A week ago, we were telling you about Wei-Hock Soon, an aerospace engineer turned climate scientist; mister Soon, known as “Willie”, is one of the most well known and quoted climate change deniers – he’s also one of the only climate change deniers. So recently, it was revealed that Willie has received 1.2 million from oil companies in exchange for his “science”. According to leaked documents, the papers were simply “deliverables” that he completed in exchange for their money. He used the same term to describe a testimony he prepared for Congress. Now, he has turned on the defensive, claiming that he is treated unfairly by scientists and the media.

Image via Common Dreams.

“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.”

Needless to say, ZME Science and the countless other media outlets that have covered this issue are neither radical environmental groups nor politically motivated. The NY Times, The GuardianWashington Post, The VergeThink Progress and all the other sources that covered it… they’re not politically motivated. Sure, some sources may have hidden agendas, but that’s only a clear minority – and that doesn’t excuse Willie himself from having a hidden agenda. When you receive over 1 million dollars to produce “deliverables” you call science papers, you don’t get to play the victim. When you cheat scientific journals and don’t disclose a conflict of interest (such as an oil company funding you to claim that climate change isn’t man made), you don’t get to call people shameless for revealing what you’ve done. That’s just rude and insulting.

Writing for the Journal Gazette, Christer Watson explained one episode which highlights what kind of papers mister Soon published:

“In his published papers, he was accused of being selective about what sort of analysis he chose, not always justifying his choices and always seeming to make the choices which led to minimizing the effects of carbon emissions in climate change. These sorts of mistakes can be obvious to many in the field, but they are also dreadfully boring to those of us outside the field. When he published a paper in 2003 related to this work, several editors of the journal resigned, basically in protest. The editors believed Soon’s paper so flawed that it did not deserve to be published.”

To add insult to injury, the statement wasn’t released by the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics – where Willie is an associate (he’s not employed there and doesn’t receive money from the Smithsonian, but he can work there and is responsible for his own funding). No, this statement was released by the Heartland Institute. The Heartland Institute are a conservative group with the aim of disproving climate change, or at the very least make it seem like humans have no part to play. They finance climate change denial books, try to rewrite school books, and place advertisements that liken climate scientists to serial killers.

The Heartland Institute portrayed Dr. Soon as a martyr, again, insulting those who pointed out his wrongdoings.

“He’s a brilliant and courageous scientist devoted entirely to pursuing scientific knowledge,” the organization’s president, Joseph Bast, said this week in a statement. “His critics are all ethically challenged and mental midgets by comparison.”

So the vast majority of the scientific community, everybody who’s claiming, with solid arguments, with thousands upon thousands of peer reviewed studies that climate change is happening, and we are causing it are wrong – they’re ethically challenged and mental midgets, compared to Willie. I guess only people like senator Inhofe, who claims that only God can change the climate can stand up to him.


Click here for reuse options!
Copyright 2015 ZME Science

Enjoyed this article? Join 40,000+ subscribers to the ZME Science newsletter. Subscribe now!

Like us on Facebook


  1. 1

    If you can’t dispute the science, go for the messenger! That is the technique of radicals and the politically motivated. But because radical, politically motivated liberals are sociopaths, they can’t be honest with themselves on this matter.

    Who cares where the money comes from? Obviously you don’t care where the money comes from for Al Gore, Michael Moore, and other liberal messengers.

  2. 2

    the science is highly disputable, please fact check before posting something like this. Where the money comes from makes all the difference in the world. Yes, Al Gore, michael Moore and co are equal douchbags if they are paid to promote their agenda, environmental friendly or not. Can we agree that this is a despicable behavior which should not be supported or excused?

  3. 3
  4. 4

    Dave, How do you frame the comments from Soon’s “boss” at Heartland in which he calls everyone on the other side of the debate “ethically challenged and mental midgets”. Talk about going after the messanger.
    Can’t you at least be consistent and realize that you are being two-faced for attacking people who disagree with you?

  5. 5

    I love the way this guy uses a purported apology to slime everyone else and imply that thye are equally as bad as him. The NYT article quotes Soon: “If a journal that has peer-reviewed and published my work concludes that additional disclosures are appropriate, I am happy to comply,” Dr. Soon said in his statement. “I would ask only that other authors — on all sides of the debate — are also required to make similar disclosures.”
    The implication is that if he has been cheating then everyone else has probably been cheating too. Talk about your amoral perspective.

  6. 6

    You can’t make sense of Willie Soon’s predicament without reading what real scientists have to say about his “research.” He’s wrong, most of the time. His published papers are full of mistakes and distortions, which get called out as soon as they’re published. Without his fossil fuel industry backers, he would have been laughed out of the field immediately. That’s the real issue here, he’s been held to a much lower standard than mainstream researchers have to meet, because of industry political influence.

