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.
Examiner.com: 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.
Examiner.com: What is your opinion of the anthropogenic (man-caused) global warming theory?
Dr. Soon: It’s never been about the science – even from the very beginning. It’s based on confusion and a mixture of ideology. We should deal only in the facts that we do know.
Examiner.com: Many of the scientists promoting the global warming theory appear to be driven by politics rather than hard scientific data. What are your thoughts?
Dr. Soon: I am a scientist. I go where the facts take me. And the facts are fairly clear. It doesn’t take very long to discover that their views [of man-caused global warming] aren’t grounded in the facts. Why would any solid science need so much promotion and advertisement and the endless shouting about how the science has all been “settled”? And now we’re supposed to believe that the growing consensus on the street that humans are not responsible for global warming is due mainly to the confusion created by climate “deniers.”
Examiner.com: Many scientists like you (often referred to as “skeptics”) are ridiculed and isolated for challenging the dogma of man-made global warming. Many of your peers have been very successful in their efforts to marginalize anyone who deviates from the approved script? What is happening?
Dr. Soon: The pro-AGW supporters have become more and more confrontational in their attacks on scientists who challenge their views. For instance, Stephen Schneider [a professor of environmental studies at Stanford University], says that skeptics sell garbage and that we are playing games with science. He compares it to selling drugs and believes that we are criminals who should go to jail. Guess what? You don’t pull that sort of thing on people who know something about science.
Examiner.com: What needs to be done to combat the strong-arm tactics being used against scientists who disagree with the AGW theory?
Dr. Soon: Science needs to stand up. The AGW movement is killing science. It’s very unhealthy in many ways. They are corrupting science for material gain. It’s time for us to take back climate science.
Examiner.com: Many AGW scientists state with confidence that there is a very high probability that the earth is warming. Therefore, something must be done now to cut CO2 emissions. How accurate are their statistics?
Dr. Soon: Their probabilities are absolute crap. They are pulling these statistics out of thin air. It is completely anti-science. They talk about 90 percent probability. It sounds high, but would anyone fly in an airplane if it would crash once out of every 10 flights?
Examiner.com: The temperature data over the past eight years or so seem to indicate that we have entered a period of global cooling. Are we experiencing a cooling trend?
Dr. Soon: If you look at the data empirically, there is a cooling tendency. We’re already seeing signs. The possibility of a colder climate ahead is a very real thing.
Examiner.com: What is your opinion of Al Gore?
Dr. Soon: He’s somebody who needs to just shut-up and stop spreading nonsense. He has neither credibility on science nor moral standing.
Examiner.com: In its latest Assessment Report, the IPCC talks about a “water vapor feedback” that magnifies the warming of CO2 emissions. Does such a feedback exist?
Dr. Soon: There is some CO2-water vapor feedback. But it’s not operating on a global scale. The modellers cannot accurately separate water vapour from the effects of clouds and rainfall. In other words, they lack the detailed understanding of clouds required to construct atmospheric models. But they keep tuning their models and claiming they can accurately simulate the effects of water vapour, but how can you do this when you can’t model clouds or rainfall properly. Changes in clouds and rainfall can overwhelm what little effect CO2-water vapour has on temperature. CO2 can never be the climate driver they say it will be over the next 20 to 50 years.
Examiner.com: Which plays a stronger role in its impact on climate – atmospheric CO2 or changes in albedo?
Dr. Soon: If you change planetary albedo by as little as one or two percent, it has the same effect as doubling atmospheric CO2. The warming we’ve experienced in the late 20th century could just as easily be explained by small decreases in cloud cover – natural changes in the system –and have nothing to do with CO2.
Examiner.com: You have developed a theory showing a close correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the arctic and surrounding regions – and, perhaps, even globally. Would you like to explain it?
Dr. Soon: In 2005, I discovered a surprisingly strong correlation between solar radiation and temperatures in the Arctic over the past 130 years. Since then, I have demonstrated similar correlations in all the regions surrounding the Arctic, including the U.S. mainland and China.
The close relationships between the abrupt ups and downs of solar activity and of temperature that I have identified occur locally in coastal Greenland; regionally in the Arctic Pacific and north Atlantic; and, hemispherically, for the whole circum-Arctic, suggesting that changes in solar activity drive Arctic and perhaps even global climate.
There is no such match between the steady rise in atmospheric CO2 concentration and the often dramatic ups and downs of surface temperatures in and around the Arctic.
I recently discovered direct evidence that changes in solar activity have influenced what has been called the “conveyor-belt” circulation of the great Atlantic Ocean currents over the past 240 years. For instance, solar-driven changes in temperature, and in the volume of freshwater output from the Arctic, can cause variations in sea surface temperature in the tropical Atlantic five to 20 years later.
The hallmark of good science is the testing of a plausible hypothesis that is then either supported or rejected by the evidence. The evidence in my paper is consistent with the hypothesis that the sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2 is a major cause of observed climate change – and raises serious questions about the wisdom of imposing cap-and-trade or other policies that would cripple energy production and economic activity, all in the name of “preventing catastrophic climate change.”
