Dr. Willie Soon stands up to climate witch hunt

Statement by Dr. Willie Soon

In recent weeks I have been the target of attacks in the press by various radical environmental and politically motivated groups. This effort should be seen for what it is: a shameless attempt to silence my scientific research and writings, and to make an example out of me as a warning to any other researcher who may dare question in the slightest their fervently held orthodoxy of anthropogenic global warming.

I am saddened and appalled by this effort, not only because of the personal hurt it causes me and my family and friends, but also because of the damage it does to the integrity of the scientific process. I am willing to debate the substance of my research and competing views of climate change with anyone, anytime, anywhere. It is a shame that those who disagree with me resolutely decline all public debate and stoop instead to underhanded and unscientific ad hominem tactics.

Let me be clear. I have never been motivated by financial gain to write any scientific paper, nor have I ever hidden grants or any other alleged conflict of interest. I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century, during which time I have published numerous peer-reviewed, scholarly articles. The fact that my research has been supported in part by donations to the Smithsonian Institution from many sources, including some energy producers, has long been a matter of public record. In submitting my academic writings I have always complied with what I understood to be disclosure practices in my field generally, consistent with the level of disclosure made by many of my Smithsonian colleagues.

If the standards for disclosure are to change, then let them change evenly. If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply. I would ask only that other authors—on all sides of the debate—are also required to make similar disclosures. And I call on the media outlets that have so quickly repeated my attackers’ accusations to similarly look into the motivations of and disclosures that may or may not have been made by their preferred, IPCC-linked scientists.

I regret deeply that the attacks on me now appear to have spilled over onto other scientists who have dared to question the degree to which human activities might be causing dangerous global warming, a topic that ought rightly be the subject of rigorous open debate, not personal attack. I similarly regret the terrible message this pillorying sends young researchers about the costs of questioning widely accepted “truths.”

Finally, I thank all my many colleagues and friends who have bravely objected to this smear campaign on my behalf and I challenge all parties involved to focus on real scientific issues for the betterment of humanity.

###

Categories

About the Author: CFACT Ed

  • Cheers, Willie! Be brave.

    • cshorey

      Dear Willie, be honest.

      • jreb57

        “Dear Willie, be honest”
        He is scientifically correct. Not being honest is what the GW people have been doing (changing data that has already been recorded)

        • cshorey

          Scientifically he’s been rather bankrupt. If the sun were the cause of the warming as he claims, then we would see both the troposphere and stratosphere warm. But we see the troposphere warm, and the stratosphere cool which is what we would expect with greenhouse gas forcing. And as far as your conspiracy theory, that is all it is and is based on science disagreeing with your preconceived notions. It must be a conspiracy for you, but it’s not.

          • jreb57

            “And as far as your conspiracy theory”

            I don’t have a conspiracy theory. You brought up the subject of honesty. My take is that when people change previously recorded data that tends to disagree with their theories to make it less hostile to their agenda, that is dishonest. Dr. Soon has not done that. He proposes and I agree that whatever temperature change we experience on earth will be due to changes in the amount of energy the sun (which no one disputes is what warms the earth) produces. Being a stellar physicist, he should know.about changes in the fusion reactions in the sun’s core and the energy it produces.

            • cshorey

              Interesting that you accuse with no proof when there is definitive proof that Dr. Soon hid his funding and was informing the petroleum interests of his “deliverables” as he termed them. If honesty really is a concern to you, then why isn’t this kind of dishonesty a problem?

              • jreb57

                The article that you referred me to claimed that several energy companies provided funding to the Smithsonian along with other companies. Dr, Soon receives his check from the Smithsonian. If you are going to complain about big companies funding institutional research, no research will get done. (I feel a lot more comfortable with a multitude of wealthy donors to fund institutional research than I do with an international organization that hopes to become a government and is looking for tax money in the form of a carbon tax.

                • cshorey

                  I didn’t complain about big company funding now did I? I did point out that these journals have standards about reporting such funding as may cause a conflict of interest. Soon ignored that rule. Glad you are cool with such impropriety, but I prefer to retain my basic ethics.

                  • jreb57

                    “I didn’t complain about big company funding now did I?”

                    No, you did not. You said that Dr. Soon’s research was funded by energy companies, which is not true. Dr, Soon is paid a salary by the Smithsonian to do his research. As such, he is accountable to the Smithsonian, not to the Southern Company (a well run and efficient producer of electric power to the southeastern United States). If there are questions about funding, it is the Smithsonian’s duty to report contributors (mostly for IRS reasons). Think this might be a part of an IRS effort to politicize politics they don’t agree with? You do of course agree that GW has been politicized.

