Global Warming Believers Launch Attack Campaign Against Renowned Scientist

protestFirm believers in global warming are ganging up to attack the integrity of an Harvard astrophysicist, Breitbart reports.

Dr. Willie Soon’s crime was to publish a peer-reviewed study showing that climate models are simply running too hot – they overestimate temperature increases.

Climate change advocates are not attacking the facts of his study, which seem to agree with satellite data showing no warming for over 18 years. Instead, they are looking for conflicts of interest, for dark money that might have influenced his research. The New York Times took the lead by reporting that Soon received many donations from the fossil fuel industry, which they believe constitutes a conflict of interest.

It’s not the first time that Dr. Soon received attacks for his person rather than his science. Back in 2008 when the Climategate scandal was made public, it was shown that those involved believed “that the peer-review process at Climate Research has been hijacked by a few skeptics on the editorial board,” because he was able to publish in a peer-reviewed journal. Prominent global warming advocates Michael Mann and Tom Wigley then tried to smear Soon as hard as they could so he wouldn’t publish reports Junk Science

Interestingly enough, climate change believers seem to appreciate fossil-fuel money when it goes to themselves. Investigative reporter Donna Laframboise revealed that World Wildlife Fund, the Sierra Club and the Nature Conservancy all received tens of millions of dollars from oil companies.

Nor do they try to hide their political connections. The Climate Depot published a flashback article showing that global warming “fighter” Jim Hansen received money from the Heinz Foundation, headed by John Kerry’s wife Teresa back in 2004 in the midst of the presidential elections.

Source

Trackback from your site.

Leave a comment (newest first):

Comments (52)

  • Avatar

    Dale

    |

    I think it’s a mistake for skeptics to get upset or deny any funding received. It might be much more effective to correct the record and then add a comparison of what they (the skeptics) received and what the CAGW crowd receives including all funding going to companies and grants for alternative energy.
    In other words, skeptic should respond with “So What?” and then reinforce the idea that the only important part is the quality of the research and findings rather than who funds what.
    Place the onus on the Alarmists to disprove the results of good quality and properly done research. Then see what happens.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      lee

      |

      This study did not receive funding. The one they complained of was a much earlier paper.

      But ignore the puppeteers behind the curtain.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Amber

    |

    Bottom line ,no one likes someone else blowing out their candles .
    As part of the scientific method why should it be surprising or disturbing to have climate model hypothesis turn out to be inaccurate ?
    The climate models have deficiencies ,the earth isn’t turning into an out of control ball of fire ,and there is more work to be done .

    The overblown and false premise that CO2 from humans is the “issue of our time “
    is such a complete joke unless of course
    you make a living from it or it serves your political purpose .

    $Trillions wasted on an unproven hypothesis .

    Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    It’s not that he was paid, the fact the it was deliverables. Exxon Mobil paid him to come up with that theory. That’s a problem.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Do you know what the IPCC charter is? Apparently not.

      Even [i]if[/i] Big Oil paid him to ‘come up with that theory’, it does not change the fact that the paper passed peer review, [i]real[/i] peer review.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Mike

        |

        His peers reviewed his research, they thought it was bullshit but you’ll just ignore that huh? Plus it wasn’t who he got paid from, it’s how he lables it as deliverable’s. You may want to do some research before you start spouting off.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          The paper passed peer review. What part of that do you not understand?

          Reply

    • Avatar

      Robert

      |

      Except that the money was paid to the Smithsonian, not to Soon.

      The “deliverables” per published documentation regarding the work had absolutely nothing to do with “coming up with that theory.”

      Jesus, you read a hit piece by a paid to write hack and do absolutely no real investigation of whether his claims were true you just accept them as fact, then go find more b.s. that aligns with it to bolster your opinion after which you come here and accuse us of not looking into things.

      You need help.

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    Though he has little formal training in climatology, Dr. Soon has for years published papers trying to show that variations in the sun’s energy can explain most recent global warming. His thesis is that human activity has played a relatively small role in causing climate change.

    Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.

    Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.

    “The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Get your facts straight.

      [quote]Willie Soon was born in Kangar, Malaysia, in 1966. He attended Khoon Aik Primary School in Kangar, Perlis, then Sekolah Menengah Syed Sirajudin Secondary School in Jejawi, Perlis, and Sekolah Menengah Dato Sheikh Ahmad Secondary School in Arau, Perlis.[1] To further his education he emigrated to the United States in 1980 and attended the University of Southern California, receiving a B.Sc. in 1985, followed by a M.Sc. in 1987 and then a Ph.D. [with distinction] in 1991.[11] His doctoral thesis was titled Non-equilibrium kinetics in high-temperature gases.[12] He received the IEEE Nuclear and Plasma Sciences Society Graduate Scholastic Award in 1989 and the Rockwell Dennis Hunt Scholastic Award from the University of Southern California in 1991.