Thanks, Dr. Soon, for taking the time to speak to Examiner.com.
Comments
Excellent, revealing and informative.
But, but Dr. Soon is just a Harvard scientist and Al Gore is . . . is . . . didn't he invent the Internet or something like that?
Simply fabulous!
It is incumbent upon all of us to push back the frontiers of PC-driven ignorance on this issue.
If you don't have the stones to get into people's faces in this issue (and many others), you cede the high ground to the opposition.
Take note that this opposition could care less about the actual environment. They want your freedom.
Thank you, Dr. Soon, thank you for taking back climate science from those ClimateGate scientists.
Thanks for a great interview. Of course the AGW true believers believe they have already discredited Dr. Soon. So this will have no affect on them.
I don't understand how climategate scientists can be so anti-science and how afraid they are of the truth, of reality. How long are they continuing to hide behind their computer models? It must be difficult for them to continue spewing lies after lies. How many more years are they planning to the global warming scam? The global warming scam is dead; it is exposed; everyone knows it's a scam based on voodoo science. Who are they kidding? When are they going to wake up to reality? How long are they going to live in computer model fantasy? When are we the people going to push back? When, people?
Dr. Soon, please, be more vocal. We need your voice more than ever now. Thank you, Dr. Soon for recognizing and standing on the side of truth. I know you sleep well every night.
Al Gore was misquoted, he invented the intertubes not the internet.
Dr. Soon has been totally debunked!!!!
I read it on realclimate!!! Which is real climate science from real climate scientists.
Thomas, I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you were being flippant, otherwise you've been drinking the cool aid too long.
Soon has no credibility in the science community - none whatsoever. His papers and co-authored papers have been soundly rebuked. Why is the examiner giving this charlatan an outlet?
Al Gore is on of the most well known 'Nothings' of our time - maybe even more well known than Paris Hilton !
Real Climate= ClimateGate Scientists
It's time for real climate scientists like the wonderful Dr. Soon to stand up and shout from roof tops and reclaim the climate science that was lost to climategate scientists. And we the people must support those with the courage to tell the truth. We've been lied to long enough, all in the name of cap and tax. Don't starve the plants, they die, we all die; it's simple as that. AGW was a joke, we had our laughs, now it's time to tell the jokers to get off stage and let real scientists shine like the sun that warms the planet.
Way to go Willie... Momma loves you.
Real climate science... icecap.us
Way to debunk the AGW scumbags, Willie. Momma loves you.
icecap. us & wattsupwiththat. com Real climate science for real climate scientists.
Why does the Examiner continue to publish reports from climate change skeptics who operate on the fringes of science ? Was it not embarrasing enough to see your previous posts (on Lindzen and Miscolski) debunked on-site ? Why not interview people that actually contributed to the consensus view on climate change as supported by 98% of climate scientists and all major scientific institutions on this planet ?
he is only one scientist
bravo!! thanks for daring to speak out.
"Why not interview people that actually contributed to the consensus view on climate change as supported by 98% of climate scientists and all major scientific institutions on this planet?"
But not one of those scientists can provide empirical evidence for man-induced CO2 as the driver of climate change because it can't and it won't!
It's time we the people rise up against all the climategate scientists who practiced voodoo science and support real scientists like Dr. Soon, Lindzen, Christy, Spencer, etc. to do real science based on observed data and not rely data provided Xboxes used by climategate scientists.
The global warming scam is dead, let's bury it.
Isn't it interesting that those who disagree with Willie Soon do so with vituperative, "ad hominem" attacks rather than citing any facts or data in the matter? What should have been an open scientific debate on the issue has degenerated into a partisan, political harangue. And for that, Gore, Hansen, and their camp followers are to blame. They call me a "denier" as though I am akin to a holocaust denier, which I find particularly defamatory since I lost many relatives in the Holocaust.
"...he is only one scientist"
It only takes one scientist debunk the global warming scam and the incredible Dr. Soon had done just that.
Thank you Dr. Soon.
You are a hero to all people while climategate scientists continue to defend the voodoo science that produced bogus data. The sooner these scientists admit their data is wrong, the sooner they can return to do real science and be contributing members of society. If they continue to push their propaganda, their talents will be wasted and that will be a travesty.
You can "hide the decline" but you can not hide the Medieval Warm Period.
Dr. Soon has been totally debunked!!!!
"I read it on realclimate!!! Which is real climate science from real climate scientists. "
I agree real science brought to you by none other than George Soros who funds Real Climate. Soros who is dedicated to destroying capitalism by his own admission.
Oh and CRU funded by the oil companies and Greenpeace funded with Standard Oil money (Rockefeller Foundation)
So I take it you really want to be a oilman/banker's serf.
The correlation between the sun and the climate on Earth can be validated by the observation that the sun is also having similar effects on the climate of other planets in our solar system. The idea that mankind could contribute to these effects on other planets would be ludicrous. But one should never underestimate the chutzpa of those in power.