  7. 7

    What drives me crazy is that guys like this make it appear that this is a black and white issue with only two points of view of equal stature. I read that something like 90% of scientist support the concept of global climate change (to use a very broad definition). Part of the problem is that the Soons of this world have taken a very dogmatic position and are feeding off the notoriety of their position. It has turned into a classic “us vs. the world” self-affirmation in which every “attack” against Soon et al only serves to galvanize them.

  8. 8


    If you want a chuckle then check out the coverage Soon is getting on a web site called breitbart.com. (The site appears to a some sort of right-wing loonatorium).

    “On Monday, Dr. Willie Soon, the brilliant astrophysicist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics who has been smeared by media outlets including the Boston Globe, The New York Times, the Washington Post, the Guardian, Scientific American and Nature because he had the temerity to point out that human activities are not “a major cause of global warming,” struck back with a press release defending himself from the scurrilous charges aimed at him.

    “…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…”

    My question is how do you get to be a “brilliant astrophysicist” if you can only come up with a self-serving and adolescent arguemnt as your defence?

  9. 9

    There are always outliers in any active research field. You can still find biologists who don’t accept the mainstream explanation for origin of species. The problem here isn’t the handful of scientists (and wanna-bes like Soon, and retirees like Lindzen) with crackpot alternative explanations for the warming of the last 150 years. The problem is there’s a disinformation campaign with a budget of almost a $billion/year (source: “Institutionalizing Delay,” Robert Brulle 2014 in Climatic Change) that recruits them and promotes them to positions of prominence. It took the American Petroleum Institute’s influence to make Willie Soon the celebrity that he is.

  10. 10

    For that matter, how do you get to be a “brilliant astrophysicist” with no formal training in astrophysics? Willie Soon has a PhD in aeronautical engineering, not astrophysics. He works at a place with “astrophysics” in its name. That’s not the same thing. I’ll bet Breitbart knows it, too. They’re the liars who made “climategate” a thing.

  11. 11

    I have been following climate science since the 1970s. Yes, the science is highly disputable simply because there are meteorological mechanisms which we do not yet understand, which is obvious from the inability to provide accurate short and long range forecasts.

    I am aware of the number fudging of NOAA, the dismissal of scientific core samples simply because the data does not fit the academic narrative, and the political motivations for pushing certain narratives regarding the climate.

    If you were a business who could be put out of business because a politically motivated narrative is being espoused based on cooked and filtered data, then you would want to hire a scientist to provide a balanced perspective, too.

    How is this any different from a politically motivated government handing out select grants to people who tend to support the political narrative? In the end, it is the science that matters, not the source of the money. If the science is wrong, it will eventually be proved as wrong. This is particularly so with climate predictions.

    As we can clearly see, the planet did not heat up proportional to the concentration of CO2 gases in the atmosphere. In any scientific study, this would be interpreted as falsification of the hypothesis that increased CO2 concentrations would cook the planet. If 90% of the scientists agreed with the prediction that the planet would cook, and it didn’t, then this would be scientific evidence that climate science was driven by political bias and not real science. And if Soon’s papers show that the mainstream narrative was false, and the planet did not cook despite a 400% increase in CO2 gas concentrations, then that would make Soon’s science accurate, regardless of where the funding came from.

    The problem isn’t the science, it is the sociopaths who cannot be honest and follow the science where the science actually leads.

  12. 12

    Why do you use a name like “Mack Attack” instead of your real name? Are you afraid of something?

    It does not matter who calls who a name, it is not science, and it is not fit for print in a science forum.

  13. 13

    And yet Moore and Gore are out there telling the world what the science says, right? And getting paid to say it, right? Are you saying that Moore and Gore’s lack of scientific background make them qualified to profit by selling their take on climate science?

  14. 14

    Both Gore and Moore are populariser’s of science and do no original research or publish in peer-reviewed publications. They basically disseminate information and get paid for it like any other documentary writer/producer. Non-politicians publish pieces on politics, non-soldiers publish pieces on war, non-railwaymen publish books about railroads, non-economists report on economics, non-biologists publish pieces on wild animals or ecology ….. and they all get paid for it. If they do a good job, they get paid a lot for it.

  15. 15

    My kids hate it when I embarrass them (which is daily).

    And what should we make of your comment: “But because radical, politically motivated liberals are sociopaths, they can’t be honest with themselves on this matter.”? Are you trying to say that unmotivated radical liberals are not sociopaths?

    BTW, did you know that a radical is a person who advocates thorough or complete political or social reform? There are probably an eq

  16. 16

    There are lots of non-scientists making noise on the head-in-the-sand, the-world-is-not-changing side too. People are allowed to express their opinions Do you want them to not say anything?

