Willie Soon & climate change

[Beeazlebub]

One of the most frequently cited "scientists" by climate deniers is Willie Soon, whose research claimed that the sun was responsible for the recent warming. His claims on solar influence have never stood up to scientific scrutiny, and now this. His papers were described as "deliverables" in exchange for undisclosed funding from fossil fuel interests.

The list of credentialed climate speakers for The Heritage Foundation makes the northern white rhino population look vigorous.

 

[kescwi]

Well fossil fuel interests are in climate science for the good of all mankind, some are superhuman corporations for gods sake.

Its those of you NY Times reading, MSNBC watching, self centered bleeding hearts lining your 1%'er pockets with government grant money from your libtard cohorts on capital hill who have no interest in the truth.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[beardownboiler]

Re: Willie Soon & climate change

Well, the sun IS responsible for gimbal warming.
Posted from Rivals Mobile

 

[indyogb]

So, he's the "deniers' Al Gore"?

Excuse me while I duck behind a corner now.

 

[Purdue97]

Why is this even news? Where did people actually think his funding was coming from?

Likewise-Where do you think funding is coming from from believers in man made climate change? You guessed it the government that wants to fix it by raising taxes and selling carbon credits.

At least the corporations are spending their own money they earn unlike the govt.

I am more interested in flaws in their science. Like all of the reports over the last few years that climate change predictions are caused by computer programs that had selected and projected data in it, thermometers located by runways at airports or on blacktop parking lots, or temperature readings that are "revised upward' for any number of purely scientific reasons(cough cough).

From this article, all it says is his science is pointless and dubious, but really nothing of merit. I would have been more impressed, or it would have held my attention if the one Doctor from NASA said his work is pointless and useless, and this is why. All they said was he used old data. So what?

At least he did not make it up and enter it in a computer. Then they just attacked the individual instead.

This post was edited on 2/23 7:24 PM by Purdue97

 

[TheCainer]

At least the corporations are spending their own money they earn unlike the govt.

Would those be the same funds given to corporations by government subsidies?

As far as where the climate scientists get their money, well, apparently it's not much comparatively speaking.

To sum up: climate research doesn't pay well, the amount of money dedicated to it has been shrinking, and if the researchers were successful in convincing the public that climate change was a serious threat, the response would be to give money to someone else. If you come across someone arguing that scientists are in it for the money, then you can probably assume they are willing to make arguments without getting their facts straight.

Climate Research Funding

 

[Purdue97]

"At least the corporations are spending their own money they earn unlike the govt."

Would those be the same funds given to corporations by government subsidies?

Likely so if it is coming from a green energy company because many of them do not make their own money.

A tenured professor at PSU makes $120,000 per year? That is a nice living in Happy Valley. Especially when one looks at pension earned in PA.

So since 1990 or so the money they have received in grants varies from 1.5-2.5 billion dollars per year. Not a lot? Well, to put in perspective, using the 1.5 billion number, that, at a minimum, would give 3000 universities/research/NASA institutions a grant of $500,000 each year. That is a quite a bit. Kind of blew up that articles point. I really doubt there are that many research insitutions/universities collecting that so figure a lot of grants are in 7 figures. If my math is wrong correct me.

Sure a higher percentage of it goes to NASA, but then additional money was for researchers in the stimulus, and I did use the low end 1.5 billion in calculations.

Well, I am all for keeping the earth clean. I am skeptical of global warming and man made climate change but realize climate change exists.

My point in my original post was that I would like to see some 'evidence' or research that was not funded by the government that wants to implement taxes and sell carbon credits or funded by the oil industry who want to maintain the status quo. It would also be great if the research obtained was not influenced in one way another by dubious methods. I know I ask a lot.



This post was edited on 2/24 2:59 AM by Purdue97

This post was edited on 2/24 3:01 AM by Purdue97

 

[tantalum]

The one thing that turns me off about climate change advocates more than anything else is when all else fails, they denigrate their opponents by saying they take oil money. Is oil money dirtier than government grant money? Does oil ooze onto the money and pollute their wallets? How many atmospheric scientists these days are going to help their career by casting doubt on climate change catastrophe? You can charge they take oil money but many of us are skeptical of those taking government grant money and how many of you warmists just don't want to damage your careers by casting doubt on climate change?