What exactly do the 98% of scientists who agree that man has influenced climate change have to gain by lying? Calling it a conspiracy or a hoax implies that the perpetrators have something to gain....what do these scientists have to gain by suggesting humans (and industry) must be more environmentally conscious?
Now look across the table at Big Oil and other industries, such as natural gas, that provide the lions share of funding to scientists such as Dr. Soon and others who claim it's all bs.
Now...who stands to profit from deception? A loosely affiliated consensus of educated scientific professionals spread across the globe, or a long-standing industry whose profits would be impacted by the steps necessary to reduce man's impact on his environment?
serpico009, you say:
--What exactly do the 98% of scientists who agree that man has influenced climate change have to gain by lying? Calling it a conspiracy or a hoax implies that the perpetrators have something to gain ....--
Since you are the only one on this thread claiming that the scientists are being accused of "lying", of being part of a "conspiracy", or of a "hoax", just who are you talking to? Neither Dr. Soon nor anyone here made those accusations, they're just in your fantasies.
Scientists are not lying, and are not part of a conspiracy or a hoax. They are just wrong ... which happens all the time in science, better get used to it. Science progresses by showing that the previous "consensus" was incorrect. No conspiracy or lying required ... just simple error and the human herd instinct. See "Rumor, Fear, and the Madness of Crowds" for how it works.
On 6 May 10 The House of Representatives invited Lord Monckton to answer some specific questions at a hearing of one of its-subcommittees. I invite you to consider the facts that he provided along with his comments thereon.
It's no surprise to see many of the Canadian "Friends of Science" (Oops, that is "Frieds of Canadian Tar Sands") fossil fuel funded sock-puppets post here. After all, they have a real important agenda to persue. But it IS a surpise that the Examiner seems to post only work from people who are so heavily biased against honest science that they resort to any non-scientific blog that is willing to post their extreme opinions.
Climategate: DER SPIEGEL has just published an immpressive investigation:
Look for: "How the Science of Global Warming was Compromised"
As a signer of the Oregon Petition (one of over 31,000 US scientists), I heartily agree with Dr. Soon.
You cannot "debunk" reality. Those who recognize the AGW theory as bogus and ungrounded in science have used reality to debunk this failed theory.
Those supporting the failed theory use slander, lies, and innuendo to try to destroy the messenger.
The wild predictions of the "father of global warming", James Hansen have failed to come true. Yet "true believers" won't let go.
BTW, where does this "98% of scientists" nonsense come from? Fantasy. The same place AGW is born.
Elementary comprehension of science will inform that the greenhouse warming theory is grossly overstated and that "greenhouse" warming is a very small participant in any climate change. Historical geologic evidence confirms this.
AGW theory REQUIRES a strong greenhouse warming signal in the tropical mid-troposphere (8-12 km). Yet there is absolutely no warming whatsoever! End of story.
The issue must go all the way back to whichever individual or small group of individuals who started the whole 'Global Warming' thing; what was their motives and evidence - and how has their theories be proven? It seems that the supporters of 'Global Warming' are more emotional than logical.
Thanks for giving Dr. Soon a voice.
And, by golly- thank you Dr. Soon for NOT mincing words!
The world won't care about your self-esteem. The world will expect you to accomplish something before you feel good about yourself.
http://www.sinosells.com/?u=1221
I was starting to give Dr Soon some credibility, until his response about probability. The mainstream (but not universal) scientific view is that there is a 90% chance that at least 50% of recent warming is human caused. (not all) That would logically mean a 10% chance that less than 50% of it is human caused. (not necessarily none). In the latter case, actions taken to reduce CO2 (so called mitigation) might be less effective, or ineffective. All this is true. To compare that to "flying a plane with 1 chance in 10 of crashing" is incredibly inverted logic, and reveals that Dr Soon is probably heavily ideological, or at least polemic, in his interpretations of data. A more apt analogy would be "why put safety regulations on a plane which has one chance in ten of not needing them after all, such that they would be wasted money?". Of course, he disputes that 90% / 50% assertion, which is a different matter and to be frank, beyond the scientific abilities of most readers to reasonably assess without reading his published papers and the published responses in detail. We can however note what may be called "proxies" of objectivity vs "political passion", and on that score Dr Soon unfortunately does not win much respect in this article.
His scientific work should be taken on it's own merits by those capable of evaluating his methods and analysis (do a web search to find out how his peers have so evaluated him); all we can decide here is whether to trust his summary.
Why are the people who have left comments on this site who refute Dr. Soon's claims not wanting the Examiner to publish his claims?
Why are all those who disagree with the Theory of Global warming been silenced?
I wouldn’t care success or failure, for I will only struggle ahead as long as I have been destined to the distance. I wouldn’t care the difficulties around, for what I can leave on the earth is only their view of my back since I have been marching toward the horizontal.
http://www.martsea.com
http://www.p90wholesale.com
http://www.aphroditevogue.com
Sorry, I disagree in the view shown in the article - We need more reformas
Got something to say?
Examiner.com is looking for writers, photographers, and videographers to join the fastest growing group of local insiders. If you are interested in growing your online rep apply to be an Examiner today!