  17. 17

    >” …based on cooked and filtered data, then you would want to hire a scientist to provide a balanced perspective, too.”
    Just come out and say what you really want to say: “You guys are cheating so it is OK if we cheat too.” You are not calling for “fair and balanced” anything unless it agrees with your world view.

  18. 18

    I won’t take the bait and make excuses for either one of them.

    Michael Moore is a political activist. He’s fallen into the trap of putting self promotion ahead of his causes. Al Gore is a member of the isolated human subculture sociologists call “the power elite.” When he had real political power, he perpetrated some major environmental crimes. NAFTA and GATT-Uruguay. The Headwaters Forest giveaway. Gutted the Kyoto Accords. All while promoting himself as some kind of environmentalist. Now that he’s retired, there’s no way to tell whether his hobby is a sincere attempt at making amends for those crimes, or he’s a sophisticated mole for the fossil fuel industries’ misinformation campaign. Although the extreme right wing is convinced he’s in it for the money, there’s no real evidence of that. He was born super-rich, with no need to ever work for a living, and he’s lost money on his climate advocacy hobby. That carbon credits business you hear about from the right wing noise machine never made a dime, and collapsed when the New York banksters wouldn’t cut him in.

    What the two have in common is that they’re volunteers, stepping into the vacuum created by the scientific community, who are all too reluctant to do public relations.

    If you want to understand this issue, and maybe you don’t, you need to read what scientists have to say about it. You won’t learn much from political opinion outlets.

  19. 19

    But Al Gore does a terrible job of it. There was no excuse for the exaggerations and inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth. The actual science is scarier and far more credible. Gore joins the parade of self appointed environmental “leaders” who oversimplify the issues to the point of distortion. I can give Helen Caldecott a break, though listening to her hysterics makes me wince, and Bonnie Simmons, but Gore has no excuse.

  20. 20

    “The problem is there’s a disinformation campaign with a budget of almost a $billion/year (source: “Institutionalizing Delay,” Robert Brulle 2014 in Climatic Change) that recruits them and promotes them to positions of prominence. ”

    How much money is spent on trying to convince the world that CO2 causes global temperatures to rise? Of course there is money being spent to correct the misinformation machine of the global warming alarmists!

    Let’s cut to the chase. Just show one scientific paper that clearly shows a correlation between CO2 concentration increases and temperature increases.

    I really don’t care who’s right, I just want to know the truth.

    I have been following climate changes long before anybody said anything about global warming. In fact, people were talking about global cooling when I first took interest.

    It really irks me that real climatologists have been mapping the Earth’s climate spanning hundreds of millions of years and clearly show the Earth has been steadily thawing out since the last ice advance. The so-called scientists of today are only showing graphs with data that goes back 45 years and yet extending a hundred years into the future to “prove” the planet is going to get cooked.

    The only evidence for these claims are human generated computer programs based on faulty assumptions, statistics based on a steady state environment with an incredibly short data set, and a political need to prove the planet is warming. These global warming predictions were made over twenty years ago and nothing even resembling the prediction has manifested.

    So again, who cares where the money comes from such that we can hear the truth? Isn’t it more important to know the truth?

  21. 21

    No, if it is about cheating, I want no part of it. All I want is the truth. There is no need to smear people on either side of the issue. Just stick to the facts. The main fact is really quite simple, if global warming were true, there would be a correlation between the proposed warming mechanism and the object being warmed. There isn’t. In real science, that is called falsification of the hypothesis.

  22. 22

    One of the defining characteristics of a sociopath is the inability to admit being wrong. A true scientist is just as happy to be wrong as to be right. The people pushing the political aspect of global warming will scream global warming even if the planet freezes (which it is not). As sociopaths, they are irrational. For a sociopath, the narrative is the truth, even if it conflicts with reality.

  23. 23

    You’re not going to get “the truth” while you select “scientists” like Willie Soon who are testably, verifiably wrong most of the time. Are you sure “the truth” is what you want? Or do you want to hear from people who confirm your political beliefs?

    On that global cooling scare “people were talking about,” see Peterson 2008 “The Myth of the 1970s Global Cooling Scientific Consensus” in Bulletin of the American Meteorological Society.

    On “the only evidence for these claims,” see (for one recent example) Feldman et al Feb. 2015 “Observational determination of surface radiative forcing by CO2 from 2000 to 2010” in Nature. Or try James Powell’s 15 minute overview, The Evidence at jamespowell.org.

  24. 24

    “There was no excuse for the exaggerations and inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth.”

    I would suggest there wasn’t so much exaggeration and only a few inaccuracies in An Inconvenient Truth.

