The Attempt to Establish a Climate Ministry of Truth

That is very much the point: they are "accurate" but highly misleading because it is a dishonestly edited version of the facts. As Tommy pointed out, the proxies do not have the resolution of instrumental data, so the period of instrumental data is made to look catastrophically variable compared to the period of proxy data.

Facts are not unsubstantiated.

 

I’m going to guess that with all that woo woo, you’re complaining about the scale of the graph. Guess what, changing the scale doesn’t change the rate of increase comparing the industrial revolution to all of early history of man kind on earth; the rate or slope is still much greater over that interval.

“proxy data”, another admission you don’t understand graphs and really, you think you know more then NOAA…..and literally EVERYONE ELSE ON EARTH responsible for information gathering and dissemination for climate change.That’s pretty bold of you.

 

Physical events like the non-disappearance of arctic sea ice, the non-appearance of millions of climate refugees, the continuing increase in agricultural production, the melting glaciers that reveal ruins and other artifacts that could only be there because the climate was a lot warmer there hundreds or thousands of years ago. You know: those actual physical events

That's right: they don't. They are just numbers that someone has tortured until they said what the torturer wanted to hear.

Don't get in over your head.

 

No. You continue to embarrass yourself.

See? You did not even come close to understanding the problem with the graph.

 

It's hilarious you still believe the debunked smear job on Soon even after seeing the proof that it was debunked.

So, like neoclassical economics, then...?

 

I have one retort to Wee Willy. NOAA.

 

You’re woo woo did nothing to help either. Never heard so much tripe. Just admit it. You’re claiming that denies are smarter then literally, everyone of consequence. You’re dismissing institutions like NOAA and National weather service and every major corporation in the world. And, that every pilot in the WORLD uses information from unreliable sources. Amazing. Trump claims it too..embarrassing

 

it’s not a smear job reminding people Soon is one person not an institution like NOAA or John’s Hopkins or Harvard or Boeing anyone of 3400 inst. concerned with CC.
It’s more hilarious you support the most corrupt, dishonest. and deceitful human being to ever remain out of prison. Neo isms and fake woo woo doesn’t hide the fallacy of pretending the right are smarter then the entire science community. It’s gotten so bad, the right is now reduced to writing their own dictionaries just to help explain away the lies.

But, it’s only temporary as Moscow Mitch and other GOPers are now claiming they believe in AGW suppose just to get Indy votes. As soon as they are re-elected, they’ll just do whatever the 700 billionaire oligarchs who pay no taxes want…..and Trumper lemmings will buy it.

 

No one needs reminding that Soon is one person. You cited a debunked smear job as an attack on him.

I'm curious to know who you think that is, and on what basis you think I support him.

It's not the entire science community. It's a loud and politically active minority.

See, "J Is for Junk Economics," by Michael Hudson.

 

Biden is no Hero. He is failing to modify climate. And who is the nut thinking man controls climate anyway?
From Bloomberg ~~OP comment.

The Senator being called for kneecapping Biden is a Democrat. OP comment.

Bloomberg is tracking the coronavirus pandemic and the progress of global vaccination efforts.

 

So many scientists and experts think Soon is a climate expert but you are an unknown, it has to bite real hard to be so insignificant.
I do not see them believing man is in charge of climate but they of course like the rest of us here understand climate has changed for billions of years.

 

Well skippy, I am a pilot who has for many years relied on our weather service to give me weather conditions and predictions and so far I have got none from you.

 

Your con jobs crack me up. You tossed everything into your posts including the kitchen sink and still have no water.
So now the richest pay no taxes you claim? Say how many teeth do frogs have?

 

Let’s look at AGW. Name just one accredited university, country or major corporation that agrees with you…..just one, only one, not two, just one. We’ll see who the con job artist is or who knows what they are talking about

 

Really ? So many ? People are saying.

 

Still can’t name one country , major Corp or accredited university who thinks wee Willy knows sht an about CC

 

I can't name a country or Major Corp or Accredited university that thinks you know poo about climate.
"The whole point of science is to question accepted dogmas. For that reason, I respect Willie Soon as a good scientist and a courageous citizen.’’
— Dr. Freeman Dyson in the Boston Globe, November 5, 2013

“The Heartland Institute stands four-square behind Willie Soon. He’s a brilliant and courageous scientist devoted entirely to pursuing scientific knowledge. His critics are all ethically challenged and mental midgets by comparison. We plan to continue to work with Willie on future editions of Climate Change Reconsidered and feature him at future International Conferences on Climate Change.”
— Joseph L. Bast, CEO, The Heartland Institute

“The truth is that the Smithsonian received a number of grants and then paid Dr. Soon and others salaries and travel expenses. Dr. Soon’s immediate source of funding was the Smithsonian. Nothing more needs saying about this entire issue.”
— Dr. Christopher Essex, University of Western Ontario

TABLE OF CONTENTS (Scroll down for more.)

1. Key facts about the controversy
2. Background
3. Articles defending Dr. Soon
4. Articles attacking Dr. Soon
5. Videos of Dr. Soon
6. Dr. Soon’s biography
7. Correspondence between The Heartland Institute and the U.S. Senate

1. Key facts about the controversy

This page presents background information and facts about the controversy as well as links to some of the attacks on Dr. Soon as well as articles defending him. Dr. Soon's biography and a partial list of articles he has written for peer-reviewed journals is at the bottom of this page.

In late February, 2015, Dr. Willie W.-H. Soon was accused by a Greenpeace activist of failing to disclose conflicts of interest to an academic journal. The accusation was false, but it was repeated by liberal reporters for major media outlets in the U.S. and U.K. and then became the basis for a coordinated campaign against global warming “skeptics” by liberal advocacy groups, Democratic U.S. senators and a congressman, and their allies in the mainstream media.

