“The whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing,” Dr. Willie Soon told Tucker Carlson.
He says he’s 90% sure the sun, not carbon dioxide, is causing climate change and that the climate czars are so out of their minds that they are misleading the public. [emphasis, links added]
“I really find that the whole problem of this global warming is a complete nothing, which means we should do nothing about it. Just go on and live life and adapt to it.”
Dr. Soon says people like John Kerry and Al Gore are pushing a dreamed-up model from the “tyranny of the few.”
According to Dr. Soon, CO2 won’t:
- change the speeds of hurricanes
- affect how fast tornadoes form
- make a difference in the polar bear population
- or even affect how much fish you do or don’t catch
Watch the full interview here or below:
Ep. 62 If fossil fuels come from fossils, why have scientists found them on one of Saturn’s moons? A lot of what you’ve heard about energy is false. Dr. Willie Soon explains.
TIMESTAMPS
(01:49) Fossil Fuels in Space
(14:27) Global Warming Throughout History
(25:31) Outside… pic.twitter.com/GMaDkDl8z9— Tucker Carlson (@TuckerCarlson) January 9, 2024
Many points have been expressed in the comments above but there is only one point that matters. At 420 ppm, carbon dioxide is way beyond its saturation point as far as its ability to cause warming. Adding more of this gas to our atmosphere will have negligible effect. In the past I have cited a number of examples. One is the data in Al Gore’s Inconvenient Truth. It shows that on a geological time scale the concentration of carbon dioxide follows temperature change. This means temperature is the controlling parameter. It is obvious that Al Gore didn’t understand his own data.
David, as you wrote, increasing CO2 will have negligible effect (if any) on our climate. But our biosphere would benefit greatly from higher CO2 levels. As someone who repeatedly studied CO2 level increases on plants, I can say without hesitation that more CO2 is needed for a planet with a growing population. The “climate change crisis” is the biggest lie ever told.
The USDA released its WASDE (world agricultural supply and demand report) today. There’s more than enough grain in storage than the users (us) need. South America is adding to the surplus. Whether it’s more CO2 or more sunshine, the food chain is healthy.
Somebody needs to take the time to read up on ALL the different ways in which the Sun effects our climate. It is complex story, with many diverse characters, and not the one man show that some like to represent.
Richard….
How about the Milankovitch cycles?
What affect do they have?
No effect in a 50 to 100 year period
A huge effect over 1000,00 years in the ice core era of the past 800000 years
Richard. You are totally wrong. I came off a farm west of Horsham in Australia. My father took the weather forecasts from a forecaster in Queensland called Lennox Walker. As a framer you need to know what is going to happen with the weather each year. Walker predicted the 1967 5 year drought (which occurred) and also the 10 year drought in the year 2000. (Which also occurred). Walker predicted the annual weather from ONLY sun activity. Having experienced these accurate predictions first hand, I became skeptical when these climate scientists predicted seasonal weather purely from computer programs that worked with CO2 Content in the atmosphere. The sun wasn’t involved at all. It was then I thought this whole global warming (come climate change) was a complete fraud.
Incoming solar energy does not vary enough to cause even 0.1 degree C. of change to the global average temperature and 0.1 is not statistically significant,
In fact, top of atmosphere solar energy has slightly declined since 1978 while the planet has warmed.
Richard, I’m surprised that someone who has studied this subject as much as you isn’t aware of how a change in the sun’s output impacts the Earth’s temperature. Researchers advocating the climate change movement have calculated the impact of varations in solar energy and correctly concluded that it isn’t enough to have an impact. Having the answer they were looking for, they investigated no further. What is happening is when the sun has a high level of output it has a stronger magnetic field. This deflects more radition away from earth. The radiation acts a catalyst in cloud formation. Clouds both cool the earth by defecting solar radiation back to space, and warm the earth with the blanket effect. However, the cooling impact is stronger. So, a stronger magnetic field from the sun menas less radition hitting earth and fewer clouds forming with their cooling effect.
The Sun has more effect on our weather then do all the SUV,s and Backyard BBQ’s put together and the Courts are throwing a Monkey Wrench into Biden’s rulings on Household appliance
It is well established that solar cycles control the short term cycles of climate change and the evidence for that is well described by the temperature records and linked to high energy cosmic ray protons which controls the rate of formation of clouds and are in turn modulated by the cyclic variability of the lower energy protons in the much more intense solar winds.
The science of what the cycles are and how well we can determine this is well described in 2017 by Ludecke and Weiss
https://schillerinstitute.com/media/carl-otto-weiss-le-changement-climatique-est-du-a-des-cycles-naturels/
The actual cause and effect as it relates to clouds has been best reported in several papers by the Svensmarks in Denmark and Nir Shaviv in Israel. I saw Nir give this presentation….
https://www.netzerowatch.com/prof-nir-shaviv-the-cosmic-ray-climate-link/
The science we measure and can explain using physics and hard science is totally denied by science made up in models that are programmed by the guesses of modellers who programme their models using the assertions of political causes. Which is why they never predict the reality we measure.
