent that the well-funded, highly-organized, concerted campaign of hatred and libelous vilification against Dr Soon has a rankly political motive. Certainly, as you will see from the attached note of the various instaquotes from rent-by-the-hour climate “scientists”, their attempts to attack the science in our paper have been remarkably insubstantial, unmeritorious and too often intellectually dishonest. Once it became apparent to climate campaigners that the science in the paper was uncongenial to their political position and not at all easy to refute, they began what has become an all-out campaign of hate-speech, libel and innuendo against Dr Soon.

I am particularly grateful to Ms Pulliam for her public statement that the Harvard-Smithsonian believes that scientists should enjoy academic freedom to reach their own conclusions, and that one cannot merely assume that a scientist who has received a grant from a corporation or other interest will in any way tailor his findings to please his funders.

Dr Soon is of course deeply hurt by the baseless allegations made against him. I hope that you will all do your best to support him until the police and the courts have dealt firmly with the offenses and libels of his malicious detractors.

–The Viscount Monckton of Brenchley

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (30)

  • Avatar

    Al Shelton

    |

    Sue the ba$tards is my philosophy.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    sonnyhill

    |

    Climate change cheerleaders want a one-sided debate, including one-sided funding. Maybe someone could point out how lopsided the funding has been. I believe that the newspaper lynch mob has gone after the wrong guy this time. Dr. Soon’s persecution should become the impetus for balanced climate research.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Frederick Colbourne

    |

    Although libel may remain a matter for the police in some Commonwealth countries, in the US it is a civil matter.

    Reply

  • Avatar

    luka

    |

    None of these guys are his peers nor experts on the climate science.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer who is now facing serious sexual harassment and stalking charges. He has been caught lying to the police and orchestrating a cover up.

      Got any science you would like to discuss?

      Al Gore is a pervert whose wife left him, and he got a ‘D’ in his college science class.

      Got any science you would like to discuss?

      Sheep! 😆

      Reply

      • Avatar

        luka

        |

        [quote]The head of the IPCC was a railroad engineer who is now facing serious sexual harassment and stalking charges. He has been caught lying to the police and orchestrating a cover up.[/quote]
        The IPCC doesnt really do its own scientific reasearch, they just publish assessment reports reviewing the latest climate science.

        [quote]Al Gore is a pervert whose wife left him, and he got a ‘D’ in his college science class.[/quote]
        Al Gore is a politician and his movie sucks.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          I gave you a link to three Technical Papers written by the IPCC yesterday. Did you hit your head?

          And again, look up the meaning of ‘et al’.

          You obviously did not do your homework, and have regressed from yesterday’s lessons.

          Start by finding refutation of natural variability. Remember? The 4,500,000,000 year precedent that has never been overturned.

          Are you incapable of retaining anything other than the trillion dollar Climate Change Industry talking points?

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        [quote]# luka 2015-03-29 06:43
        None of these guys are his peers nor experts on the climate science.[/quote]

        Just responded in kind to your post.

        Now, back to that natural variability issue.

        Found a paper yet?

        Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]None of these guys are his peers nor experts on the climate science.[/quote] Yet they managed to publish a Peer Reviewed Paper on… Climate?

      Bob’s not an expert? Really?
      [quote]Professor Bob Carter is an Emeritus Fellow at the Institute of Public Affairs (IPA, Melbourne). He is a palaeontologist, stratigrapher, marine geologist, environmental scientist and writer with more than 40 years professional experience, and holds degrees from the University of Otago (New Zealand) and the University of Cambridge (England). He has held tenured academic staff positions at the University of Otago (Dunedin) and James Cook University (Townsville), where he was Professor and Head of School of Earth Sciences between 1981 and 1999. [/quote]

      Care to make any more provably false claims luka?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Gator

        |

        [b]Luka[/b]

        [i]My name is Luka
        I live on my primal fear
        I give up scares to you
        Yes, you’ve see my type before

        If I say something that’s not right
        Some man made trouble, some kind of fright
        Just don’t ask me what it was
        I don’t know just what it was
        Just don’t ask me what it was

        I think it’s ’cause I’m crazy
        I try and do talk too loud
        You can bet that I am crazy
        Just another sheep in the crowd

        Gore’s movie made me want to cry
        After that you don’t ask why
        I just can’t argue anymore
        Thinking is such a painful chore
        I just can’t argue anymore

        Yes, I feel it’s doomsday
        I talked without thinking again
        Like a donkey I’ll bray
        And you know I’m brainless anyway