                    • cshorey

                      Yep, he’s paid by a subsidiary of the Smithsonian, but that funding is being questioned due to his other funding from fossil fuel interests which he neglected to report. You seem so sanctimonious about unscrupulous scientists, but defend this guy who has been shown to have broken the rules of conflict of interest statements. And as for the people you are rushing to point out pay his regular salary, their exact statement on Dr. Soon is as follows:

                      “The Smithsonian does not support Dr. Soon’s conclusions on climate change. The Smithsonian’s official statement on climate change, based upon many decades of scientific research, points to human activities as a cause of global warming.”

                      So, who are you rooting for here?

                    • jreb57

                      “You seem so sanctimonious about unscrupulous scientists,”

                      Rajenda K. Pachuri (chairman of the IPCC) quoted in the London Guardian

                      “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up
                      with a vastly different set of products, we would be at their beck and call.”

                      Out of their own mouth. They are funded by the United Nations (mostly by the US taxpayers of which I am one) I have no wish to fund people who misrepresent science.
                      Face it bubba. The GW position is BS pure and simple. We have had far greater swings in climate in the past with no SUV’s or coal plants to blame. CO2 is a minor greenhouse gas. Pachuri is telling you he has been bought. Soon is claiming his research is his own.This is not an election. Who are you rooting for? It doesn’t sound like freedom. You shall know the truth and the truth shall set you free. .

                    • cshorey

                      Why did you come back to the IPCC when we can both see they are not a body that does the science itself. You accused the scientists of faking the books. That’s a lot of words you typed up there that still has not shown us a single case of science fraud. But I’ll give you one . . . Willie Soon hiding funding that has a conflict of interest that has his employer currently investigating him. How about a little of your sanctimoniousness directed where it so obviously should be. Selective forgiveness is an ugly trait.

  • Julian Petkov

    We need a separation of Science, Politics and Finance.

  • jreb57

    Dr. Soon must have studied physics from the same textbook as I, the one that teaches scientific fact.

    • Calvinius

      What he hasn’t studied is climate.

      • jreb57

        CO2 causing warming of the planet is theory, not proven. You would need to understand physics if you wanted to come up with a proof.

        • cshorey

          Well, energy from the sun is mostly visible, but after absorbing into the earth’s surface gets converted to thermal IR which is a resonant frequency of CO2, thus being absorbed and re-scattered through the Tyndall effect so that more heat is stored in the climate system which is a combination of the atmosphere, oceans, ice masses, land, and biomass. If we put more CO2 molecules in the atmosphere, there is a higher probability of thermal IR scattering, and thus the planet heats. Basic physics.

          • jreb57

            Jim Hansen’s computer models were based on that theory and failed to accurately predict global temperatures based on CO2. The global temperature increases that have been reported are well within the margin of error that could be expected and the so called “hockey stick” increase has been debunked. Never mind that a “hockey stick” increase in CO2 has never been claimed or reported. You should read what John Tyndall had to say about the subject. You should know that the specific heat of water is 1 (calorie/gram) CO2 makes up less than 400 ppm of atmospheric gasses. The specific heat of CO2 is 1/8 that of H2O so CO2 is going to account for an extremely small amount of energy distribution.

            • cshorey

              Actually Hansen’s papers have predicted a great deal of what has happened including the warming of the troposphere and the cooling of the stratosphere which would not happen if it were the sun and Willie “Hide the Funding” Soon were right. Hansen’s newest model sure has some problems, but your appraisal overall is far off base. W. Soon is wrong and appears deceptive. I’ve read Tyndall and know you’re missing something. You should look into Svante Arrhenius’ work which shows us that even though H2O is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it is tied to the oceans and waters’ temperature. You can’t magically add nor remove water as the oceans will bring it back to it’s equilibrium level in about a week. CO2 has no such rapidly fluxing ocean to bring it back in line so easily. So CO2 can drive climate and drag the water along. And because you’ve nailed the specific heat of water, the oceans sure can absorb a lot of heat energy without changing temperature much.

