Statement by Willie Soon

Posted: March 2, 2015 by Andrew in solar system dynamics

JunkScience.com

(March 2, 2015) — Dr. Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics released the following statement through The Heartland Institute in response to repeated attacks on his character and scientific integrity.

View original post 533 more words

Comments
  1. I wonder if any papers published by the UK Met Office, or their scientists, declare the revenue received from renewable generators, as being a potential conflict of interest?

    https://notalotofpeopleknowthat.wordpress.com/2015/03/02/the-met-office-renewable-energy-service/

  2. ren says:

    Sorry, Bob Weber !
    During Tuesday, accumulating snowfall will fall from Wyoming and northern Colorado to South Dakota, northern and western Nebraska, northern Iowa, much of Minnesota, Wisconsin and northern Michigan.

  3. oldbrew says:

    It’s a punishable offence to disagree with the climate mafia in science papers.

    So much for the free and fair society.

  4. Ron C. says:

    So warmists, no longer controlling the US Senate with votes, now are intimidating potential witnesses from stating facts contrary to Global Warming Alarm. That would be witness tampering in a criminal proceeding, but apparently fair game in politics. We can only hope that the other side is as diligent in discovering the extent of environmental activist money funding alarmist proponents.

    Still, anyone deciding to testify in the upcoming Senate hearing better be ready for the hard questions (echoes of the past):

    “Are you confused between weather and climate change?”

    “Do you accept the writings of the UN IPCC as the scientific truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?”

    “Are you now, or have you ever been a member of any organization that believes CO2 is only a harmless trace gas and is essential to plant life?”

    “Why is your carbon footprint so big?”

    How long have you been taking money from fossil fuel companies?

    “Do you advocate overthrowing the United States Climate by forcing or violence?”

  5. AlecM says:

    For 50 years, US Atmospheric Science and other courses have taught incorrect radiative physics. Nobody with such a degree is qualified to support the IPCC claim that radiant emittance is a real energy flux, for which there has never been any experimental proof. If the ‘Enhanced GHE’ were real, mean temperature of the first ~50 ft of air would be ~0 deg C – at the last Ice Age Maximum it was 10 deg C!.

    Hansen admitted a decade ago that NASA set out to measure this ‘Surface Air Temperature’ but it was apparently ‘variable’, so discontinued the programme. There is no significant temperature drop to, no significant heating of the atmosphere by surface IR as correct radiative and IR physics predicts. Sir John Houghton, IPCC co-founder, showed this in 1977 but then apparently gave up science to support Hansen’s views.

    Sorry, but it has been a Gigantic Fraud and Universities and Schools have been teaching bad science as left-wing propaganda. This pseudoscience is our version of Lysenkoism, the EGHE our version of Phlogiston. Dr Soon, and his co-authors were also taught this incorrect physics but like Prof. Lindzen and many others are realising from the experimental evidence that there is a massive problem.

    That theory, which originated in 4 bad mistakes by Carl Sagan in the 1960s, is wrong. No professional scientist or engineer taught standard radiative physics based on Maxwell’s Equations accepts the photon-based nonsense that gives ~40% increase of energy over reality in the GISS-based climate models.

    Science always wins but it must come from the demise of those who pushed Sagan’s mistakes for dishonest fame and glory. The attempted crucifixion of Dr. Soon has created a martyr; honest scientists around the World are rallying to his side.

    PS I recently measured what NASA calls ‘Surface Air Temperature’ using a thermocouple tied at various heights to a set of poles strapped together. It can be variable but the mean is very little different from surface temperature measured by the same thermocouple. A Dutch PhD student did the same a few years ago but used the 800 ft high Hilversum Radio Mast. No significant temperature drop, no significant surface IR warming, no EGHE. Full Stop.

  6. rod says:

    Modeling the complexity of the atmosphere is still beyond current programs, and has just recently been more holistically measurable. Just a few years ago, the intricacies of the stratosphere were modeled as wild guesses. Now, it seems that the tropopause is a very active place.

    Models based on supposition and guess work may seem plausible until closely examined.
    It’s a worthy goal, but I think, “we ain’t there yet”.

    As for the attacks:
    Gee, what a pity.

  7. oldbrew says:

    Prof. Richard Lindzen wades in: The Political Assault on Climate Skeptics

    ‘World leaders proclaim that climate change is our greatest problem, demonizing carbon dioxide. Yet atmospheric levels of carbon dioxide have been vastly higher through most of Earth’s history. Climates both warmer and colder than the present have coexisted with these higher levels.’

    http://hockeyschtick.blogspot.co.uk/2015/03/dr-richard-lindzen-in-wsj-political.html

    Good job for him he’s retired from academic life😉

  8. Brian H says:

    This falls directly into the category of, “Be careful what you ask for!” If all studies overtly funded by Greenpeace, Tides, etc. were disqualified and withdrawn, 90% of all pro-AGW “Climate Science” papers would vanish. Good riddance to bad rubbish, of course.

    Soon was “blinded” about sources of funding — monies were solicited and obtained by Simithsonian, who kept a 40% finder’s fee, and disclosed only some of the sources. Conflict of interest was effectively impossible. I doubt any pro-AGW “researchers” can say the same.