        I guess I’d like to be a drone
        With no brain working, nothing known
        Just don’t ask me what I know
        Just don’t ask me what I know
        Just don’t…[/i]

        Reply

      • Avatar

        luka

        |

        [quote]Yet they managed to publish a Peer Reviewed Paper on… Climate?[/quote]
        I know right? Seems like certain scientific journals are not above publishing gibberish if it gets payed for. http://www.sciencemag.org/content/342/6154/60.full
        Do you know of any experts who have addressed and agree with the finding of the paper since its publication? I haven’t found any. https://quantpalaeo.wordpress.com/2015/01/18/was-china-6-8-k-warmer-in-winter-6000-years-ago/

        Bob has a Ph.D.in paleontology and all his papers on climate change have been dismissed and criticised by other scientists. http://theconversation.com/bob-carters-climate-counter-consensus-is-an-alternate-reality-1553
        http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1029/2009JD012960/full

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          He Luka! In all of those wonderful papers that the IPCC et al have produced, can you find [i]even [b]one[/b][/i] that refutes natural variability as the cause of recent, or any, global climate changes?

          You see, a precedent has been set for natural climate fluctuations, a precedent that has stood the test of time fot 4,500,000,000 years. So before you come at us with some story about boogey men, you will first need to prove that the recent climate changes are not natural.

          Get busy! 😆

          Reply

          • Avatar

            luka

            |

            IPCC dont produce scientific papers, they just assess the science.

            So a paper that agrees with age? I always assumed that there was a 97% consensus. Are you saying there isnt?

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Assess [i]wha[/i]t science? Can’t find the paper I requested.

            And no sweety, there is no 97% concensus.

            [i]The following is a list of 97 articles that refute Cook’s (poorly conceived, poorly designed and poorly executed) 97% “consensus” study. The fact that anyone continues to bring up such soundly debunked nonsense like Cook’s study is an embarrassment to science.

            Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: A re-analysis ( October 2014)
            Energy Policy – Quantifying the consensus on anthropogenic global warming in the literature: Rejoinder ( October 2014)
            Science & Education – Climate Consensus and ‘Misinformation’: A Rejoinder to Agnotology, Scientific Consensus, and the Teaching and Learning of Climate Change ( August 2013)
            American Thinker – Climate Consensus Con Game ( February 17, 2014)
            Breitbart – Obama’s ’97 Percent’ Climate Consensus: Debunked, Demolished, Staked through the heart ( September 8, 2014)
            Canada Free Press – Sorry, global warmists: The ’97 percent consensus’ is complete fiction ( May 27, 2014)
            Financial Post – Meaningless consensus on climate change ( September 19, 2013)
            Financial Post – The 97%: No you don’t have a climate consensus ( September 25, 2013)
            Forbes – Global Warming Alarmists Caught Doctoring ’97-Percent Consensus’ Claims ( May 30, 2013)
            Fox News – Balance is not bias — Fox News critics mislead public on climate change ( October 16, 2013)
            Herald Sun – That 97 per cent claim: four problems with Cook and Obama ( May 22, 2013)
            Power Line – Breaking: The “97 Percent Climate Consensus” Canard ( May 18, 2014)
            Spiked – Global warming: the 97% fallacy ( May 28, 2014)
            The Daily Caller – Where Did ’97 Percent’ Global Warming Consensus Figure Come From? ( May 16, 2014)
            The Daily Telegraph – 97 per cent of climate activists in the pay of Big Oil shock! ( July 23, 2013)
            The Guardian – The claim of a 97% consensus on global warming does not stand up ( June 6, 2014)
            The New American – Global Warming “Consensus”: Cooking the Books ( May 21, 2013)
            The New American – Cooking Climate Consensus Data: “97% of Scientists Affirm AGW” Debunked ( June 5, 2013)
            The New American – Climategate 3.0: Blogger Threatened for Exposing 97% “Consensus” Fraud( May 20, 2014)
            The Patriot Post – The 97% Consensus — A Lie of Epic Proportions ( May 17, 2013)
            The Patriot Post – Debunking the ‘97% Consensus’ & Why Global Cooling May Loom ( August 7, 2014)
            The Press-Enterprise – Don’t be swayed by climate change ‘consensus’ ( September 10, 2013)
            The Tampa Tribune – About that ’97 percent’: It ain’t necessarily so ( May 19, 2014)
            The Wall Street Journal – The Myth of the Climate Change ‘97%’ ( May 26, 2014)
            Troy Media – Bandwagon psychology root of 97 per cent climate change “consensus” ( February 18, 2014)
            WND – Black Jesus’ Climate Consensus Fantasy ( June 25, 2013)
            Competitive Enterprise Institute – Consensus Shmensus ( September 5, 2013)
            Cornwall Alliance – Climate Consensus? Nonsense! ( June 16, 2014)
            Friends of Science – Friends of Science Challenge the Cook Study for Bandwagon Fear Mongering on Climate Change and Global Warming ( May 21, 2013)
            Friends of Science – Only 65 Scientists of 12,000 Make up Alleged 97% on Climate Change and Global Warming Consensus ( May 28, 2013)
            Friends of Science – 97% Consensus? No! Global Warming Math Myths & Social Proofs (PDF) ( February 3, 2014)
            Friends of Science – Climate Change Is a Fact of Life, the Science Is Not Settled and 97% Consensus on Global Warming Is a Math Myth ( February 4, 2014)
            George C. Marshall Institute – The Corruption of Science ( October 5, 2014)
            John Locke Foundation – The 97% consensus on global warming exposed ( July 3, 2014)
            Liberty Fund – David Friedman on the 97% Consensus on Global Warming ( February 27, 2014)
            Global Warming Policy Foundation – Consensus? What Consensus? (PDF) ( September 2, 2013)
            Global Warming Policy Foundation – Fraud, Bias And Public Relations: The 97% ‘Consensus’ And Its Critics (PDF) ( September 8, 2014)
            National Center for Policy Analysis – The Big Lie of the “Consensus View” on Global Warming( July 30, 2014)
            National Center for Public Policy Research – Do 97% of All Climate Scientists Really Believe Mankind is Causing Catastrophic Global Warming? ( February 10, 2014)
            Principia Scientific International – Exposed: Academic Fraud in New Climate Science Consensus Claim ( May 23, 2013)
            The Heartland Institute – What 97 Percent of Climate Scientists Do ( May 12, 2014)[/i]