    I, personally, was misled by the comment about “a mile of ice over where we sit”. It gave the impression that the relationship between CO₂ and temperature is linear, not logarithmic… but to be fair to Al Gore, his audience doesn’t actually know what a logarithmic function is.

    The most shocking parts weren’t even exaggeration! Florida will be gone if we continue the suicidal status quo. That is the most likely outcome at this point.

  25. 25

    “All I want is the truth”

    The truth is that we are warming the planet by producing greenhouse gasses like CO₂.

    This fact has been known for over 100 years:

    “In January 1859, Tyndall began studying the radiative properties of various gases… Tyndall’s experiments… showed that molecules of water vapor, carbon dioxide, and ozone are the best absorbers of heat radiation”


    …so why are you pretending there’s some debate?

    If you’ve overturned over a century of well-established and undefeated science, where’s your Nobel prize?

  26. 26

    First, I’m not sure I have ever read a paper by Willy Soon. I mainly follow the data directly, and I have read many papers on climate data proxies because I want to see how present changes in climate compare to past changes during as much as the Earth’s existence as the data can show us.

    As for the global cooling scare, I was there. The US, as it is now, experienced significantly cold and snowy winter events. Yes, it was anecdotal, but my point was that when I first started studying climate change, that was the main narrative. People wished for global warming in the 1970s because they perceived the Earth was heading for an ice age and they didn’t like the cold.

    Thanks for the paper reference. I agree, and I believe everybody agrees, that CO2 does cause temperature forcing. The greenhouse effect has been reliably demonstrated in the lab. The issue is not whether the greenhouse effect is real, but whether the planet actually warms due to it.

    There is variability in solar output, long term cloud cover, ocean layer mixing, and many other mechanisms in addition to CO2 concentrations. There are natural mechanisms that directly pump heat off the Earth, such as hurricanes and typhoons, and normal infrared irradiance. The unnatural ice cover at our poles and mountain tops has been gradually thawing since the last ice advance, thus providing a temperature sink.

    To claim that human produced CO2 is enough to tip this system out of balance would require evidence that shows global temperatures are rising outside of the normal thawing process. There is zero global temperature rise to corroborate the global warming hypothesis which is due to pumping CO2 from underground and into the atmosphere.

    The underground CO2, btw, used to be part of the Earth’s biosphere. It has been sequestered from a time when there was 1000 times more biomass than exists on the Earth’s surface, today.

    The evidence indicates there is nothing harmful about bring CO2 back to the Earth’s surface. The planet’s temperature is regulated by numerous natural mechanisms, thus nullifying any effect from CO2 greenhouse forcing. Life actually thrives on CO2. The carbon is eventually converted to living matter and the oxygen is released to the atmosphere or becomes an ion with something else.

    The evidence shows that global warming is nothing but a political narrative. The only people who seem concerned about global warming are the politicians who want to enact legislation that stops the mining of hydrocarbons and wants us to convert to a different energy source.

    I happen to be in favor of solar and other sources of electricity, and I don’t use natural gas for heating because I think it is dangerous. But that is merely my personal narrative. The science tells us that increased CO2 gas concentrations are not enough to warm the planet.

  27. 27

    I don’t know what you are referring to. I have been hearing opinions from all sides equally as loud on this debate. Nobody has stopped the IPCC, Michael Mann, Al Gore, Michael Moore, or anybody else from sharing their views.

    I’m only interested in the science, but I wouldn’t deprive anybody from telling their narrative if they can find someone to listen to it.

  28. 28

    I saw it years ago and found it visually compelling and rather well done. ( An Inconvenient Truth ). What exaggerations and inaccuracies? It was made for the general public not experts so it was superficial. I know about the hockey stick controversy (Mann’s) but I remember it was resolved in Mann’s favour after a dozen or so different statistical analysis techniques gave the same results. I never considered Gore a leader in the environmental movement and I’m not sure why anyone would.

  29. 29

    Apparently you do not understand what the global warming debate is about. Nobody, that I am aware of, is denying the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases.

    The issue is whether the Earth will warm just because there is an increase in CO2 gas concentration. The evidence overwhelmingly tells us the Earth surface does not increase in temperature due to an increase in greenhouse gases, this is because there are other mechanisms that expel the heat from the Earth.

  30. 30

    “Nobody, that I am aware of, is denying the radiative forcing of greenhouse gases.”

    …get set to provide an example of the person you claim to be unaware of:

    “The issue is whether the Earth will warm just because there is an increase in CO2 gas concentration.”

    If you understand CO₂ warms planets, why would you be having difficulty understanding that more CO₂ will cause the planet to be warmer?