              • jreb57

                “Hansen’s newest model sure has some problems”

                None of Hansen’s models predicted what is happening (or what has happened at least 8 times previously that we know about) Tyndall called CO2 a minor greenhouse gas. Physical science does not support the claims that are being made regarding anthropogenic climate change. If that is indeed the case, there is little chance that the taxes and regulations being imposed (unconstitutionally) by the EPA will have any effect whatsoever. The atmosphere merely distributes the radiant energy that the earth receives from the sun. It neither amplifies nor produces energy. Dr. Soon is correct. He earned his salary. If you are a troll on this website, you are also earning yours. If you need further education, I recommend Dr. Richard S Lindzen. He has a lot to say on this subject. BTW, heat of vaporization of water is 540 calories/gm. That is what is mostly responsible for the ability of the atmosphere to moderate temperature extremes.

                • cshorey

                  You’re just wrong, but whatever in your echo chamber again. Make up your own analysis, while you have to wonder why the experts all disagree with you. Must be a conspiracy right?

                  • jreb57

                    “why the experts all disagree with you”

                    All of them don’t. Not even close to 97.4% of them disagree with me.

                    • cshorey

                      Ok, you got me there. There are always a few contrarians, but none of them has made a decent argument. When I go to scientific conferences, there is definitely a dominance of rational people who understand why the consensus view is best supported by the evidence.

              • jreb57

                “H2O is the most effective greenhouse gas in our atmosphere, it is tied to the oceans and waters’ temperature.”

                H2O is soluble in the atmosphere until the relative humidity reaches 100% at which time the atmosphere is saturated and rainfall is likely.(which reduces local temperatures)

                “CO2 has no such rapidly fluxing ocean to bring it back in line so easily”

                CO2 has photosynthesis to reduce its presence in the atmosphere. This happens every day.(less than 400 ppm)

                “You can’t magically add nor remove water.”

                I would hesitate to call it magic, but for every molecule of gasoline that is oxidized eight molecules of CO2 are produced as against nine molecules of H2O (using octane as a model C8H18)

                • cshorey

                  So if you think the rate of evaporation and precipitation is the same as the rate of CO2 fluxing through photosynthesis, I have a bridge to sell you.

                  • jreb57

                    I am not buying anything from you. It doesn’t come with a valid guarantee. While water vapor returns to water, CO2 is made into carbohydrates. It ain’t CO2 no more bubba.

                    • cshorey

                      The saying, “I have a bridge to sell you” is usually well known. Do you really need me to explain to you that I wasn’t being literal?

                    • jreb57

                      Your “bridge” that you are desperately trying to sell is that GW is real (as described by the IPCC) and Willie Soon is somehow discredited because he is paid a salary by an institution that accepts donations from companies that produce energy from fossil fuel. I don’t buy it. That is a bridge too far. I don’t need you to explain anything. So far you have not been able to.

                    • cshorey

                      No, the institution didn’t accept donations, Willie took funding from outside. That’s the whole point. He discredits himself by not disclosing this. Do you really not see the conflict of interest here?

                    • jreb57

                      “Do you really not see the conflict of interest here?”

                      What I see is that you are claiming Dr. Soon received funds from Energy producers that he did not reveal based on an internet article. He claims he did not. In this country a person is presumed innocent until proven guilty so the burden of proof is on the accusers. Let’s face it. If Dr Soon is right your entire argument on GW falls apart. So yeah, I think there might be a conflict of interest. I just don’t know what you stand to gain from pushing this argument. Perhaps you could enlighten me. BTW, the Smithsonian does accept donations.

                    • cshorey

                      Yep, I specifically claim that Soon received $1.2 Million from fossil fuel interests over the past decade. Let’s face it, if Dr. Soon was right the Stratosphere would be warming in step with the troposphere. Oh snap! It most definitely isn’t.

          • jreb57

            “Well, energy from the sun is mostly visible, but after absorbing into the earth’s surface gets converted to thermal IR.”

            The sun emits several orders of magnitude more thermal IR than does the earth due to visible light absorption. It also emits an electromagnetic field which influences cloud formation. CO2 is a minor player in energy distribution.

            • cshorey

              Yes, we all know that first part, and your second part is wishful thinking. Your hoping cosmic rays have an effect on clouds, which they might, but it is far from proven science. What’s your point? And CO2 has been shown to be a major driver in past climate change.

              • jreb57

                “Your hoping cosmic rays have an effect on clouds, which they might, but it is far from proven science.”