            (cont’d below)

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]Australian Climate Madness – ‘Get at the truth, and not fool yourself’ ( May 29, 2014)
            Bishop Hill – ‘Landmark consensus study’ is incomplete ( May 27, 2013)
            Climate Audit – UnderCooked Statistics ( May 24, 2013)
            Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% ‘consensus’ ( July 26, 2013)
            Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% ‘consensus’: Part II ( July 27, 2013)
            Climate Etc. (Judith Curry Ph.D.) – The 97% feud ( July 27, 2014)
            Climate Resistance – Tom Curtis Doesn’t Understand the 97% Paper ( July 27, 2013)
            JoNova – Cook’s fallacy “97% consensus” study is a marketing ploy some journalists will fall for( May 17, 2013)
            JoNova – That’s a 0.3% consensus, not 97% ( July 1, 2013)
            JoNova – “Honey, I shrunk the consensus” – Monckton takes action on Cooks paper ( September 24, 2013)
            JoNova – John Cook’s consensus data is so good his Uni will sue you if you discuss it ( May 18, 2014)
            JoNova – Uni Queensland defends legal threats over “climate” data they want to keep secret ( May 21, 2014)
            JoNova – Cook scores 97% for incompetence on a meaningless consensus ( June 6, 2014)
            José Duarte (Ph.D.) – Cooking stove use, housing associations, white males, and the 97% ( August 28, 2014)
            José Duarte (Ph.D.) – The art of evasion ( September 9, 2014)
            Making Science Public – What’s behind the battle of received wisdoms? ( July 23, 2013)
            Popular Technology.net – 97% Study Falsely Classifies Scientists’ Papers, according to the scientists that published them ( May 21, 2013)
            Popular Technology.net – The Statistical Destruction of the 97% Consensus ( June 1, 2013)
            Popular Technology.net – Cook’s 97% Consensus Study Game Plan Revealed ( June 4, 2013)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The Consensus Project: An update ( August 16, 2013)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Biases in consensus data ( August 24, 2013)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More irregularities in the consensus data ( August 24, 2013)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Open letter to the Vice-chancellor of the University of Queensland ( August 27, 2013)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Bootstrap results for initial ratings by the Consensus Project ( August 28, 2013)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – The 97% consensus ( May 10, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – My First Audioslide ( May 20, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – A new contribution to the consensus debate ( June 4, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – 24 errors? ( June 8, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – More Cook data released ( July 21, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias ( July 23, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Days of rater bias (ctd) July 28, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – Another chapter on the 97% nonsensus ( August 1, 2014)
            Richard Tol (Ph.D.) – ERL does not want you to read this ( October 14, 2014)
            The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – I Do Not Think it Means What You Think it Means ( May 15, 2013)
            The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – On the Consensus ( May 17, 2013)
            The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Nir Shaviv: One of the 97% ( May 17, 2013)
            The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Why Symmetry is Bad ( May 19, 2013)
            The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Possible Self-Selection Bias in Cook: Author responses.( May 20, 2013)
            The Blackboard (Lucia Lundgren Ph.D.) – Bias Author Survey: Pro AGW ( May 21, 2013)
            The Lid – Claim 97% of Climate Scientists Believe In Global Warming is TOTALLY BOGUS! ( May 21, 2014)
            The State of the Climate – Cook’s survey not only meaningless but also misleading ( May 17, 2013)
            [/i]