 

[qazplm]

Well, yes, it is

one is funded by a government. The idea that the government IN TOTAL is just filled with folks who desperately want to prove the lie of climate change and thus ALL government granted money must be tainted equally is ridiculous.

The other is funded by corporations who have a direct financial stake in disproving climate change.

And an atmospheric scientist who wants a lot of money can go work for an oil corporation, or coal, or other energy sector and help their career quite nicely by attempting to debunk climate change.

but "warmists"...that's a new pejorative.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by tantalum:
The one thing that turns me off about climate change advocates more than anything else is when all else fails, they denigrate their opponents by saying they take oil money. Is oil money dirtier than government grant money? Does oil ooze onto the money and pollute their wallets? How many atmospheric scientists these days are going to help their career by casting doubt on climate change catastrophe? You can charge they take oil money but many of us are skeptical of those taking government grant money and how many of you warmists just don't want to damage your careers by casting doubt on climate change?

The biggest issue with Soon's work, other than the fact that it doesn't hold up to scientific scrutiny, is that he did not disclose his funding sources (which happened to be a potential conflict of interest) to the tune of $1.2M. Disclosure of his funding sources would not have improved the quality of his work, but his work would not have been retrospectively deemed ethically unsound as it has with this information.

 

[qazplm]

it would still be suspect of course

but you are right, there would be no question about his ethics.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Agreed. I don't see how what Willie Soon did is as bad than what Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, did.

One could question the motives of both researchers, but Jones knowingly falsified data to make it fit his purposes. Academic fraud.

Soon took $ from the coal, oil, and utilities lobbies to fund his research. Soon's actions are not as bad as Jones' in my opinion.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:
Agreed. I don't see how what Willie Soon did is as bad than what Professor Phil Jones, former director of the Climatic Research Unit (CRU) and a professor of environmental sciences at the University of East Anglia in Norwich, UK, did.

One could question the motives of both researchers, but Jones knowingly falsified data to make it fit his purposes. Academic fraud.

Soon took $ from the coal, oil, and utilities lobbies to fund his research. Soon's actions are not as bad as Jones' in my opinion.

Jones was cleared of any wrongdoing through an investigation by UK's Science and Tech committee.

"We believe that the focus on CRU and Professor Phil Jones, Director of CRU, in

particular, has largely been misplaced. Whilst we are concerned that the disclosed e-mails
suggest a blunt refusal to share scientific data and methodologies with others, we can
sympathise with Professor Jones, who must have found it frustrating to handle requests for data
that heknew-or perceived-were motivated by a desire simply to undermine his work."
A full summary of the so-called "Climategate scandal" can be found here.

"A number of independent investigations from different countries,
universities and government bodies have investigated the stolen emails
and found no evidence of wrong doing. Focusing on a few suggestive
emails, taken out of context, merely serves to distract from the wealth
of empirical evidence for man-made global warming."

 

[qazplm]

Details

schmetails.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I'm sorry, Beeaz, but I find it highly self-serving to quote "Skeptical Science" and their version of events. The people that run this site certainly have high self-interest in promoting their position, to the exclusion of anyone trying to refute their "near religious fervor" about their version of climate change. Does climate change occur? Undoubtedly so. What is not conclusively proven is the extent to which anthropogenic sources are the key drivers of climate change, the true long-term effects of these anthropogenic sources on climate change, and the remedies required if anthropogenic sources are truly the cause. More research is required to make conclusive statements.

qazplm regularly lambastes people for using sources he deems "questionable". Quoting "Skeptical Science" does not help you make your case.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:
I'm sorry, Beeaz, but I find it highly self-serving to quote "Skeptical Science" and their version of events. The people that run this site certainly have high self-interest in promoting their position, to the exclusion of anyone trying to refute their "near religious fervor" about their version of climate change. Does climate change occur? Undoubtedly so. What is not conclusively proven is the extent to which anthropogenic sources are the key drivers of climate change, the true long-term effects of these anthropogenic sources on climate change, and the remedies required if anthropogenic sources are truly the cause. More research is required to make conclusive statements.

qazplm regularly lambastes people for using sources he deems "questionable". Quoting "Skeptical Science" does not help you make your case.