* Neither the editors of Science Bulletin nor the Smithsonian Institution, Dr. Soon’s employer, have said Dr. Soon violated their disclosure or conflict of interest rules.

* Kert Davies, the source of the accusations, has been making similar attacks against Dr. Soon and other climate scientists since as long ago as 1997. He is not a credible source.

* Grants supporting Dr. Soon’s work were vetted and submitted by the Smithsonian, not by Dr. Soon. Grant dollars went to the Smithsonian, which kept around 40 percent of the money for oversight and overhead.

* The amount of industry support Dr. Soon received, variously reported as $1 million or $1.2 million, includes the Smithsonian Institution’s 40 percent share and was received over the course of ten years.

* By agreement between donors and the Smithsonian, Dr. Soon wasn’t even aware of who some of the donors were, making a conflict of interest impossible.

* Disclosure of funding sources is not a common requirement of academic journals in the physical sciences field. Most climate scientists – alarmist as well as skeptical – do not disclose their funding sources.

* The Smithsonian’s investigation into its grant-making process is being led by John Kress, Interim Under Secretary for Science, kressj@si.edu, and Charles Alcock, director of the Center for Astrophysics, calcock@cfa.harvard.edu.

2. Background

* Before this phony controversy erupted, “Why Models Run Hot” was downloaded from Science Bulletin some 10,000 times in just a few weeks — a very high number for a scientific paper. As of February 26, the paper has been downloaded more than 22,000 times (combined paper downloads and abstract readings), more than any other paper in the publication’s history.

* The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics expressly forbids Soon to research and write about climate change while “on the clock” because it is allegedly unrelated to the center's focus. So it necessarily follows that the grants Soon raises to fund his position at Harvard-Smithsonian — which are agreements between the Harvard-Smithsonian Institution and donors, not between donors and Dr. Soon — did not pay for “Why Models Run Hot."

* Soon stated to the Boston Globe in 2013: “No amount of money can influence what I have to say and write, especially on my scientific quest to understand how climate works, all by itself.”

* The leftist Guardian newspaper reported on February 21, 2015 that Soon's arrangement with Harvard-Smithsonian is one in which he raises his own salary. This is not unusual and doesn’t mean he’s in a junior or inferior position at the center: “As is common among Harvard-Smithsonian scientists, Soon is not on a salary. He receives his compensation from outside grant money, said Christine Pulliam, a spokeswoman for the Center for Astrophysics.”

* Harvard-Smithsonian is publicly defending Soon: “Pulliam cast Soon’s association with the institutions as an issue of academic freedom: 'Academic freedom is critically important. The Smithsonian stands by the process by which the research results of all of its scholars are peer reviewed and vetted by other scientists. This is the way that the scientific process works. The funding entities, regardless of their affiliation, have no influence on the research.' ”

* Fifty-seven scientists sent a letter to the Harvard-Smithsonian on June 7, 2010 urging the center to reject the Greenpeace FOIA request in order to “protect Dr. Soon, to safeguard the integrity of the research process, and to reject this effort to bring undue and improper political influence to bear on scientific activities.” Read the letter here.

* Climate scientists who favor the alarmist perspective seldom disclose the funding they receive from left-wing advocacy groups or government agencies whose RFPs clearly call for alarmist findings. For example, Michael Oppenheimer (See Why Doesn’t Boston Globe do funding story on UN IPCC & EDF Warmist Michael Oppenheimer?) and (Oppenheimer, a paid partisan of the environmental pressure group Environmental Defense) and Kerry Emanuel: (National Academy of Sciences to investigate warmist Kerry Emanuel for failing to disclose insurance industry ties in recent study and Winning! JunkScience forces Emanuel to disclose insurance employers.)

* None of the attack pieces dispute the science Soon presents. This is because the journalists simply took a news release from Greenpeace, a radical environmental group with no expertise on climate science and a record of exaggeration and attacks on climate scientists, and reported it as news. The "science reporters" assigned to these hit pieces — even from America's most prestigious outlets —don't know enough about science to comment on the merits of Dr. Soon’s work.

 

well, that was a BIG waste of time.
Big failure. Not one country, accredited university or major corporation. You did have a conservative think tank. Heartland is neither a country, university or corporation…..it’s a joke seven day Adventist conservative think tank where no thinking goes on.

WHAT A BIG FAT JOKE THAT ENTIRE POST IS.

What did you do, wear out your finger copying and pasting …

They only one with less cred then Wee Willy is the author of this embarrassing post.

 

Ain’t that the truth.

 

103 peer-reviewed publications, and counting.
Dr. Willie Soon - Harvard CfA
https://lweb.cfa.harvard.edu › ~wsoon

Willie Soon. Astrophysicist. Solar, Stellar and Planetary Sciences Division of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (CfA). wsoon@cfa.harvard.edu ...

 

Sure you are….

Well Elmer, you just admitted you get your weather from the National Weather Service a division of NOAA. That’s embarrassing for a denier who doesn’t trust NOAA?
Well Mr Pilot. I’ll be looking down on you. I’m an astronaut on weekends and Philosopher during the week at Heartland

 

Here’s Harvard on Climate Change.
Wow, are you bragging about Willey’s credentials ?
Geesus, Harvard thinks he’s FOS. So much for being a Harvard affiliate.
https://climatechange.environment.harvard.edu/

 

Maybe you can name just one accredited university, major corporation or any country that agrees with you or Willy on Climate Change. The other guy just went down in flames. Give it a try. Just one,only one

 

Btw, you had 3400 universities, 256 countries and 497 major corporations in the US to choose from.

Care to guess how many disagree with you ?


All of them !

 

Yet somehow, actual physical events agree with us.

Such a mystery.

To you, that is.