The problem with the models and those modelers is that they already have determined what the answer coming out of the models must be (gotta keep the funding coming) so they program the application to provide that model. But the proof of the models is always decades in the future so you cannot prove them wrong today. As has happened with previous predictions that didn’t come true they just “move the goalposts” and move on. They NEVER admit that they were wrong.
Total BS
There is ZERO correlation of the sunspot cycle and the global average temperature statistic.
Soon is a crackpot
Soon has been wrong for many decades A BS artist. There has been no correlation of surface temperatures and estimated solar energy (sunspot proxies) since the 1690s.
He has ALSO ACCEPTED A LOY LOT OF FUNDING FROM HYDROCARBON ENERGY COMPANIES
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 blend, that somehow always manages to look similar (and increasingly divorced 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 suspect, but that the one “true” 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 data were contaminated by urban heating effects, we wouldn’t see similar warming in the oceans.
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 here 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 reanimated by ever more desperate arithmetical 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. is a crackpot and has been spouting the same drivel for 30 years
You mean he knows FAR MORE about science than you can ever possibly manage.
Is that what you are saying !?
If not.. then you are being profoundly dishonest.
You read exactly what I wrote and I provided evidence why I call Soon a science fraud. Soon is a crackpot who takes a lot of money from energy companies and tells them just what they love to hear. Not only science fraud but also the solar theories are part of less than 0.1% of all scientists (over 99.9% support the greenhouse theory ad manmade CO2 being part of it (aka AGW). Including Richard Lindzen and William Happer. Your ignorant insult comment contains no science and makes no attempt to refute anything I wrote
Climate science you know not
You know less than I forgot
Any time there is a figure of 99.9% it is a red flag that there has been fraud. I’m aware of two studies that came to the conclusion that the overwhelming majority of climate scientists supported the climate change narrative. In one of these, the “researcher” shared the results before the study was even conducted. One study reviewed a large number of peer reviewed articles. If the article stated opposition to the climate change theory, it was counted as against. If it expressed support or expressed no opinion at all, the article was counted as supporting the climate change theory. The vast majority of articles didn’t mention climate change at all but were counted as supporting it.
Greene is a crackpot. Greene knows nothing about the science of climate, meteorology, or anything else while Dr Soon is an accomplished scientist in fields Greene knows nothing about. But Greene worships at the alter of such corrupt scientists as “Hockey Stick” Mann and his merry scientists with computer models that are always proved wrong by actual data.
A childish insult comment that contains no science or no attempt to refute anything I wrote
In addition, you have completely lied about my climate science beliefs and what I have done to try to refute climate scaremongering.
I do not support Michael Mann and know his hockey stick is a fraud
My position on climate and enerby is on the home page of my climate and energy blog. This is what I wrote.
(This blog is) Your antidote for climate emergency wild guess computer game predictions of climate doom. More CO2 and global warming are both good news. One reason Nut Zero is a waste of our money. Editor: Richard Greene (BS, MBA)
My blog presents a recommended conservative reading list each day and gets about 11,000 page views a month, with lifetime pageviews of over 693,000. I; am trying to help conservatives understand good climate science and avoid claptrap like Soon’s theories. I have no ads, the blog is free and I never ask for or take money from anyone. Just what are YOU doing to fight climate propaganda?
Crying foul when someone receives money from the oil industry is an example of the extreme hyprocracy of the climate change movement. Climate researchers receive many millions of dollars of tax payer’s money in grants. However, it is well know that only those who support the climate change narrative receive funding. Yet, when someone receives money from the oil industry, it is treated as a grevious sin.
Yes, he is correct in that the sun has much to do with the climate changes as the sun’s activity changes but it is not the only thing. the moon cycle patterns also have a part to play. It is a much more complicated system than we care to admit.
In the TC interview, that people seem to eschew watching, Soon discusses orbital perturbations as an additional factor. He talks about the history of CO2, which rises after temperature increases, and the many ways that climate science has been corrupted by money. It’s always about money. Alarmists Michael Mann and Katherine Hayhoe are proof of that. Speaking gigs, invites to the WH, promotions, books, awards, grants, and more.
Biden’s EPA and the NSF dispense grants to entities and doesn’t fund studies that challenge their boss’ beliefs. Universities (which get about 25% of all their funding for research from the NSF) don’t fund research that doesn’t toe the alarmist narrative (some peer-reviewed papers have been depublished after being pressured by activist scientists and the media). Regular readers of this site know this all too well, which is the point of its existence. To give a voice to those being suppressed by the Censorship Industrial Complex.
Dr. Soon doesn’t rely on this monstrous cash flow so he’s free to speak plainly. What’s in it for him to spread lies to millions of people? Greene’s ‘crackpot’ comments about Soon are straight out of the Saul Alinsky Rules For Radicals playbook. When the facts aren’t on your side, smear the person so you can ignore the message. Or just keep repeating (or exaggerating) the same lies over and over again and eventually something will stick.