Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics
Article in Press, Accepted Manuscript - Note to users
Article in Press, Accepted Manuscript - Note to users
 doi:10.1016/j.jastp.2011.07.007 | How to Cite or Link Using DOI |
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query willie. Sort by date Show all posts
Showing posts sorted by relevance for query willie. Sort by date Show all posts
Monday, August 8, 2011
New Willie Soon paper finds significant solar influence on climate
Harvard astrophysicist and climate scientist professor Willie Soon and colleagues have a new paper in press which examines surface temperatures in China and finds significant warming in the low-CO2 1920's and 1940's, and a significant Sun-climate link for the instrumental record from 1880-2002. The IPCC dismisses the role of the Sun on climate by only considering small changes in total solar irradiance, ignoring large changes in solar UV (which is capable of penetrating the ocean surface to cause heating unlike IR from 'greenhouse gases'), and ignoring secondary effects (e.g. the cosmic ray theory of Svensmark et al).
Saturday, March 13, 2010
Recommended Climate Videos at Climateclips.com
Other recommended videos at Climateclips.com:
Warming Not Unusual The 20th century warming is not unusual, Says Dr. Sallie Baliunas and Dr. Willie Soon from the harva...
The Greenhouse and CO2 The greenhouse and CO2 is not straight on a simple matter. "It´s more complicated than the IPCC proc...
David Legates David R. Legates is an Associate Professor and Director of the Center for Climatic Research at...
John R Christy John Christy, Professor of Atmospheric Science and Director of the Earth. System Science Center at ...
Look At The Right Place"If you want to know how the climate system on Earth works, you should look at the bulk of the atmos...
H2O The Dominant Greenhouse Gas The role of Water vapor and clouds in the atmosphere are by far greater than that of CO2....
Henrik Svensmark Professor Henrik Svensmark is the head of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research, at DTU Space, Technic...
Jørgen Peder Steffensen Jørgen Peder Steffensen is associate professor and curator at the centre for Ice and Climate at Nie...
Willie Soon Willie Wei-Hock Soon (born 1966) is an astrophysicist at the Solar and Stellar Physics Division of...
Jørgen Peder Steffensen Jørgen Peder Steffensen is associate professor and curator at the centre for Ice and Climate at Nie..
Look At The Right Place "If you want to know how the climate system on Earth works, you should look at the bulk of the atmos.
Nils-Axel Moerner’s trip to the Maldives
We are living in cold times "We started to observe temperatures at the coldest spot in the last 10,000 years"- the Little Ice Age
Friday, May 27, 2016
Dr. Willie Soon takes on Bill Nye, the Scientism Guy
Bill Nye the Scientism Guy
Facts don’t support his hypothesis, so he shouts louder, changes subjects and attacks his critics
By Willie Soon and István Markó
True science requires that data, observations and other evidence support a hypothesis – and that it can withstand withering analysis and criticism – or the hypothesis is wrong.
That’s why Albert Einstein once joked, “If the facts don’t fit your theory, change the facts.” When informed that scientists who rejected his theory of relativity had published a pamphlet, 100 authors against Einstein, he replied: “Why 100? If I were wrong, one would be enough.”
In the realm of climate scientism, the rule seems to be: If the facts don’t support your argument, talk louder, twist the facts, and insult your opponents. That’s certainly what self-styled global warming “experts” like Al Gore and Bill Nye are doing. Rather than debating scientists who don’t accept false claims that humans are causing dangerous climate change, they just proclaim more loudly:
Our theory explains everything that’s happening. Hotter or colder temperatures, wetter or drier weather, less ice in the Arctic, more ice in Antarctica – it’s all due to fossil fuel use.
Climate scientism aggressively misrepresents facts, refuses to discuss energy and climate issues with anyone who points out massive flaws in the manmade climate chaos hypothesis, bullies anyone who won’t condemn carbon dioxide, and brands them as equivalent to Holocaust Deniers.
In a recent Huffington Post article, Mr. Nye “challenges climate change deniers” by claiming, “The science of global warming is long settled, and one may wonder why the United States, nominally the most technologically advanced country in the world, is not the world leader in addressing the threats.”
Perhaps it’s not so settled. When the Australian government recently shifted funds from studying climate change to addressing threats that might result, 275 research jobs were imperiled. The very scientists who’d been saying there was a 97% consensus howled that there really wasn’t one. Climate change is very complex, they cried (which is true), and much more work must be done if we are to provide more accurate temperature predictions, instead of wild forecasts based on CO2 emissions (also true).