    The only real debate is why you would pretend to be confused about facts so plain. I say it’s self-destructive mental illness.

    What do you think motivates you?

  31. 31

    “I mainly follow the data directly”

    Oh good. Here’s 800,000 years of CO₂ concentrations taken from polar ice caps, going back to the oldest significant ice on Earth:


    Find me a single point in the data where CO₂ goes above 290PPM.

    If polar ice caps can withstand CO₂ so high, why don’t the polar ice caps record a single instant of CO₂ so high?

  32. 32

    “If you understand CO₂ warms planets, why would you be having difficulty understanding that more CO₂ will cause the planet to be warmer?”

    When will you understand that since the planet is not warming with a 400% increase in CO2 concentration, then that means CO2 forcing is not an issue. There are other mechanisms in the environment that nullify the effect of CO2 forced heat.

  33. 33

    “When will you understand that since the planet is not warming with a 400% increase in CO2 concentration, then that means CO2 forcing is not an issue.”

    If any part of that sentence weren’t utterly, demonstrably, 100% false, I’m sure I’d understand it already!

    If you don’t even know the basic facts about climate science, why would you hold such a strong opinion about it?

  34. 34

    Co2 is up about 400pct.
    That claim is fair.
    No warming, at all, during that rise in co2.
    You should apologize

  35. 35

    Noaa source data altered point by point 1-3 pct. 600 plus surface readings… All adjusted, every single day for decades. Noaa data has just recently been released “unadjusted” and it should make you mad.

  36. 36

    Washpost not political? Bwahshehwhahbshwshaaa
    If accepting money for work is a bribe… Then every single climate scientist on the left has been bribed too.
    This has to be a joke… What a website of craziness.

  37. 37

    Hahahhahahaha. Soon is a premier scientist. Being wrong and releasing that data for analysis is SCIENCE.
    If you ever meet a scientist who claims to always be right… You have met a liar.

  38. 38

    Think progress isn’t political?
    Every word ever printed at this site must be considered suspect with a claim like that.

  39. 39

    To claim thinkprogress and washpost arent political is to declare oneself unqualified to comment. A complete farse.

  40. 40

    We can all read what was posted… Requoting from a post above is a sure sign of low intelligence.

  41. 41

    “Bribed Climate-Skeptic Scientist ”
    Greater is the motivation to support warming CO2 deception

  42. 42

    Yes. They are telling the world what the science says.

    What they aren’t doing is telling the world what Big Oil says. They have Soon for that.

    Or had.

  43. 43

    “because there are other mechanisms that expel the heat from the Earth.”
    Above the clouds, Greenhouse gases radiate energy to space, cool the air and
    lower clouds. Lower clouds result in lower surface temperature. Simple as that.

  44. 44
  45. 45

    You are missing the point. Scientists get paid to do research. Some times it is from government agencies for basic research and some times it is contractual work from a corporation or a think tank. The funding is typically acknowledged in the footnotes of the resulting publications. The problem is when it researcher does not disclose a funding sources especially if that source may derive a benefit from the resutls of the research. We would be less likely to believe a report claiming that yoga extends the average life span by 25 years if it was funded by Big Yoga.

  46. 46
  47. 47

    Uh noXxx. I nailed the point.
    The author is extremely biased or even brainwashed if he thinks thinkprogress is apolitical.
    How arrogant to demand i missed the point i was making. Where do you know it alls get off?

  48. 48
  49. 49

    You claim you want to know the “truth” but then you toss around problematic terms like “the so-called scientists of today”. What is there to gain by deriding scientists as a group for the only (apparent) crime of not supporting your point of view?
    Things are changing. A caribou herd in Labrador has shrunk from 700,000 animals to 12,000 in 20 years. The Arctic permafrost is melting in summer months causing dramatic changes to the flora and fauna over the vast tundra. The treeline is pushing north. All of this is happening now and it has changed within a single life time. Ignore it if you will but pretending that it is not happening will not stop it. (And why do you need scientists to prove things for you?)

  50. 50

    Are you joking? Any group think scientist should be derided back into the SCIENTIFIC METHOD.

  51. 51

    Claiming that “every single climate scientist on the left has been bribed too” is silly because it is a childish attempt to divide this into a left/right debate. People like you require a dichotomy because you lack the ability to understand nuance. You need to see a black and white world.

  52. 52

    So it shows through does it? I try not to brag too much but thanks for appreciating my wonderful attributes.

  53. 53

    If accepting money for work is bribery… Then every scientist ever has been bribed.
    Quoting me out of complete context is the same as lying.
    I know what you are. What do you accept money to do?

  54. 54

    Please define what you think a “group think scientist” is and who you are accusing of this.

  55. 55

    Are you being purposefully stupid or is not an act? Have you ever done research?