                No, I am not talking about cosmic rays. I am talking about charged particles emitted from the sun and captured by earth’s magnetic field. These particles influence cloud formation by causing dust particles in the atmosphere to gather and form a place for water vapor to condense, releasing 540 calories/gm of heat into the upper atmosphere where it is radiated into space. Clouds also reflect much of the visible light back out into space.

                • cshorey

                  “No, I am not talking about cosmic rays. I am talking about charged particles emitted from the sun and captured by earth’s magnetic field.” Um, those are called cosmic rays. So now that you’ve even proven to yourself your lack of knowledge on this subject, don’t you find your attitude odd at best? Correct me if I’m wrong, but you are accusing scientists who find evidence for the consensus view of lying, but you have given not a single concrete example. And here we have a situation where Dr Soon, who does get a salary from a branch of the Smithsonian, also got outside funding from fossil fuel interests. There’s nothing to argue here as Dr. Soon admits that as well. That in itself is not a problem as many scientists work with corporation funding and do good work. The problem comes when you are writing these funders and calling your papers “deliverables” for them, and not disclose this link. This is a serious conflict of interest where you can follow the money. It’s the very story you should love to jump on. But you give Willie a pass and keep accusing others with no evidence. And you don’t know what cosmic rays are. Did I miss anything?

      • jreb57

        What he did study was Stellar Physics. That would be fusion reactions in a star’s core and how they affect the energy output. Of course you do understand that this has an effect on the climate?

  • American Me

    Of course they are attacking Dr.Soon.They can’t have anyone calling into question their Phony Global Warming/Climate Change campaign.They are making millions of dollars off their phony numbers.More than Dr.Soon have begun to speak out about their fixed charts and graphs to make them appear correct.It is all a bunch of Hog Wash designed to support the Green Movement to shut down Coal fired power plants.Look at all the money Obama has blown on solar panels that failed and other companies he has backed etc.Thank You Dr.Soon for standing up against these frauds.This needs to stop.

    • cshorey

      Who are “they”? There are rules about disclosing funding from competing interests, and Willie broke that rule. I’m not sure what everyone is trying to defend here? Should we not have such conflict of interest rules and should we not follow them?

      • jreb57

        ” I’m not sure what everyone is trying to defend here?”

        I am sure what you are trying to defend and that is an over the top exaggeration of the effect of CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere which is neither mathematically nor scientifically supported. Hansen’s computer models proved it. The assumptions were invalid. Computers can do math, but if they get garbage to work with the expected result will not be forthcoming.

        • cshorey

          I don’t need to defend what is measurable. Funny you think Hansen’s models are all wrong when they predicted land would warm faster than sea and that has happened, that the arctic would warm faster than other parts of the world and that has happened, that the troposphere would warm and the stratosphere cool and that has happened, and that we would be at a certain level of warming at this time and we are fully in the range he predicted, and yet to you these things have been proven wrong somehow. How?

          • jreb57

            ” Funny you think Hansen’s models are all wrong”

            You just said you don’t have to defend what is measurable. Hansen’s models predicted that global surface temps would be far higher (now) than they are (now). You yourself admitted that Hansen’s models had serious flaws. Perhaps a better word would be assumptions; the assumptions of the effects of an increase in CO2.

            • cshorey

              You can only say Hansen’s models are warmer than today if you take his worst case scenario from the ’88 testimony and throw away the two lower scenarios. The middle scenario is where he said it was most likely, and that’s basically where we are. We are above the best case scenario. You are playing the Pat Michael’s shell game where you throw out the two lower projections, and only say Hanson predicted the worst case scenario. I’m seeing a pattern where you take dishonesty as truth. And you have misread what I said about Hansen. I said HIS LAST MODEL had some serious flaws. Get your facts straight.

              • jreb57

                I read what Hansen’s predictions were. Youdon’t have facts to get straight. And don’t believe everything people who are supposed to know tell you.

                • cshorey

                  Then give details and not verbal diarrhea.

      • jreb57

        “Who are “they”?”

        Let’s start with the IPCC whose chairman has admitted his people do the bidding of the governments who fund him. Some of these same people were claiming we were headed for another ice age 30 years ago. One of these thousand years, one of these claims will prove right.

        Rajenda K. Pachuri (chairman of the IPCC) quoted in the London Guardian

        “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products, we would be at their beck and call.”

        How is that for honesty?

        Prof. Bob Carter, a geologist at James Cook College in Queensland, Australia, has written, “For many years now, human-caused climate change has been viewed as a large and urgent problem. In truth, however, the biggest part of the problem is
        neither environmental nor scientific, but a self-created political fiasco.”