      After completing his Ph.D. and upon the advice of his thesis advisor, Soon did post-doctoral research at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics and has been doing research in astrophysics and earth science there as a non-tenured employee since 1991.[1] He has also been an astronomer at the Mount Wilson Observatory,[14] a senior scientist at the George C. Marshall Institute think tank,[14][15] the chief science adviser to the Science and Public Policy Institute,[16] and an Adjunct Professor of the Faculty of Science and Environmental Studies of the University of Putra, Malaysia.[17] In 2004 Soon was awarded the “Petr Beckmann Award for outstanding contributions to the defense of scientific truth” by the conservative group Doctors for Disaster Preparedness.[/quote]

      Why would I listen to Dr Schmidt? The same Gavin Schimdt who refuses to debate skeptics? The same Gavin Schmidt who makes his living peddling CAGW, and who believes in failed models.

      Sorry, but track records matter, and Schmidt has a long and lousy record. Then there is his constant tampering with historic and recent data.

      Now. I will ask you again. Do you know what the IPCC charter is?

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Mike

        |

        100% incorrect. There are 1000’s of other scientists who have debunked Willie. Give me a minute and I’ll post. It’s just completely assinine to believe anything Willie Soon puts out there. He’s been debunked 1000 times over. One minute please.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          The paper passed peer review.

          What part of this do you not get? 😀

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Mike

            |

            Negative sir. But I already posted proof. Would you like the name of some legitimate scientists and look at their research? Ones that are not paid by big oil and coal and have zero political leanings? Doubt you’d look.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            The paper passed peer review, and received zero funding from Big Oil. What part of this do you not [i]still [/i]get?

            You cannot provide me with any scientific info on climate change that I have not already seen. The ‘proof’ you claim is nothing more than models, fudged data and cherry picked dates. But you are not intelligent enough to know this, and continue your childish babble.

            You ignore the billions of dollars spent supporting failed models and failed predictions, and want to accuse a real scientist who wrote a peer reviewed paper on his own dime.

            The IPCC is not investigating climate change. They are prosecuting man made CO2.

            You cannot be trusted any more than Peter Gleick, who committed identity theft and fraud, to support CAGW.

            You are ignorant of the facts, and a proven prevaricator. (see above) 😀

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Not to mention totally naive in that he actually believes ANYONE has “zero political leanings.”

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Yes, and while you are busy looking up nonsense, look up the IPCC charter.

          Reply

      • Avatar

        Mike

        |

        Soon isn’t a professor. He’s not a climate scientist either. Your reasonable but misplaced consideration of Soon leaves mile-wide holes for the industry to exploit in order to install people like him at reputable organizations to push their PR campaigns. Let’s call Soon what he is – a hack, a paid lair. Evidence abound, including his emails conspiring to discredit Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change reports with ExxonMobil lobbyists:
        http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/

        Here’s the AAUP’s definition of academic freedom, doesn’t mention protection of public relations agents who use the school as a guise of legitimacy.
        http://www.aaup.org/report/194

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Dr Scmidt is also not a climatologist. So what?

          Dr Soon has a much deeper education and bibliography. Get over it.

          And Green peace as a reference?! 😀

          And AAUP?! A bunch of lefty professors? How many of them have the training of Dr Soon? 😀

          Now, are you having trouble finding the IPCC charter?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Look at his links. Greenpeace, skepticalscience, and the Washington Post…

            Gee, no bias there huh?

            Now if on the other hand we provided links to WUWT or the like, or say something from Heartland then he’d be having screaming fits about the credibility of the information because they’re biased, not scientists, etc.

            The guy needs to look in the mirror long and hard though I doubt he’d ever realize that he is just as guilty, if not more so, of all the things he is accusing others of.

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Bow let’s review Dr Schimdt’s climatology education…

      He was educated at The Corsham School, earned a BA (Hons) in mathematics at Jesus College, Oxford, and a PhD in applied mathematics at University College London.

      Yep. That’s it.

      Math.

      No wonder he won’t debate. 😀

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Mike

        |

        I’ll give you another 1000 scientists who think Willie is a fool. How about that? This isn’t about Dr. Schmidt, got it?