  56. 56

    Anyone not adhering to the scientific method, duh.
    Like cal tech… Who recently banned the ipcc from citation dor students submitting work for evaluation.

  57. 57
  58. 58

    You win. Every scientist has been bribed. Even your buddy Soon. And every scientist suffers from “group think”. Even your buddy Soon.

  59. 59

    Let’s stick to one topic at a time, please. Global warming is falsified. Climate change has been ongoing since the Earth first existed. Entire species of large mammals in North America were wiped out just 11,500 years ago. Do you think it is impossible for this to happen again? Back to an old cliche, just because murders go up with ice cream sales does not mean ice cream causes murders.

    Arctic permafrost has been thawing steadily for the past 10,000 years. The permafrost used to extend all they way down to the Northeastern U.S. Just 300 years ago Vermont was 25% forested. Now it is 75% forested. The thawing of permafrost is not an anthropogenic phenomenon, it is part of a longer term natural climate cycle.

    Also, science is not an institution (at least it shouldn’t be), it is a way of thinking.

  60. 60
  61. 61

    Stop talking down to me.

    Do you think it is possible that more large mammals are in the process of being wiped out in the Arctic and that we might have a hand in this?

    Permafrost changes have been dramtic. Look up some of the research from John Smol and his Paleoecological Environmental Assessment and Research Laboratory at Queen’s University.
    Smol is a biologist and not a climatologist. He is not an alarmist. He is a career scientist who does basic research.

    What does Vermont have to do with this?

  62. 62

    You made a comment that the tree line was moving north. The Vermont comment was to indicate the tree line has been moving north for quite some time before CO2 concentrations were increased. It is quite normal.

    Have you ever watched an ice cube thaw out? It is very slow at first, and then as the surface area and thermal mass decreases, the thawing accelerates. The same thing is happening with the permafrost of the Earth.

    As for present day extinctions, we are always threatening other species by over hunting, massive use of chemicals, and our waste by products. We are also assisting other species by the same behaviors. Humans do make an impact on the biosphere. Fortunately, the biosphere is orders of magnitude greater in scale than humans and our activities, and is easily capable of adjusting accordingly (within reason).

    The issue at hand, however, is whether or not human CO2 emissions will warm the planet. They do not. There is no global warming from CO2 or from any other cause at this time. There is, however, natural global thawing, which has been ongoing since the last ice advance.

    As for talking down to you, I am not sure what you are referring to. You ask questions or make comments, and I respond to them. I thought this was a discussion.

    If you are feeling cornered or defeated, you need to look at everything we said carefully and ask yourself if you need to alter your perception. If you blindly stick to a narrative you believe is infallible regardless of the facts, you will become a sociopath. I am willing to change my view, and it is clear that I have over time because I have apparently read and studied a lot more of the facts than you have. If someone shows me an honest study using real data that demonstrates CO2 concentration increases coinciding with a corresponding global temperature increase, I would gladly accept the global warming hypothesis and act accordingly.

  63. 63
  64. 64

    Stop talking down to me… Waaah waaaah
    What a good little leftist you are.
    Hypocrisy means nothing to you.

  65. 65
  66. 66

    Such a childlike demeanor. You have summed yourself up quite well. Isn’t it your naptime just about now?

  67. 67
  68. 68
  69. 69

    If you wish to understand the process:

    “There has been much discussion of temperature adjustment of late in both climate blogs and in the media, but not much background on what specific adjustments are being made, why they are being made, and what effects they have. Adjustments have a big effect on temperature trends in the U.S., and a modest effect on global land trends. The large contribution of adjustments to century-scale U.S. temperature trends lends itself to an unfortunate narrative that “government bureaucrats are cooking the books”.”



  70. 70
  71. 71

    Know way way more about it than u can know.
    As soon as a “scientist” says “unfortunate”… Objectivity gone.
    If u make the same adjustments but change them all to the opposite of what noaa did…. We have massive cooling of 4 degrees since 1930.

  72. 72

    And finally…. 7/7/2014 was months before noaa source data was released… Making curry’s cute little rant sorta mega suspect, dont u think?

  73. 73

    if you know so much about it, you would know that Curry did not write this; she posted it.

    You would also know that Curry is a skeptic; a favourite of Inhofe.

  74. 74
  75. 75
  76. 76

    Hahahhahahahha… 7/7 was months before source data was released.

    Where did u get your chemistry and math degrees? I got mine at mudd.

  77. 77

    It also starts with the conclusion in 2nd sentence: no conspiracy here.
    Pure garbage.

  78. 78
  79. 79
  80. 80
  81. 81
  82. 82

    As soon as you show yours.
    Good grief, you posted a blog from bfore noaa source data was released.
    You have a lot of credibility to make up.