Perhaps Mr. Nye and these Australian researchers should discuss what factors other than carbon dioxide actually cause climate and weather fluctuations. They may also encounter other revelations: that climate science is still young and anything but settled; that we have little understanding of what caused major ice ages, little ice ages, warm periods in between and numerous other events throughout the ages; that computer model predictions thus far have been little better than tarot card divinations.
As for Nye’s assertions that “carbon dioxide has an enormous effect on planetary temperatures” and “climate change was discovered in recent times by comparing the Earth to the planet Venus” – those are truly bizarre, misleading, vacuous claims.
The relatively rapid increase in atmospheric CO2 over the last 30 years has produced only 0.2°C (0.4°F) of global warming – compared to a 1°C (1.8°F) total temperature increase over the past 150 years. That means the planetary temperature increase has slowed down, as carbon dioxide levels rose. In fact, average temperatures have barely budged for nearly 19 years, an inconvenient reality that even the IPCC (Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change) now recognizes.
This is an “enormous effect”? By now, it is increasingly clear, the proper scientific conclusion is that the “greenhouse effect” of rising atmospheric carbon dioxide is very minor – as a recent article explains. Mr. Nye and his fans and fellow activists could learn a lot from it.
Objective readers, and even Mr. Nye, would also profit from reading a rather devastating critique of one of The Scientism Guy’s “science-is-easy” demonstrations. It concludes that the greenhouse effect of CO2 molecules is of course real, but Mr. Nye’s clever experiment for Al Gore’s “Climate Reality Project” was the result of “video fakery” and “could never work” as advertised. When will Messrs. Nye and Gore stop peddling their Hollywood special effects?
For that matter, when will they stop playing inter-planetary games? Mr. Nye and the popular media love to tell us that carbon dioxide from oil, gas and coal could soon turn Planet Earth into another Venus: over-heated, barren, rocky and lifeless. Princeton Institute of Advanced Study Professors Freeman Dyson and Will Happer show that this is utter nonsense.
For one thing, Venus is far closer to the sun, so it is subjected to far more solar heat, gravitational pull and surface pressure than Earth is. “If we put a sunshade shielding Venus from sunlight,” Dr. Dyson notes, “it would only take 500 years for its surface to cool down and its atmosphere to condense into a carbon dioxide ocean.” It’s not the high temperature that makes Venus permanently unfriendly to life, he adds; it’s the lack of water.
Second, the amounts of atmospheric carbon dioxide are grossly disproportionate. Earth has barely 0.04% carbon dioxide (by volume) in its atmosphere, whereas Venus has 97% and Mars has 95% CO2. Mars much greater distance from the sun also means it has an average surface temperature of -60°C (-80°F) –underscoring yet again how absurd it is to use planetary comparisons to stoke climate change fears.
Third, Earth’s atmosphere used to contain far more carbon dioxide. “For most of the past 550 million years of the Phanerozoic, when multicellular life left a good fossil record, the earth’s CO2 levels were four times, even ten times, higher than now,” Dr. Happer points out. “Yet life flourished on land and in the oceans. Earth never came close to the conditions of Venus.” And it never will.
Fourth, Venus’s much closer proximity to the sun means it receives about twice as much solar flux (radiant energy) as the Earth does: 2637 Watts per square meter versus 1367, Happer explains. The IPCC says doubling atmospheric CO2 concentrations would be equivalent to just 15 W/m2 of additional solar flux. That’s nearly 100 times less than what Venus gets from being closer to the Sun.
Fifth, surface pressure on Venus is about 90 times that of the Earth, and strong convection forces increase the heating of surface air, he continues, making Venus’s surface even hotter. However, dense sulfuric acid clouds prevent most solar heat from ever reaching the planet’s surface. Instead, they reflect most sunlight back into space, which is “one of the reasons Venus is such a lovely morning or evening ‘star.’”
Of course, none of these nerdy details about Earth-Venus differences really matter. We already know plant life on Planet Earth loved the higher CO2 levels that prevailed during the Carboniferous Age and other times when plants enjoyed extraordinary growth.
However, even burning all the economically available fossil fuels would not likely even double current atmospheric CO2 levels – to just 0.08% carbon dioxide, compared to 21% oxygen, 78% nitrogen, 0.9% argon and 0.1% for all other gases except water vapor. And doubling CO2 would get us away from the near-famine levels for plants that have prevailed for the past tens of millions of years.