Skeptical science uses links to peer reviewed research to support and explain their positions. What, exactly, is wrong with that?

There are links within the skeptical science link that refer to the actual inquiries used during the so-called "climategate scandal". The researchers involved were exonerated by every inquiry, and yet people continue to throw Jones & others under the bus for something they DID NOT DO. Why do you think that is and will you continue to do so having read the aforementioned inquiries?

Nothing is science is ever "conclusively proven", but the link between anthropogenic greenhouse gases (specifically CO2) are as established as using tobacco is with cancer or heart disease.

1)The planet is warming.
2)The climate is changing as a result of the warming.
3)No "natural" process explains the warming without the influence of anthropogenic factors (co2 from fossil fuels).

 

[SDBoiler1]

Newton's Law isn't proven conclusively? The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are not proven conclusively?

Scientific theories may not be conclusively proven, but to say "nothing in science is ever conclusively proven" is preposterous. Some things have been, some things have not.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:
Newton's Law isn't proven conclusively? The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics are not proven conclusively?

Scientific theories may not be conclusively proven, but to say "nothing in science is ever conclusively proven" is preposterous. Some things have been, some things have not.

No, it isn't "preposterous", it's how science works. "Proof" is for math and alcohol, not science.

 

[ecouch]

The folks you are trying to have a conversation with have no interest in science. It is all an ideological game. I mean, have they never read a paper and noticed the disclosure section that appears at the beginning or end? The section where you lay out any conflicts of interest? Never taken the time to learn the language like a law vs. a theory? If they were actually interested you wouldn't see the same talking points recycled, over and over, coupled with conspiracy theory. Frustrating.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Nice little semantic play there. There is overwhelming evidence for the existence of Newton's Law and The First and Second Laws of Thermodynamics. There is not overwhelming evidence that anthropogenic sources are the major contributors to climate change. There are many theories and more research is required. There is some evidence, but it is neither overwhelming, nor conclusive. Even less overwhelming is the evidence that humankind faces an existential threat from anthropogenic sources of climate change if "drastic measures aren't taken".

 

[ecouch]

Tell us why multiple independent investigations by universities, governmental panels, and NGOs are wrong about Jones and why you are right.

 

[qazplm]

there's a difference between Laws and Theories

"Laws differ from scientific theories
in that they do not posit a mechanism or explanation of phenomena: they
are merely distillations of the results of repeated observation. As
such, a law is limited in applicability to circumstances resembling
those already observed, and may be found false when extrapolated....These laws remain useful, but only under the conditions where they apply." Wiki.

There is not likely to be a "Law of Global Warming" although I suppose it's possible in certain limited areas.

The Theory of Global Warming is never going to be "conclusively proven" because that's not how theories work.

Even a "law" can end up being false beyond the applicable conditions (e.g. The laws of thermodynamics might not work in a black hole).

 

[qazplm]

beyond frustrating

not knowing the basic differences between law and theory, or even what a theory is or isn't.

Just basic science stuff that used to be taught I'd thought in middle school and high school.

And yet, we get the same comments over and over again.
There are, I suppose, beyond basic science arguments against global warming, or evolution, or what have you...higher level, although still wrong IMO arguments, but at least they get past the basic level!

 

[SDBoiler1]

"The folks you are trying to have a conversation with have no interest in science. It is all an ideological game."

This comment is beyond ridiculous, disingenuous, and patently false.

Many of us deal with science and applied sciences on a daily basis. I am not a climate expert and I've never claimed to be. Truth be told, I don't care to be a climate expert.

What I have a problem with is some people hiding "behind the veil" of science and claiming overwhelming evidence in their favor, when much of what they claim is marginally more than faith itself. Many times, without realizing it, they have set up a form of "religion" under the guise of science.

I am not saying what you espouse to be evident is wrong. What I am saying is that perhaps you need to allow for alternate hypotheses to your "beliefs". Time will tell who is right and who is wrong, as more evidence is brought to bear.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:
"The folks you are trying to have a conversation with have no interest in science. It is all an ideological game."

This comment is beyond ridiculous, disingenuous, and patently false.

Many of us deal with science and applied sciences on a daily basis. I am not a climate expert and I've never claimed to be. Truth be told, I don't care to be a climate expert.