  83. 83

    Not how this claim functioned.
    Guess you havent read your own sources yet.
    Shame on you

  84. 84
  85. 85

    No you havent. You posted a blog.
    One function with data from BEFORE noaa released its source data.
    You are a liar now.

  86. 86
  87. 87

    If 90% of scientists agree that climate change is a real thing does that mean that 90% of scientists are “leftists”? Perhaps a more likely explanation is that you use a (problematic) left-right dichotomy to help make sense of the world by throwing things into stark contrasts? Or to put it antoher way, climate change is not defined by a simple left-right political philosophy. Some of the “greenest” folks I know have been ultra-rights who bike to work and go to bed with the Sun. But if you need the crutch of a balck and white worldview then keep on keeping on.

  88. 88
  89. 89
  90. 90

    Bye mack… It has been fun humiliating your broken belief system.
    You are very good hypocrite bully, so you have that going for you.

  91. 91

    Soon is an aerospace engineer by training. He works part time at a place with “astrophysics” in its name. That’s enough for Breitbart to say he’s an astrophysicist. Breitbart lies. Being wrong once and getting busted for it once is science. Publishing the same wrong conclusion that you already got busted for, over and over, is public relations. Willie Soon is a PR flack, not a scientist.

  92. 92

    From a PEW survey as reported in Washington Post: “87 percent of scientists in the American Association for the Advancement of Science (the world’s biggest scientific society) say climate change is caused by humans,…”

    Suck on that.

    And before you whine again, here is a link… http://www.pewinternet.org/2015/01/29/public-and-scientists-views-on-science-and-society/pi_2015-01-29_science-and-society-00-01/

  93. 93

    They didnt poll a single chemistry phd at mit cal tech or mudd.

    Thats the end of that

  94. 94

    Yep, he came from the most difficult ans strenuous training path of all of science essentially.
    Mensa member.
    National academy of science fellow.
    Mann had his NAS credentials pulled for the hockey stick.

  95. 95

    Just got off the phone with brother at rice… Not a single chemist there polled.
    None at princeton either.
    I just might have a few scientist friends at some snooty universities.

  96. 96

    Not one phd chemist at univ of virginia or michigan polled.
    Did i mention i am a fellow with the national academy of sciences?

  97. 97

    Thats the top 5 private universities for chemistry as ranked by iupac… And the top two public ones.
    Do you know what iupac has to say about global warm/cool/disruption?
    Do u know what iupac is?

  98. 98

    You are a real nut job. As if your “brother” called around to ever single chemsitry prof to ask if they were polled by PEW. Stop making stuff up. You only make yourself look worse and worse, sillier and sillier.

  99. 99
  100. 100

    They specifically didnt poll phds in chemistry and physics…
    Not a single organic chemist polled.
    Not a single one.

  101. 101

    Guess what conferences i attend… Go on… Guess.
    They didnt poll me either.
    Ii exclusively spend my days with md and phd scientists… All day every day.
    Never met one polled.

  102. 102

    8/10 of the highest iqs ever measured were astrophysicists.

    I think we should embrace the intelligence of that field and not ad hom attack it. Very very low level discussion technique you TRIED to employ there.

  103. 103

    He is a phd… So, engineering claim is regarding his undergrad training.

    I dismiss you outright for ignoring his advanced training.

    How low

  104. 104
  105. 105
  106. 106

    “Advanced traiing” does not mean you always have something meaningful to say or that you can be trusted not to make things up or leave things out (like who is paying you).

  107. 107
  108. 108
  109. 109

    So u agree that all preconditions for federal grants should be disclosed?
    Lots of pew scientists in violation of that, so true.

  110. 110
  111. 111
  112. 112
  113. 113

    Nope… Am a doctor, and accuracy matters… Not funny. It causes expulsion… Just the opposite effect as you desired… Cant give it a nod.

  114. 114

    “So u agree that all preconditions for federal grants should be disclosed?”

    The only precondition of a federal research grant should be to find out what’s true, and there are several pseudo-scientists like Judith Curry and Richard Lindzen who are on the public dole and running afoul of that requirement.

    The idiotic Climate Denier claim about rich scientists and government grants eats itself… like many of the lies Climate Deniers tell.

  115. 115

    The “hockey stick” has been validated using at least 2 dozen different statistical analysis techniques and the 2 that disagreed have been shown to be in error. What do you mean by “Mann had his NAS credentials pulled”?

  116. 116

    “Thats the end of that”

    No, it’s really not, because you’ve been caught saying things that are not true. This is not in evidence:

    “No warming, at all, during that rise in co2”

    Both NOAA and NASA say there’s been a massive amount of warming during the industrial revolution, with 2014 being the hottest year on record:

    “The year 2014 was the warmest year across global land and ocean surfaces since records began in 1880.”