        “The problem here,” says Prof. Carter, “is not that of climate change per se, but rather that of the sophisticated scientific
        brainwashing that has been inflicted on the public, bureaucrats and politicians alike.”

        “Since it is abundantly clear that there is no one temperature of the atmosphere all talk of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW) is simply an exercise in futility.” A look at the globe from either of its two poles to its equator and everything in between tells us with simple logic that being able to determine its “temperature” is impossible. The Earth, however, has gone through numerous
        warming and cooling cycles, all of which were the result of more or less solar radiation”
        Looks as though Bob may agree with Dr. Soon..

        • cshorey

          The IPCC doesn’t do this science, they summarize it. How about you stick to the scientists doing the science. Who are the they and how did they change the data? And Bob Carter is wrong about not being able to do geostatistical analysis of temperature. Oh, and he was wrong that Mt Pinatubo put out more CO2 than all of humans in their history. Why do you love to quote people who can actually be shown to have falsified data, and claim to be against scientists who falsify data. And look at your post, not a single example given of a scientist caught falsifying in the way you claim. Only your guys are being caught lying. Funny that.

          • jreb57

            “And Bob Carter is wrong about not being able to do geostatistical analysis of temperature”

            Your “facts” are that people who disagree with you are wrong or that they have falsified data. Never mind that the same “data” some 30 years ago showed a gradual cooling from 1940 to about 1975 when some were predicting an ice age. Now, it is supposed to show that there has been a warming trend. Unfortunately, there is a saying regarding statistics: “There are statistics and there are just damn lies”
            Yeah, you can do a sample of temperatures to try to determine global temperatures. The problem is you have a very small sample, you have many different thermometers, and the weather stations which used to be located in the countryside (airports) are now located close to urban construction. Change the sample, change the results.

            • cshorey

              That was quite a rant that had no basis in fact at all. Mere supposition at most, verbal diarrhea at worst. Do you have a real point here?

  • TRemington

    A breath of fresh air!

  • Tom Monfort

    I salute you Dr. Soon! And to all the groups and individuals attacking him and others, for standing by truth and real science, you show your willingness to trade your integrity and accept political propaganda over real science. You accept it as blindly as a Muslim blowing themselves up for a promise of virgins in some fantsasy afterlife

  • Carol Schapker

    Keep up the good work Dr. Soon. Integrity!

    • vacmancan

      Sweetheart you think lying is INTEGRITY?????? WTF??? You “simpel-folk” are so easy to trick. Thanks for proving it!!!!!!

      • rofaith

        Troll ….

      • Richard C. Skola

        So, who’s lying?

        • cshorey

          Willie Soon.

      • WestHoustonGeo

        Skippy, when it comes to intellect, your elevator is sulking in the basement of the Empire State Building.

      • PongGod

        Wow, such a persuasive rebuttal.

      • Tom Monfort

        Liberal logic strikes again! If Obama and the media tell them what to believe and how to think, that’s all they require. A lie is the truth and the truth is a lie. If they lead you to the edge of the cliff, you don’t have to jump. If you understood how science works, you would discover that you’re one of the “simple folk”, so easy to trick. And, thanks for proving it.

        • jreb57

          “Liberal logic strikes again!”

          Liberal logic; the latest oxymoron.

          • Tom Monfort

            Yes, it is an oxymoron, just like ‘right wing conspiracy, but, there is no real logic to liberal think. Those that follow it will believe almost anything, no matter how far from the truth it is.

            • jreb57

              “there is no real logic to liberal think”

              That is because they do not think. They operate at the emotional level. That is why their arguments must divide people along racial, religious and ethnic lines. They will lose an argument that is constrained by logic hence you are “greedy” if you object to paying more taxes to fund social programs. As Margaret Thatcher said “The problem with socialism is pretty soon you run out of other people’s money.

          • cshorey

            I propose we stay conservative with current sea level. Would’t want to push it too much.

            • jreb57

              “Would’t want to push it too much.”

              Don’t worry, you can’t. (the sea level that is)

              • cshorey

                3mm/yr currently. I say that’s already pushing too much. Where do you think that expansion comes from?

                • jreb57

                  You do understand that 20,000 yrs ago according to some there was a land bridge between Alaska and Siberia? According to some, that is how the early illegal aliens got here. Most of the rest (of the illegal aliens) came here by ship before there were immigration laws. The sea level must have risen about 200 feet in about 20,000 years for the land bridge to be submerged. That expansion is generally conceded to have come as a result of increased solar activity as Dr. Soon suggests. The little ice age, which some say ended in the mid 1800’s was also thought to be the result of solar activity, this time, a decrease.