What I have a problem with is some people hiding "behind the veil" of science and claiming overwhelming evidence in their favor, when much of what they claim is marginally more than faith itself. Many times, without realizing it, they have set up a form of "religion" under the guise of science.

I am not saying what you espouse to be evident is wrong. What I am saying is that perhaps you need to allow for alternate hypotheses to your "beliefs". Time will tell who is right and who is wrong, as more evidence is brought to bear.

Let's go with this:

1) List claims in climate science that are "marginally more than faith itself".

2) Explain how climate science is a form of religion.

3) Explain a competing theory for why global warming and the resulting climate change is occurring.

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by ecouch:
The folks you are trying to have a conversation with have no interest in science. It is all an ideological game. I mean, have they never read a paper and noticed the disclosure section that appears at the beginning or end? The section where you lay out any conflicts of interest? Never taken the time to learn the language like a law vs. a theory? If they were actually interested you wouldn't see the same talking points recycled, over and over, coupled with conspiracy theory. Frustrating.

I agree, but I'm not sure it's intentional. Ideology is an overwhelming force, especially in a nation as polarized as the US is presently.

The question I would pose to you is how should science engage in discussion involving "controversial" subjects like GMOs, evolution, climate, etc. What % is unreachable, and should they simply be ignored?

On a related note, what was your opinion on Bill Nye's "debate" with Ken Ham? I wasn't excited about it, but I have to admit that I watched.

 

[SDBoiler1]

I thought the debate between Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") and Ken Ham was good for a little entertainment value, but it wasn't much of a debate. It is obvious that Bill Nye is more of an ideologue than a scientist. Ken Ham came across as somewhat scatterbrained to me, and of course he has an ideological bent.

Are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your opinion on a controversial subject that their opinion is automatically wrong? Just ignore them - that's hardly the stance to foster a robust debate, is it?

 

[qazplm]

then how

do you not know the difference between a law and a theory?

 

[Beeazlebub]

Originally posted by SDBoiler1:

I thought the debate between Bill Nye ("The Science Guy") and Ken Ham was good for a little entertainment value, but it wasn't much of a debate. It is obvious that Bill Nye is more of an ideologue than a scientist. Ken Ham came across as somewhat scatterbrained to me, and of course he has an ideological bent.

Are you saying that if someone doesn't agree with your opinion on a controversial subject that their opinion is automatically wrong? Just ignore them - that's hardly the stance to foster a robust debate, is it?

I'm here, aren't I?

The debates we have on here from time to time involving scientific issues are rarely "controversial" in the scientific realm. The discussion worth having is what we should be doing about climate change, not whether or not we're the cause (we are). I primarily engage with people on here for two reasons:

1) To prepare for what I might experience in public or in the classroom
2) In hopes that someone might gain from the interaction.

 

[qazplm]

not everything is subject to debate

creation science isn't valid...evolution is.

As to whether there is a divine force behind evolution, science is simply incapable of addressing...but creation science? Malarkey.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Re: not everything is subject to debate

On this we agree. Science is incapable of addressing whether there is a divine force behind evolution or creation itself.

As for me, creation science tries to impart a belief system into something that is incapable of comprehending it. In and of itself, creation science is not helpful to the discussion. There is evolution and there is creation, and trying to comingle the two only makes the discussion more difficult.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Re: then how

Are you asserting that laws are not scientific? Are only theories scientific? Are thermodynamics and Newtonian mechanics not scientific?

Are you asserting that laws are less scientific, and therefore, less valid than theories?

If not, WTH are you trying to say?

 

[qazplm]

sigh

I said exactly what I meant to say, that you don't understand it is the point.

Laws are not theories. You conflate the two. They are both "scientific" but as I noted above, they are two different concepts that do different things, and your conflating of the two shows a fundamental misunderstanding of basic scientific principles.

 

[SDBoiler1]

Re: sigh


You're very good at talking down to (lecturing) people in your pompous, arrogant way. Your attempt "to blind me with science" falls flat when you react in your typical kneejerk, over-the-top, hypocritical way.

Not once did I say that laws and theories were the same thing. The only place I conflated the two is in your warped mind. I pointed to two scientific examples that happened to be laws and you jumped all over me. Laws are not "scientific", they are scientific. Laws have overwhelming evidence behind them and have often been repeated (and affirmed) by different people in different places.

