Posts Tagged ‘Willie Soon’

A reply to Born: How to represent temperature feedbacks in a simple model

Monday, April 13th, 2015

Soure:  WUWT

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, David Legates, Willie Soon and Matt Briggs

Mr. Born has had another go at our paper Why models run hot, published in January 2015 (PDF here) in the Science Bulletin of the Chinese Academy of Sciences. Go to, click on “most read articles”. and ours is the all-time no. 1 by a factor of ten. It’s a good read.

Let us begin by putting Mr. Born’s criticism into context. In essence, he is saying he would have liked our simple model to be more complex. Well, he is of course free to write his own model and get it into the reviewed literature. But our simple model, when calibrated against IPCC predictions, reproduced them faithfully when we adopted its parameter values, so, given that we made it quite explicit in the paper that we were adopting a rough-and-ready approach, we saw no reason to introduce pointless complications that would, without much increase in accuracy, have reduced the utility of our model, which is that it is accessible to anyone with a pocket calculator.

Keep it simple, stupid.

Full article here:

Calling all supporters of Dr. Willie Soon

Monday, April 13th, 2015

Source: WUWT

By Christopher Monckton of Brenchley, David Legates and Matt Briggs

The three of us are Willie Soon’s friends and colleagues. With him we co-authored the paper Why models run hot (, January 2015). We are asking all friends and supporters of Willie to come to his aid by agreeing to sign the following letter to the Regents of the Smithsonian, which has employed him for 25 years.

The letter covers a report by us to the Regents giving the findings of our investigation into the allegations against Willie that the Smithsonian, echoing various political advocacy groups, had widely and improperly circulated. Our investigation concludes that the Smithsonian is gravely at fault on numerous grounds, and that Willie is blameless. (more…)

A Different Climate Model?

Tuesday, January 20th, 2015

Source: SEPP

A Different Climate Model? Statistician William Matt Briggs introduces us to a different, simple, climate model designed by Christopher Monckton, Willie Soon, David Legates and Briggs. According to the press release by Briggs, the model was explained in a paper accepted by Science Bulletin (formerly Chinese Science Bulletin), the Orient’s equivalent of Science or Nature. The press release states the simple model was designed to answer the question why the general circulation models used by the IPCC overestimate warming since 1990. Based on the information given, the new model tracks much better than the highly complex general circulation models favored by the IPCC and the organizations that follow it. The main difference between the simple model and the IPCC models is that in the new model, it is assumed that natural processes will reduce the impact of warming caused by increased carbon dioxide (negative feedback), while the IPCC models, in general, assume natural processes will enhance the impact of warming caused by increased carbon dioxide (positive feedback such as water vopor). (more…)

There is only one published peer-reviewed paper that claims to provide scientific forecasts of long-range global mean temperatures

Tuesday, October 15th, 2013

Source: SPPI  baby-and-computer

by Kesten C. Green, J. Scott Armstrong, and Willie Soon

The human race has prospered by relying on forecasts that the seasons will follow their usual course, while knowing they will sometimes be better or worse. Are things different now?

For the fifth time now, the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change claims they are. The difference, the IPCC asserts, is increased human emissions of carbon dioxide: a colorless, odorless, non-toxic gas that is a byproduct of growing prosperity. It is also a product of all animal respiration and is also essential for most life on Earth, yet in total it makes up only 0.0004 of the atmosphere.

The IPCC assumes that the relatively small human contribution of this gas to the atmosphere will cause global warming, and insist that the warming will be dangerous. (more…)

Learning and Teaching Climate Science: The Perils of Consensus Knowledge Using Agnotology

Friday, April 5th, 2013

Source: Science and Education

Dr. Willie Soon

Dr. Willie Soon

by David Legates, Willie Soon and William Briggs


Agnotology has been defined in a variety of ways including “the study of ignorance and its cultural production” and “the study of how and why ignorance or misunderstanding exists.” More recently, however, it has been posited that agnotology should be used in the teaching of climate change science. But rather than use agnotology to enhance an understanding of the complicated nature of the complex Earth’s climate, the particular aim is to dispel alternative viewpoints to the so-called consensus science. (more…)

Tattoo this: “It’s the Sun, stupid!”

Monday, September 10th, 2012

Source: SPPI

by Willie Soon and William M. Briggs

New Berkeley BEST project temperature records confirm: changes in solar radiation influence climate

Willie Soon and William M. Briggs

Scientists have been studying solar influences on the climate for over 5000 years.