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          Dr Soon has published more papers, and has been doing so for ten more years than Schmidt.

          Dr Schmidt refuses to debate because the facts ate not on his side. Dr Schmidt must continuously manipulate data to keep the fraud alive.

          Now, what about that IPCC charter? Why do you and Schmidt run away from facts?

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Mike

            |

            Fact is Soon is not a scientist or a professor, he;s a hack liar. Hang your hat on that.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            The paper passed peer review. Just like his other papers. Papers he has been writing for a decade longer than Schmidt.

            Dr Soon has more education and time in research on the subject. So what does that make Schmidt?

            Schmidt studied math, and is currently fabricating data.

            Found that IPCC charter yet? 😀

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            [quote]Fact is Soon is not a scientist[/quote]

            Drewski has competition! Another liar has shown his hand! 😀

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            Gavin and Giss? 😀 Serial data “adjusters”.

            The sun fully explains recent climate. It’s the data “adjusters” who are pointless.

            Climate Scientist Gavin Schmidt runs in fear from a debate.

          • Avatar

            amirlach

            |

            1000 scientist’s and not one willing to debate Roy Spencer? 😀

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    “The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate,” said Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard University and the co-author of “Merchants of Doubt,” a book about such campaigns. “Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Aren’t you going to point out that Naomi is not a climate scientist?

      How many papers has she published on climate change? 😀

      What about that IPCC charter? Inconvenient truth?

      What about your bald face lie that Dr Soon is not a scientist? 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Naomi is right about one thing, you cannot have a debate with those who fear to show up and defend their data.

      Religions do not debate and rely on faith, but science is based upon debate and skepticism.

      IPCC charter?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    Robert J. Strangeway, the editor of a journal that published three of Dr. Soon’s papers, said that editors relied on authors to be candid about any conflicts of interest. “We assume that when people put stuff in a paper, or anywhere else, they’re basically being honest,” said Dr. Strangeway, editor of the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics.

    Dr. Oreskes, the Harvard science historian, said that academic institutions and scientific journals had been too lax in recent decades in ferreting out dubious research created to serve a corporate agenda.

    “I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The paper passed peer review. What part of that do you not get?

      Oh! I forgot, I’m dealing with a liar. 😀

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    [url]http://www.skepticalscience.com/search.php?Search=Willie+Soon&x=0&y=0[/url]

    Here is all of Willies Peer reviewed psuedo science debunked from real scientists. This is a Fact!!

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Skeptical Science is a blog run by a cartoonist. The cartoonist is also not a climatologist.

      The paper passed peer review, liar. 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Why won’t you find the IPCC charter?

      Inconvenient truth for a liar who said Dr Soon is [i]not[/i] a scientist? 😀

      Yeah, you have [i]loads[/i] of credibility now, lying about Dr Soon’s credentials, using Greenpeace and a cartoonist’s blog as proof! 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |


      Unreliable*
      Skeptical Science – John Cook

      * Due to (1) deletion, extension and amending of user comments, and (2) undated post-publication revisions of article contents after significant user commenting.”

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    The Smithsonian itself “does not support” Soon’s climate conclusions, the statement continued. The Smithsonian says of climate change: “Scientific evidence has demonstrated that the global climate is warming as a result of increasing levels of atmospheric greenhouse gases generated by human activities.”

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The paper passed peer review. I don’t care what The Smithsonian says, I have reviewed the science and they have never refuted natural variability.

      Ockham’s razor states that before they can blame anything else, they must first disprove nature.

      They have not.

      Now liar, What about that IPCC charter? Hmmmm?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      You have proven that you will say anything, and believe anyone, as long as it backs your religious beliefs.

      Stop lying and let’s review the science.

      IPCC charter?

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    [url]http://www.washingtonpost.com/news/energy-environment/wp/2015/02/23/no-the-sun-isnt-driving-global-warming/[/url]

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The Washington Post is not a peer reviewed publication.

      Dr Soon’s paper passed peer review. What part of this do you not get?

      Or are you simply still lying?

      IPCC charter? 😀

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    It isn’t only the IPCC that concludes this. “No satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the past 50 years,” concluded a recent workshop report from the National Academy of Sciences. The report noted that while the 11-year sunspot cycle can lead to changes in total solar irradiance of as much as .1 percent, that only translates into a “few hundredths of a degree centigrade” temperature response on the Earth.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Dr Soon’s paper passed peer review. It doesn’t matter how much your priests bitch, they are wrong. Just look at their models, which have failed 100% of the time in predictions and projections.