    “The year 2014 now ranks as the warmest on record since 1880, according to an analysis by NASA scientists.”


    …so who informs you otherwise?

    If you know your sources of information are misleading you, why would you continue to rely on them?

  117. 117

    “You even posted 3 replies to your own comment. True nutter.”

    It’s not nuts, it’s a propaganda strategy. Chris is spamming the thread with as much nonsense as he can in the hopes that no one will notice it’s all lies.

    It’s called Gish Gallop, among other things.

  118. 118
  119. 119
  120. 120
  121. 121

    “Global warming is falsified”
    You must be in your happy place along with your friends :

    “Evolution has bee falsified”
    “The Big Bang has been falsified”
    “Cigarettes do not cause lung cancer”
    “CFC’s have no effect on the ozone layer”
    “DDT does not affect birds or mammals”
    “leaded gasoline as no effect on developing brains”

  122. 122
  123. 123

    “Stop talking to me loser liar”

    So sorry! Quote a single thing I said that wasn’t true.

    If the liar you’re talking about isn’t yourself, isn’t that something you should be able to do?

    Have you any idea how many Climate Deniers describe themselves very specifically in the wrong person?

    If Climate Denialism weren’t a mental disorder, why should this be?

  124. 124

    “Do not converse with me”


    Aw, would you prefer it if your lies went unchallenged?

    That wouldn’t be any fun at all!

    You claimed that there has been no warming since we began adding CO₂ to the atmosphere, did you not?

    NOAA says that an absolutely massive amount of warming has taken place in just the last 15 years, with roughly 15 x 10²² joules of energy being added to the Earth’s climate system:


    … so who informs you otherwise?

    If you know your sources of information are misleading you about threats to your well-being, why would you continue to rely on them?

    Are you suicidal?

  125. 125
  126. 126
  127. 127
  128. 128

    “I quote everything from above posts because i cannot remember long enough from years of drug abuse”

    Oh, sad… I didnt know you were disabled.

  129. 129

    “Partial quotes allow me to only respond to what i want to respond to”

    Yes, totally rude and innapropriate weakling behavior.

  130. 130

    “I pick and choose what quotes i respond to to avoid other topics”

    Yes, only weaklings converse this way

  131. 131
  132. 132

    Funny…. Eddie mac isnt on the membership roster…
    There is this chris king guy on the list however.
    Out of your league scum

  133. 133

    The CDs often seem to be confusing science and politics. It is almost as if they see it (denying climate change and the science behind it) as an ideological calling. They internalize the debate and treat any attempt to refute their arguments as a personal attack. CDs also use any arguments against themselves as a reason to rally around the flag and to self-justify their own point of view.

  134. 134
  135. 135

    Davey, Vermont has been south of the tree line for about 10,000 years.
    The tree line refers to the point at which the boreal forest (also known as the taiga) gives way to tundra.
    I suspect that any change to the tree cover in Vermont has more to do with forestry practices (read man) over the past 300 years than it does with climate change.

  136. 136

    You know you are in trouble when your side has to prop up a scientist like Soon as your best-case argument while relying on comments from wits like “Chris King” to save the day.

  137. 137
  138. 138

    I think those are all very astute observations. Climate Deniers frequently exhibit a persecution complex, which is in evidence on some of the Climate Denier propaganda sites right now with the stories about “witch hunts” for liars like Wille Soon.

    …but ideological calling or not, Climate Deniers already know they are lying and already know those lies will have dangerous consequences.

    This is what makes Climate Denialism a self-destructive mental disorder.

  139. 139
  140. 140

    I’ve known many chemists and they appeared so much more articulate and intelligent than you.

  141. 141
  142. 142

    The writer of this puff piece references the NYT, WP, etc, as unbiased organs whose only desire is to promulgate truth.
    Let him access Mr David Rockefeller’s published quotation about these newspapers, to both of which he expressed his deep gratitude for keeping his various agendas hidden for the previous 40 years, without which secrecy, he states, the NWO program could not have survived.

  143. 143
  144. 144

    Who supplied the term “Climate Deniers”? It sounds very CIA, and designed to resonate with “holocaust deniers”.
    Both terms are equally spurious.
    Nobody in their right mind would oppose the notion that climate changes.
    But many with a brain will oppose the notion that this change is due primarily to human agency.
    The lockstep between greenhouse gas levels and global average temperature was permanently severed some years ago.
    Far more logical is the linking of global cloud cover, and thus global temperature, with the magnetic output of the sun.
    The entire solar system is going through changes; are these all to do with what we do on earth?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>