                  • cshorey

                    Very good, you understand that sea level really can have eustatic sea level change of tens of meters due to climate change. And yes solar activity has had an effect in the past, but now the sun has been decreasing output since the 1960’s and the stratosphere is cooling. You have a bankrupt idea beyond belief and refuse to believe the experts in this field about the real causes. Slow applause.

                    • jreb57

                      “sun has been decreasing output since the 1960’s and the stratosphere is cooling.”

                      Not so. NASA has reported an increase in energy reflected from every planet in the solar system. But I agree that I am the one most likely to go bankrupt paying for higher energy costs thanks to people who believe as you do. We will have to see what we can do about that in the next election. Maybe we can get back to constitutional government. Have you succeeded in convincing the Chinese of your position? They have four times our population and they are just getting started in energy consumption.

                    • cshorey

                      Um, no, NASA has not reported increased reflected sunlight from every planet as some are approaching apogee. That is one of the dumbest things I’ve ever heard, a wonderful lie from a guy defending liars (a lie of omission is still a lie). But we also have satellites that look directly at solar output because looking at reflected light and thinking that would be a better measure of solar output is so incredibly stupid that I’m amazed a science denier dumb enough to use it could use a typewriter to write it. But once again, what ever echoes your chamber. It would be laughable if it weren’t actually a serious scientific conversation to be had.

      • jreb57

        “You “simpel-folk” are so easy to trick.”

        Al Gore couldn’t do it.

    • cshorey

      Not reporting your funding when you’re supposed to. Integrity?

  • Red Baker

    Non carborundum illegitimi.

  • roxannesays

    Too much money involved to allow any dissent from anyone. Would Al Gore give back his millions if global warming was debunked? Would scientists give up luscious grant money they receive for research.? Would the Government give up money they spend on climate projects? No way.

    • vacmancan

      Sweetheart reading your comments is like watching fox news. It easy to see that the BRAINWASHING is working. Thank you.

      • rofaith

        Troll…

      • WestHoustonGeo

        Creampuff, when it comes to intelligence, you’re lower than a snake’s belly in a wagon rut.

      • roxannesays

        I never watch Fox News. Is there really someone as naïve as you that you think money plays no part in Science?

      • roxannesays

        Ignorant people like you who judge people they do not know abound everywhere today. First, I never watch Fox News and I respect everyone’s differing opinion, even yours. I try to look at both sides, not stick to one viewpoint. I know for a fact (first hand) that decisions are made along the lines of money involved.

    • GroverMax

      I bet Al Gore will be trying to UN-invent the internet…
      wait, that’s what that Net Neutrality Bill does that was
      just passed by the FCC.
      Even though courts have stopped them twice before… telling them they don’t have the authority to do what they just did!
      Oh my

      • jreb57

        “Net Neutrality Bill does that was just passed by the FCC”
        Where in the constitution does it give a government agency the power to pass laws?.

        • GroverMax

          No where… The Constitution was designed to specifically prevent that from

          happening! The whole idea of our Republic was the idea the citizens should be represented by elected officials conducting business, Our business, on our behalf.
          Great pains were taken to place checks and balances into the laws so we would “never” have UN-elected bureaucratic policy wonks bending to an Imperial President and doing, like I mentioned originally, what the courts have told them “twice” they can not do!

          • jreb57

            “No where… The Constitution was designed to specifically prevent that from happening!”

            Exactly.

  • frank96740

    Any study that doesn’t take into account our past History (ie: climate change advocates trying to scare us) is bogus. There is a LOT of information to draw from, Obama and his gang choose to ignore most of it.. Al, the BORE, Gore was a large part of what has been going down and he is one of the worst “abusers” of our resources that ’cause this change’! lol

    • Richard C. Skola

      Exactly! Fossils are clear, tangible, evidence of climate change. It has happened, and continues to happen. Humanity occupies that minority part of the earth that is habitable. No matter how great, and important, some humans think they are humanity is only a slightly significant speck on the face of earth.

  • semosig

    Thank you Dr. soon for bringing out the facts. Your courage is well recognized and we appreciate your giving facts and fighting the same types of idiots who tried the same crap when I was an undergraduate in 1970 with global cooling.