Chinese imperial astronomers kept detailed sunspot records. They noticed that more sunspots meant warmer weather. In 1801, the celebrated astronomer William Herschel (discoverer of the planet Uranus) observed that, when there were fewer spots, the price of wheat soared. He surmised that less “light and heat” from the sun resulted in reduced harvests.

Earlier last month Professor Richard Muller of the University of California, Berkeley’s BEST project announced that, based on their newly constructed global land temperature record, “no component that matches solar activity” was related to temperature. Instead, Professor Muller said, carbon dioxide controlled temperature.

Could it really be true that solar radiation, which supplies Earth with the energy that drives our weather and climate – and which, when it varied, caused the climate to shift over the ages – is no longer the principal influence on climate change? (more…)


Friday, June 15th, 2012

Source:  SPPI

There is a new paper posted at the SPPI main web site on the continuing mercury scare.

Dr. Willie Soon has been researching and writing on the science of mercury for nearly a decade.  This short paper discusses the fabricated justifications used by Florida to demand new restrictions on coal use.

Debate is raging in Florida over proposed regulations to slash mercury (and other emissions) from coal-fired power plants, based on claims that doing so will safeguard environmental quality and human health. Much of the information being used to support the proposal comes from the US Environmental Protection Agency and is being used by EPA and in other states to justify similar rules.

There is just one big problem. As this paper by Dr. Willie Soon explains, the information is based on highly selective use of data and reports, misleading computer models, and health and environmental assertions that simply are not supported by scientific or medical facts. With more public hearings being scheduled over the coming months in Florida and other states, his paper would provide a real service to citizens, regulators, and members of Congress and state legislatures.

(As noted in the paper, an article very similar to this paper was submitted to 43 papers in Florida – and rejected by all of them. It is a sad commentary, indeed. However, the Washington Times did publish a slightly shorter version of this analysis.

Other detailed papers on the real science of Mercury can be found here:


David Suzuki insults, but won’t debate

Sunday, August 14th, 2011

Source: Financial Post

David Suzuki -- anti-science alarmist

By David R. Legates

As the climate scare fizzles, Canada’s celebrity environmentalist resorts to ad hominem attacks

[To see who is really being paid off:  and  ]

David Suzuki has never met, debated or even spoken with my colleague, scientist Willie Soon. But as more people dismiss Mr. Suzuki’s scare stories about global warming cataclysms, the more he has resorted to personal attacks against Mr. Soon and others who disagree with him.

Mr. Soon’s brilliant research into the sun’s role in climate change has helped make millions aware that carbon dioxide’s influence is far less than Mr. Suzuki wants them to think. In a recent column picked up by media outlets around North America, including Huffington Post, Mr. Suzuki attacked Mr. Soon, my fellow scientist, mostly by recycling a Greenpeace “investigation” that is itself nothing more than a rehash of tiresome (and libelous) misstatements, red herrings and outright lies. It’s time to set the record straight. (more…)

The Log in the Eye of Greenpeace

Wednesday, June 29th, 2011

Source: SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

Matthew 7:5 Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother’s eye.

As Greenpeace publishes yet another attack on a reputable scientist, (Dr Willie Soon), who happens to disagree with the IPCC, they again ignore the massive funding going into the “green” movement, from corporations including “big oil”, foundations and governments.

Their constant attacks on the integrity of  genuine scientists are classic diversionary tactics to avoid close examination of the millions of dollars going into the Global Warming project. A commentary by David and Amy Ridenour in the Washington Times of June 14th last year, showed the major extent of funding to environmental groups by BP, who were being attacked by those same groups over the oil spill in the Gulf.

BP was also a founding member of the U.S. Climate Action Partnership, (not the same as the Climate Action Network) contributing substantial funding to the climate-change-related lobbying efforts of the environmental groups within it, which include the Environmental Defense Fund, Natural Resources Defense Council, the Nature Conservancy and the World Resources Institute. (more…)

The Myth of Killer Mercury

Wednesday, May 25th, 2011

Source: WSJ

[SPPI Note:  Numerous SPPI papers expose the EPA’s false mercury claims in considerable detail:

A concise Mercury Fact Sheet can be downloaded here: ]



Panicking people about fish is no way to protect public health.

The Environmental Protection Agency recently issued 946 pages of new rules requiring that U.S. power plants sharply reduce their (already low) emissions of mercury and other air pollutants. EPA Administrator Lisa Jackson claims that while the regulations will cost electricity producers $10.9 billion annually, they will save 17,000 lives and generate up to $140 billion in health benefits.