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [i]WUWT – The Collapsing ‘Consensus’ ( May 22, 2013)
            WUWT – Self admitted cyber thief Peter Gleick is still on the IOP board that approved the Cook 97% consensus paper ( June 4, 2013)
            WUWT – ‘Quantifying the consensus on global warming in the literature’: a comment ( June 24, 2013)
            WUWT – On the 97 percenters: ‘You Must Admit, They Were Careful’ ( July 28, 2013)
            WUWT – What Is Cook’s Consensus? ( July 29, 2013)
            WUWT – Cooks ‘97% consensus’ disproven by a new peer reviewed paper showing major math errors ( September 3, 2013)
            WUWT – 97% Climate consensus ‘denial’: the debunkers debunked ( September 9, 2013)
            WUWT – Join my crowd-sourced complaint about the ‘97% consensus’ ( September 20, 2013)
            WUWT – The 97% consensus myth – busted by a real survey ( November 20, 2013)
            WUWT – 97% of pictures are worth 1000 climate words ( February 26, 2014)
            WUWT – John Cook’s 97% consensus claim is about to go ‘pear-shaped’ ( May 10, 2014)
            WUWT – An Open Letter puts the University of Queensland in a dilemma over John Cook’s ‘97% consensus’ paper ( May 22, 2014)
            WUWT – The climate consensus is not 97% – it’s 100% ( June 11, 2014)
            WUWT – The disagreement over what defines ‘endorsment of AGW’ by Cook et al. is revealed in raters remarks, and it sure isn’t a 97% consensus ( June 24, 2014)
            WUWT – If 97% of Scientists Say Global Warming is Real, 100% Say It Has Nearly Stopped( November 18, 2014)[/i]

            Besides, only the scientifically illiterate, or dishonest, think that science is based upon popular votes or ‘consensus’.

            But if you want the opinion of actual working scientists, I can point you to a list of over 31,000 of them that agree with me.

            http://www.petitionproject.org/

            But who’s counting?

            Now back to that 4,500,000,000 year precedent. Where has it been overturned?

            Are you suggesting that the trillion dollar Climate Change Industry just decided to go on a ghost hunt, without bothering to disprove the 4,500,000,000 year precedent?

            That would be fraud! How dare you!

          • Avatar

            luka

            |

            Thats a lot of links…

            I dont think that science is based upon popular votes, its just that consensus is all i have to go on, since i dont know fudge about the actual science.

            http://www.petitionproject.org/
            I googled the name of the first guy, Earl M. Aagaard and it turns out hes a biologist. Why does it matter what he thinks?
            Is anybody on this list a climate scientist?

            The one paper. http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jgrd.50239/abstract

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You should have looked deeper, but then you are not seeking truth, just confirmation. These are their fields of expertise, and every scientist is trained in the scientific method, and knows BS when they see it.