Excuse me for using a term such as "prove" in one post. Excuse me for not having the same level of fervor as you do with regard to some controversial theories. Time will tell who is right and wrong. Hypotheses will be tested and the data will show who is likely right and who is likely wrong.

 

[qazplm]

also apparently

in ecouch's warped mind, so the warp must be spreading.

He's talking about theories CLEARLY, you respond with laws. So either, a complete non sequitur BS response, or a fundamental misunderstanding of laws v theories...which one you wanna go with?

 

[SDBoiler1]

Re: also apparently

Neither.

 

[ecouch]

With the folks around here, it is intentional. That is why we see the same talking posts, some debunked decades ago, still making their rounds. It is this strange attitude of I have a very strong opinion on topic X, but I haven't actually done any reading or research. SD said as much in this very thread. I'll bet you lunch we see East Anglia talking come from the same crowd again in the future. That Big23 fellow has made a habit of it. So yeah, those folks will not be reached as they don't value evidence. If someone doesn't value evidence, what evidence are you going to provide to prove that they should value it? - borrowed from Sam Harris.

I can't put a percent on the unreachable. Present the evidence, walk through the nuances, hope they learn something. Form there I see 3 outcomes. Acceptance, rejection with indifference, and rejection with "noise". The second can be ignored to an extent. Voting is the only issue there. The last category needs to be defeated as their goal is to undermine evidence. Climate deniers like Watts, creationists like Ham, those folks are dangerous to humanity and need to be publicly defeated. I simply get tired of the constant whack-a-mole nature of their attacks. They don't produce any science of their own rather they look for the tiniest cracks in damn and declare the damn should be torn down. It is a sad existence.

Nye v. Ham - Creation debates are boring. They aren't even debates. Centuries of evidence vs. mythology. Some argue that scientists (by the way, Nye isn't a scientist) shouldn't debate creationists because it lends credence to their position. I don't mind. I can see where actual biologists would rather not waste the time. Watch some of the old Hovind debates where he goes up against actual biologists. So many facepalms I can see why they avoid creationists. Simple biological processes have be addressed over and over. I prefer the debates between apologists and non-believers quite a bit more. A lot more to chew on. Nothing tops a well timed Hitchslap. I did tune in for the live stream of this debate. Ken Ham cracks me up. And, he did deliver the laughs.

So, half of America thinks an 800 year old man defied modern engineering and built a massive boat which held all of the world's animals. What do we do about that?

This post was edited on 2/25 8:43 PM by ecouch

 

[ecouch]

You are not a climate expert, you don't claim be a climate expert, and you aren't that interested in climate science. Yet, you hold very strong opinions in opposition to climate science while claiming it isn't an ideological game. You then go on to compare science with religion and use some scare quotes around "beliefs" Okay.

Propose an alternate hypothesis, test it, post results. Oh wait, that has been going on for close to a century.

Will you answer the questions posed by myself and Bub?

Tell us why multiple independent investigations by
universities, governmental panels, and NGOs are wrong about Jones and
why you are right.


1) List claims in climate science that are "marginally more than faith itself".

2) Explain how climate science is a form of religion.

3) Explain a competing theory for why global warming and the resulting climate change is occurring.

 

[SDBoiler1]

ecouch,

You are very good at leaping to conclusions, even though you are supposedly a person who values rational thought and facts and data.

I never said I haven't done any reading or research. I DID say I wasn't a climate scientist and I've never claimed to be. I also said I don't care to be a climate scientist, but that does not automatically mean I've never read or research any of the literature. You've leapt to a mistaken conclusion. You are mistaken.

Believe what you want, but you're dead wrong.

 

[ecouch]

Okay, I'll take my question off the table. Of course if you had done any research or reading, you would have known the outcome at East Anglia. Moving on...


1) List claims in climate science that are "marginally more than faith itself".

2) Explain how climate science is a form of religion.

3) Explain a competing theory for why global warming and the resulting climate change is occurring.
Will answer those questions? You made the assertion, can you back it up? Tell us about all of your research.

This post was edited on 2/25 4:11 PM by ecouch