There is no factual basis for these assertions. To build its case against mercury, the EPA systematically ignored evidence and clinical studies that contradict its regulatory agenda, which is to punish hydrocarbon use. (more…)

Forecasting Expert Calls for End to Government-Funded Research on Global Warming

Friday, April 1st, 2011

Source:  Heartland

In testimony yesterday before the Subcommittee on Energy and Environment Committee on Science, Space and Technology, forecasting expert J. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania called on Congress to cease funding global warming research, programs, and advocacy organizations.

Referring to an analysis he conducted with Kesten C. Green of the University of South Australia and Willie Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Armstrong told the subcommittee, “We approach the issue of alarm over dangerous manmade global warming as a problem of forecasting temperatures over the long term. The global warming alarm is not based on what has happened, but on what will happen. In other words, it is a forecasting problem. And it is a very complex problem.”

The three researchers audited the forecasting procedures used by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC), whose “procedures violated 81% of the 89 relevant forecasting principles,” Armstrong noted. (more…)

What really threatens our future?

Thursday, March 31st, 2011

Source:  SPPI

by Willie Soon and Barun Mitra

Beware of anti-energy policies claiming to prevent climate change

Energy sustainability is not about resource availability and pollution. Capitalism and human ingenuity have already addressed “sustainability” in these regards, if the statistics are to be believed.

The real sustainability challenge and threat concerns government intervention in the name of “sustainability,” because it is political and bureaucratic intervention that reduces the availability, reliability and affordability of energy. The real sustainability challenge is also about overcoming the forces of nature, via with ever stronger energy infrastructure around the world. That is a job for capitalism, not central planning.

Consider these worldwide examples…. (more…)

EPA tries to take control of energy in Texas

Monday, January 3rd, 2011

Source:  SPPI

by Dennis Ambler

I thought this was a timely article by Tim Ball and there is also the one he references by Willie Soon and Paul Driessen: “Driessen and Soon‘s article in New Year’s day CanadaFreePress about Texas and the EPA.

Ghost Of Kyoto: Government Control By Any Means by Dr Tim Ball  Canada Free Press

“Driessen and Soon‘s article in New Year’s day CanadaFreePress (CFP) identifies the growing conflict as the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) tries to take control of energy in Texas.

EPA is manipulating a completely unnecessary and scientifically unjustified control of energy and must be stopped. Fortunately, the , but EPA history is to do anything to achieve their goal.

There can’t be enough articles about what EPA is doing because it is a serious threat to freedom and CFP is about freedom. (more…)

Harvard astrophysicist dismisses AGW theory, challenges peers to ‘take back climate science’

Wednesday, May 12th, 2010

Source: Seminole County Environmental News Examiner

by Kirk Myers

If the sun persists in its sleepy state, Earth could be headed  for another Grand Minimum.
If the sun persists in its sleepy state, Earth could be headed for another Grand Minimum.
Miloslav Druckmiller/SWNS

In the following interview, Dr. Willie Soon, a solar and climate scientist at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, questions the prevailing dogma of man-made global warming and challenges his peers to “take back climate science.” His remarks are his personal opinion based upon 19 years of scientific research. What drives climate change on Earth?

Dr. Soon: Most of the weather and climate variations we observed are essentially related to the sun and the changing seasons – not by CO2 radiative forcing and feedback. The climate system is constantly readjusting naturally in a large way – more than we would ever see from CO2. The CO2 kick [impact of CO2 emissions] is extremely small compared to what is happening in a natural way. Within the framework of a proper study of the sun-climate connection, you don’t need CO2 to explain anything. (more…)

(Desperately) Looking for Arctic warming

Monday, May 3rd, 2010

by Paul Driessen and Dr. Willie Soon

Global warming alarmists have chosen the wrong part of the climate cycle to head north

First, American Ann Bancroft and Norwegian Liv Arnesen trekked off across the Arctic in the dead of the 2007 winter, “to raise awareness about global warming,” by showcasing the wide expanses of open water they were certain they would encounter. Instead, icy blasts drove temperatures inside their tent to -58 F, while outside the nighttime air plunged to -103 F.

Open water is rare at those temperatures, the intrepid explorers discovered. Facing frostbite, amputated toes and even death, the two were airlifted out 18 miles into their 530-mile expedition.

Next winter it was British swimmer and ecologist Lewis Gordon Pugh, who planned to breast-stroke across open Arctic seas. Same story. Then fellow Brit Pen Hadow gave it a go, but it was another no-go. (more…)