            [i]1. Atmosphere (579)

            I) Atmospheric Science (112)
            II) Climatology (39)
            III) Meteorology (343)
            IV) Astronomy (59)
            V) Astrophysics (26)
            2. Earth (2,240)

            I) Earth Science (94)
            II) Geochemistry (63)
            III) Geology (1,684)
            IV) Geophysics (341)
            V) Geoscience (36)
            VI) Hydrology (22)
            3. Environment (986)

            I) Environmental Engineering (487)
            II) Environmental Science (253)
            III) Forestry (163)
            IV) Oceanography (83)
            Computers & Math (935)

            1. Computer Science (242)

            2. Math (693)

            I) Mathematics (581)
            II) Statistics (112)
            Physics & Aerospace (5,812)

            1. Physics (5,225)

            I) Physics (2,365)
            II) Nuclear Engineering (223)
            III) Mechanical Engineering (2,637)
            2. Aerospace Engineering (587)

            Chemistry (4,822)

            1. Chemistry (3,129)

            2. Chemical Engineering (1,693)

            Biochemistry, Biology, & Agriculture (2,965)

            1. Biochemistry (744)

            I) Biochemistry (676)
            II) Biophysics (68)
            2. Biology (1,438)

            I) Biology (1,049)
            II) Ecology (76)
            III) Entomology (59)
            IV) Zoology (149)
            V) Animal Science (105)
            3. Agriculture (783)

            I) Agricultural Science (296)
            II) Agricultural Engineering (114)
            III) Plant Science (292)
            IV) Food Science (81)
            Medicine (3,046)

            1. Medical Science (719)

            2. Medicine (2,327)

            General Engineering & General Science (10,102)

            1. General Engineering (9,833)

            I) Engineering (7,280)
            II) Electrical Engineering (2,169)
            III) Metallurgy (384)
            2. General Science (269)[/i]

            http://www.petitionproject.org/qualifications_of_signers.php

            Now, as for your ‘proof’ of refutation of natural variability? Did you bother to read the abstract?

            [i]”the CMIP5 ensemble of coupled [b]models[/b]”[/i]

            Models are not proof of anything. I can build a model to prove bigfoot is real. 😆

            Honestly Luka, I did not know you were this gullible and naive. Thanks for the update.

            So the trillion dollar Climate Change Industry[i] has[/i] committed fraud!

            I’m truly shocked! 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Is 39 climatologists enough? 😆

            Still no paper. Nothing but a model. Hmmmm…

            Did you know that not [i]one single[/i] trillion dollar Climate Change Industry model predicted the nearly twenty year pause we have experienced?

            That is a failure rate of 100%.

            And you still believe, don’t you? 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]IPCC dont produce scientific papers, they just assess the science.[/quote]

            [i]From 1990, [u]the IPCC has produced a series of Assessment Reports, Special Reports, Technical Papers, methodologies and other products that have become standard works of reference, widely used by policymakers, scientists and other experts.[/u][/i]

            http://www.grida.no/publications/other/ipcc_tar/?src=/climate/ipcc_tar/wg1/003.htm

            So once again you are wrong.

            Do you know what the IPCC charter is?

            Found that paper yet?

            Come on! That should be [i]easy[/i]! Right?

          • Avatar

            luka

            |

            [quote]From 1990, the IPCC has produced a series of Assessment Reports, Special Reports, Technical Papers, methodologies and other products[/quote]
            … so no scientific papers? Can you just link me one. I honestly don’t think they do their own science. Maybe i’m wrong. Link me one.

            [quote] Do you know what the IPCC charter is?[/quote]
            No.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            Did you miss, or misunderstand the term ‘et al’?

            Did you miss or misunderstand the term ‘Technical Papers’?

            You seem to be missing [i]alot[/i] today, including a single paper refuting natural variability.

            But still a [i]faithful believer[/i] in the [b]trillion dollar Climate Change Industry[/b], even with their [b]100% failure rate[/b].

            Fascinating! 😆

            Even Dr Kenji is laughing at you now.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            This link is to 3 of their Technical Papers…

            http://www.ipcc-wg2.gov/publications/TechPapers/index.html

            If the IPCC is not a scientific organization, then I guess they are just an intergovernmental political lobbying group, a UN puppet.

            So far we have established a 100% failure rate for the trillion dollar Climate Change Industry, charges of fraud, and that you are anti-science.

            Got it! 😆

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Quote:
            Do you know what the IPCC charter is?
            No.[/quote]

            The IPCC charter…

            [i]“ … to assess on a comprehensive, objective, open and transparent basis the scientific, technical and socio-economic information relevant to understanding the scientific basis of risk of [b]human-induced climate change[/b], its potential impacts and options for adaptation and mitigation. IPCC reports should be neutral with respect to policy.“[/i]

            https://www.ipcc.ch/pdf/ipcc-principles/ipcc-principles.pdf

            If you pay someone to prove 2+2=5, then 5 will always be the answer you get.