      The IPCC never investigated natural variability, they never investigated the Sun. They do not have a clue because they are deniers of nature.

      Still not willing to look at the IPCC charter liar? 😀

      Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      The IPCC is a propaganda tool of governments. They are not scientists.

      The NAS is a club. They have members who disagree with their stance on CAGW.

      You can continue to tell whoppers, like claiming Dr Soon is not a scientist, or we can look at the science.

      IPCC charter?

      Reply

    • Avatar

      amirlach

      |

      [quote]It isn’t only the IPCC that concludes this. “No satellite measurements have indicated that solar output and variability have contributed in a significant way to the increase in global mean temperature in the past 50 years,” [/quote] Actually it is only the Single IPCC Solar scientist who concluded that, after “adjusting” the data to fit a failed model prediction.
      [quote] (Note 2-26 from the Norwegian government, ref. No. 2018-42 Expert and Government Review Comments on the Second Order Draft)

      “I urge IPCC to consider having only one solar physicist on the lead author team of such an important chapter. In particular since the conclusion of this section hangs on one single paper in which Judith Lean is the co-author.”
      [/quote]
      Here you can see the “adjusted solar” data in blue and the actual data in red.
      [img]http://blog.idnes.cz/blog/7317/144075/aa3.jpg[/img]
      “The people, who were in charge of the satellites and who created the original graphs (the best world astro-physicists: Doug Hoyt, Richard C.Willson) protested against this manipulation. In vain.”
      [quote]R.C. Willson (head of the ACRIM satellites): “Fröhlich made unauthorised and incorrect adjustments… He did it without any detailed knowledge of the ACRIM1 instrument or on-orbit performance…The only obvious purpose was to devise a TSI composite, that agreed with the predictions of Lean’s TSI proxy model.”[/quote]
      http://climatechange.thinkaboutit.eu/think4/post/judithgate_ipcc_consensus_was_only_one_solar_physicist/

      Reply

  • Avatar

    Mike

    |

    So as you can see, Willie Soon is not credible and has zero integrity. Gator do you get paid by exxon mobil or the heartland institute? Or do they just count on you to be their sheep? Because if you refuse to look at actual reputable science but will hang your hat on science that has been debunked 100 times over, well that’s on you.

    Reply

    • Avatar

      Gator

      |

      Mike told a major whopper, claiming that Dr Soon is not a scientist. And he wants our trust. 😀

      I actually pay for my gasoline, and do not receive funding from anyone for any of my writing. I do this to counter the biggest scam in history, a scam carried by people like you who will say anything.

      Mike has proven he will say anything to save his religious beliefs, so there is no need to listen to anything he says.

      Mike, have you received any of the more than 79 billion dollars we have spent on a fantasy? Money that should be saving starving people around the globe?

      Why bother asking? You will just tell another story.

      Mike is in denial that the IPCC was set up for one purpose only, to prove that man made CO2 s warming the planet, The IPCC does not want to hear any other explanations, because that would dry up this gravy train.

      Mike cannot handle, or speak, the truth.

      Reply

      • Avatar

        Mike

        |

        Everything I said is fact and is easily verifiable. I did provide sources unlike Gator. If you really want to know, double check what I posted. Google is easy and I’m 100% truthful. Nothing I said is a lie. Have a great night.

        Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          [quote]# Mike 2015-02-24 14:44
          Fact is Soon is not a scientist[/quote]

          That is a bald faced lie. Your other ‘facts’ are just as substantive.

          What is it with you people? 😀

          Reply

        • Avatar

          Gator

          |

          So now we have two provable prevarications from Mike.

          1- [quote]# Mike 2015-02-24 14:44
          Fact is Soon is not a scientist[/quote]

          2- [quote]# Mike 2015-02-24 16:34
          Everything I said is fact and is easily verifiable.[/quote]

          You should probably change your user name, as ‘Mike’ has lost all credibility here.

          Reply

          • Avatar

            Robert

            |

            Bear in mind Gator that in Mike’s distorted view what he said is true. We’ve seen it time and again, if they support the AGW meme, then their credentials don’t matter, they don’t even have to have any background in science.

            If however they are a geologist, or a physicist, or a chemist, or whatever and they don’t support the AGW meme, then they aren’t “scientists” not really…

            You can’t make up the kind of dumb they display.

          • Avatar

            Gator

            |

            You also cannot make up the dishonesty. It is like playing chess with a pigeon.

Leave a comment

Loading Disqus Comments ...

No Trackbacks.