    • vacmancan

      Sweetheart Dr. Soon lied!!!!!! SORRY!!!! So you think lies are facts. You “simpel-folk” ate so easy to trick. Thank you..

      • Michael Grant

        Man, you need to get a life.

        • jreb57

          What vacmancan needs is to quit pontificating on subjects of which he is ignorant and displays this ignorance every time he replies to a post.

      • rofaith

        Troll ….

        • TTAS

          Save the planet, flag the alarmist idiot!

        • jreb57

          vacmancan does a good job of outing other trolls and or people subject to misinformation concerning climate science. For example, Calvinius on the one you responded to.

  • geo2man

    Facts are scary to Alarmist liars.

    • vacmancan

      Sweetheart you “simpel-folk” who don’t understand science and can’t read a thermometer are so cute. Thank you

      • geo2man

        Good comment on Alarmism in General.

        Sent from Windows Mail

        • rofaith

          He is a poster child for alarmism…. creating fear for political gain and power…. and even if not, attempting to believe in something that has scarcely any scientific fact that cannot be challenged…

      • WestHoustonGeo

        Daffodil, you couldn’t pour piss out of a boot if the instructions were written on the heal.

      • Tom Monfort

        If only you could spell “simple” and give us the benefit of your understanding of science, you wouldn’t come off as a an annoying fool.

      • roxannesays

        Stop using the word sweetheart. What are you? 100 years old? It is demeaning to women and an insult. We do ot know you at all. Who are you to get so familiar

      • jreb57

        For 99.999999% of earth’s history thermometers did not exist and for most of that time, mankind (simple or otherwise) did not either. But guess what bubba, we still had climate change. Who wudda thunk it?

        • cshorey

          For years people died and there were no guns. Who wudda thunk it. Jreb thinks he made a clever. He most definitely did not.

          • jreb57

            “For years people died and there were no guns”

            You just made the NRA’s point; “guns don’t kill people, people kill people” (a gun is just a tool as are you a tool of GW)

            • cshorey

              Stay on topic here. The idea is that you can’t argue that cause A didn’t cause B, because in the past C caused B. That doesn’t logically follow. And yes, guns don’t kill people, it’s those pesky bullets. So there is natural climate change in the past. That’s what paleoclimatology studies. And what we are seeing now has been predicted for over a century, with advancing levels of clarity and accuracy. Now we know that the conditions on this planet can’t be explained using the natural forcers, but we do have a smoking gun in greenhouse gasses driven mainly by CO2. There are even fingerprints left behind in the way the atmosphere warms and the selective wavelengths being preferentially retained, and the pattern of global temperature and precipitation change.

              • jreb57

                “Stay on topic here.”

                It was you who brought up guns.
                There are other gasses that according to the EPA, have a greater GWP than CO2. If you believe that the atmosphere does anything more than distribute the heat that is produced by the sun that is.

                • cshorey

                  And if you understand why we talk about a greenhouse gasses ability to warm as a factor of it’s doubling, you will understand why some gasses are more potent GHGs than CO2, and combined with a knowledge of residence times, you will have a better grasp of this issue. And I brought up guns as an analogy. You took it literally. That’s not staying on topic. Hope that helps sketch that out for you.

  • vacmancan

    Dr Soon is a “KOCH-SUCKER” who works for the koch brothers and the fossil-fuel industries. Any questions??????

    • Donutwarrior

      You post the same comment over and over again. I’d say you are an unimaginative idiot.

    • frank96740

      What a joke, same old crap from a left wing nut that doesn’t have the common sense to realize that LIFE on our PLANET has been going through ‘climate’ change for hundreds of thousands of years… WAKE UP and smell the coffee!

    • WestHoustonGeo

      Turdblossom, you wouldn’t know Truth if it ran out from under the porch with your mother and bit you on the ankle.

    • PongGod

      And the scientists pushing the global warming/climate change hysteria are funded 10+ times as much through various governmental sources which obviously seek greater societal control. So who is really the bigger whore?

      • Dick Grand

        You obviously, God!

  • Trevor Kidd

    Keep fighting the good fight Dr Soon, you have a lot more support than you may believe

    • roxannesays

      If it snows, it’s global warming; if it rains, it’s global warming; if there’s a drought; it’s global warming; if there’s a flood; it’s global warming; does anyone realize how silly that sounds?

      • jreb57

        “does anyone realize how silly that sounds?”