            They were never paid to investigate natural causes. And that my dear is just [b]one[/b] reason why you will never find refutation of a perfectly natural change of climate.

            You obviously know very little on this subject, and I am rather busy right now. Why don’t you read the articles here, take some notes, and get back to me later.

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Speaking of whoring for money. Have you met Dr Kenji of the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’?

          [img]https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpress.com/2011/10/kenji_watts.jpg[/img]

          [i]Yes, Kenji is our dog. Apparently, the claim is true, all that is required to be a member of the illustrious group of “concerned scientists” is a valid credit card. No discerning questions were asked of me when I prepared Kenji’s application and no follow up check after the application was done. I simply put in his name, address, and provided a valid credit card that matched the address.[/i]

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          And just how unethical [i]are[/i] those esteemed ‘Science’ journals that keep circulating myths about man made climate change, when there is not one shred of proof that the changes we have seen are not natural?

          Could it have anything to do with the trillion dollar Climate Change Industry? 😆

          Found that paper yet? Keep Looking!

          Reply

        • Avatar

          amirlach

          |

          So your science mag link shows just how easy it is to publish rubbish papers? The Climategater’s even further corrupted the peer review process by pushing failed models and fiddled data. So way to score on your own net.

          Your Climate Counter Consensus link is one giant appeal to authority and a “consensus” that simply does not exist. It’s worthless.

          Your JGR “Paper” reads like a who’s who of the Climategate scandal. [quote] Foster et al basically recanted their results here and elsewhere when they admitted that their paper did not study temperature trends, only variability.[/quote] They claimed that McLean et al. Overestimated the ENSO’s effect on Climate. Yet alarmists are now using ENSO as an excuse for the 19+ year pause.
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/08/28/another-paper-blames-enso-for-the-warming-hiatus/

          Looks like your “refutation” has been refuted. [quote]COMMON ERRORS IN PAPERS CITED BY FOSTER ET AL

          The authors of the papers used different statistical tools and ENSO indices to remove the ENSO signal from Global Temperature and TLT records, and they all failed to account for the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events. This was discussed in detail in my post “Regression Analyses Do Not Capture The Multiyear Aftereffects Of Significant El Nino Events”. That post also appeared at WattsUpWithThat as “Why regression analysis fails to capture the aftereffects of El Nino events.” The post included a detailed discussion of the processes that take place before, during, and after significant El Nino events under the heading “EL NINO OVERVIEW”.

          That overview was supplemented by my post “La Nina Events Are Not The Opposite Of El Nino Events.” Briefly, a La Nina event is an exaggeration of ENSO-neutral conditions that occurs when the coupled ocean-atmosphere processes attempt to return to “normal” after a traditional El Nino.

          The statistical techniques used in the papers cited by Foster et al also do not address the differences between traditional El Nino events and El Nino Modoki. El Nino Modoki events were discussed in my posts “There Is Nothing New About The El Nino Modoki” and “Comparison of El Nino Modoki Index and NINO3.4 SST Anomalies.”

          And the papers that Foster et al cite do not account for “The Reemergence Mechanism,” which should integrate the effects of ENSO events.

          ALSO IN PREPRINT RELEASE: THOMPSON ET AL (2009) REPEATS THE ERROR

          The 2009 Thompson et al paper “Identifying signatures of natural climate variability in time series of global-mean surface temperature: Methodology and Insights” has been accepted for publication by the Journal of Climate. In it, Thompson et al repeat the errors made by Thompson et al 2008.
          http://ams.allenpress.com/perlserv/?request=get-abstract&doi=10.1175%2F2009JCLI3089.1
          Preprint Version:
          http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/ao/ThompsonPapers/TWJK_JClimate2009_revised.pdf

          Thompson et al were kind enough to post the data that resulted from their analyses for those who like to review findings:
          http://www.atmos.colostate.edu/~davet/ThompsonWallaceJonesKennedy/

          CLOSING

          As long as climate scientists continue to neglect the multiyear aftereffects of significant El Nino events, they will continue to incorrectly conclude, as Foster et al concludes, “the general rise in temperatures over the 2nd half of the 20th century is very likely predominantly due to anthropogenic emissions of greenhouse gases.”
          [/quote]
          http://wattsupwiththat.com/2009/08/07/multiple-wrongs-don%e2%80%99t-make-a-right-on-enso-impacts/

          Maybe someday they will make a single skilful prediction. 😀

          Reply

Leave a comment

No Trackbacks.