        Only 2.6% of scientists if you believe the GW people. But how about this:
        Rajendra K. Pachauri (chairman of the IPCC) quoted in the London Guardian

        “We are an intergovernmental body and we do what the governments of the world want us to do. If the governments decide we should do things differently and come up with a vastly different set of products, we would be at their beck and call.”

        • cshorey

          It sounds silly because it is. No one is seriously saying those things. But whatever echo’s your chamber.

          • jreb57

            It is silly, but it is being claimed that we will have more and more severe storms, more flooding, more droughts and that even most recently that the “polar vortex” was the result of a minor greenhouse gas CO2. I agree. It is silly.

            • cshorey

              Let’s see. If you retain more heat in the exogenic system, that will lead to warmer ocean temperatures. This in turn leads to more water vapor in the atmosphere, and, yes, you’re right, that means the worst storms, the ones that dump all their moisture, now have more moisture to work with. That is not silly and is something to consider when looking at reality. Now the “polar vortex” is not caused by greenhouse gases, so that’s another one of your silly points. You might want to look into how the jet stream and AO relate and what causes them to really exist. Then you will be able to tease out the differences between what causes an AO and what can alter an AO pattern. If you get more blocking high’s in the jet stream, take a look at what that does to flooding and drought patterns. Please, do take some time to look.

      • cshorey

        No, if it snows, that’s weather.

  • rofaith

    Well said Dr. Soon…. Well said….

  • Richard C. Skola

    Of course I believe in climate change. Anyone can look at fossil evidence of that. Climate change is real. That has been happening since long before humans roamed the earth. People did not cause it. People cannot speed it up, nor can they slow, or stop it.

    • jreb57

      Everyone likes to talk about the weather, but no one does much about it; because they can’t.

    • Calvinius

      Claiming that humans can’t do anything to impact the climate is sheer idiocy.

  • WestHoustonGeo

    Je suis Willie Soon!

    • Dick Grand

      you are so dumb to be anyone

    • cshorey

      Love it when a guy doesn’t report his funding in a situation he was supposed to. Stand up for ethics WestHoustonGeo.

  • Calvinius

    It’s not a “witch hunt” to expose Dr. Soon’s blatant conflicts of interest and violation of scientific ethics.

    • jreb57

      ” Dr. Soon’s blatant conflicts of interest and violation of scientific ethics”.

      Which are?

      • Calvinius

        The fact that he was being paid millions by the fossil fuel industry, and refused to disclose that fact.

        • jreb57

          “I have been a solar and stellar physicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics for a quarter of a century,” Quote Dr. Soon

          Why should Dr. Soon disclose a “fact” that is not true? That would put him in agreement with the IPCC.

          • Calvinius

            You’re seriously trying to deny that Soon is being paid by the oil industry? Wow, facts just mean nothing to you.

            • jreb57

              ” Wow, facts just mean nothing to you”
              Statements unsupported by evidence are not facts. Your statement is that he is paid by the oil industry. His statement is that he is paid by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics. Unless you can show me a cancelled check made out to Dr.Soon signed by someone in the oil industry, I am going to believe him as any rational person would..

              • Calvinius
                • jreb57

                  “Have you not paid even the slightest bit of attention?”

                  Yes, I paid enough attention to earn a 4.0 in my physics and math courses and therefore can easily see that science does not support the claims of the GW alarmist crowd, no matter who pays Dr. Soon he is correct.

                  • Calvinius

                    Dr. Soon is a discredited liar, and you are a willing dupe.

                    • jreb57

                      You are the one pushing GW not me. It is you who have been duped and you will pay higher energy prices as a result along with the rest of us. Imagine how greatful to you we will be.

                    • Calvinius

                      I’m “pushing GW” because I acknowledge reality. It’s happening whether you’re willing to admit it or not.

                    • jreb57

                      I don’t accept things that have no basis in either logic or science or math. It is happening only in the minds of people who think like you.

                    • Calvinius

                      You very much do “accept things that have no basis in either logic or science or math.” That’s why you’re so willing to ignore the data proving global warming.

            • jreb57

              If you own any stocks, you are probably being paid by the oil industry. Why is that so bad? They at least provide a valuable product that people want and need. The GW people on the other hand provide nothing but BS for the taxes they want people to pay. (a carbon tax)

  • cshorey

    I have heard no news of anyone trying to silence Dr. Soon. In fact, it’s the opposite. Good people are asking him to end his secrecy and silence on his funding. Follow the money, right?