Carbon dioxide is absolutely essential for plant growth – and for all life on Earth. Volumes of research clearly demonstrate that crop, garden, forest, grassland and ocean plants want more CO2, not less. The increased greening of our Earth over the past 30 years testifies to the desperate need of plants for this most fundamental fertilizer. The more CO2 they get, the better and faster they grow.
More than 70% of the oxygen present in the atmosphere – and without which we could never live – originates from phytoplankton absorbing carbon dioxide and releasing oxygen. Keep this in mind when Bill Nye The Junk Science Guy tells you carbon dioxide is bad for our oceans and climate.
Dr. Willie Soon is an independent scientist who has been studying the Sun and Earth’s climate for 26 years. Dr. István Markó is a professor of chemistry at the Université Catholique de Louvain in Belgium and director of the Organic and Medicinal Chemistry Laboratory.
Bill Nye, the mechanical engineer turned scientism celebrity guy who likes to pretend he’s a real scientist.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Dr. Soon's latest paper on natural climate variability published in Nature Geoscience
A paper published today in the journal Nature Geoscience studies changes in the intertropical convergence zone (ITCZ) over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age. The paper is co-authored by skeptics Willie Soon and Robert M. Carter, and is yet another example of the high quality, peer-reviewed work on natural climate variability and potential solar-climate relationships being published in highly respected journals by CAGW skeptics such as Dr. Soon.
Unable to attack on a scientific basis anything Dr. Soon has published in peer-reviewed journals, smear-mongerer Gavin Schmidt of NASA/GISS instead told the NYT, “The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” Schmidt thus claims it is "pointless" to study natural variability, solar-climate relationships, and hundreds of potential solar amplification mechanisms published in the peer-reviewed literature, effectively because Schmidt & his falsified climate models have already made their mind up that man-made CO2 is the climate control knob & the sun plays a "pointless" role in climate.
Note: Other papers have linked shifts in the ITCZ to solar activity and the bipolar seesaw theory of (natural) climate change.
UPDATE:
Related posts:
Yes, the sun (was) driving global warming
The Sun explains 95% of climate change over the past 400 years; CO2 had no significant influence
Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96
Analysis: Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2
Analysis shows accumulated solar energy explains 20th century global warming; no significant effect of CO2
The Time-Integral of Solar Activity explains Global Temperatures 1610-2012, not CO2
Natural Climate Change has been Hiding in Plain Sight
New paper confirms the Sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century
Global warming made simple: How natural variability explains 20th century global warming without man-made CO2
Sunspot Integral v. Temperature
The Sun can't possibly explain global warming
New paper finds recent Grand Maximum of solar activity was 'rare or even unique event' in 3,000 years
New paper finds up to 72% of temperature increase over past 150 years due to the Sun
Unable to attack on a scientific basis anything Dr. Soon has published in peer-reviewed journals, smear-mongerer Gavin Schmidt of NASA/GISS instead told the NYT, “The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.” Schmidt thus claims it is "pointless" to study natural variability, solar-climate relationships, and hundreds of potential solar amplification mechanisms published in the peer-reviewed literature, effectively because Schmidt & his falsified climate models have already made their mind up that man-made CO2 is the climate control knob & the sun plays a "pointless" role in climate.
Note: Other papers have linked shifts in the ITCZ to solar activity and the bipolar seesaw theory of (natural) climate change.
UPDATE:
Fingerprints of the Sun on Asia-Australia Summer Monsoon Rainfalls during the Little Ice Age
author： source: Time: 2015-03-10
A new paper has been published in Nature Geoscience entitled ‘Dynamics of the intertropical convergence zone over the western Pacific during the Little Ice Age ’ by Hong Yan of the Institute of Earth Environment, Chinese Academy of Sciences and an international team of co-authors from the Alfred Wegener Institute (Wei Wei), Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (Willie Soon), Institute of Earth Environment (Zhisheng An, Weijian Zhou and Yuhong Wang), University of Hong Kong (Zhonghui Liu) and Institute of Public Affairs (Robert M. Carter). The results of the research indicate that both the East Asia Summer Monsoon and the Northern Australia Summer Monsoon retreated synchronously during the recent cold Little Ice Age in response to external forcings such as solar irradiance variation and possibly large volcanic eruptions.
The Asia-Australia monsoon covers the world’s most populated areas, and therefore understanding the factors that control monsoon-belt climatic variation through time is important for response-planning for healthy social-economic development for the globe. Many previous studies have focused on the past climate changes in the Asia-Australia monsoon area, often proposing that the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone (ITCZ) or the associated rainbelt should have migrated southward during cold climate episodes, such as the Little Ice Age (AD 1400-1850). Such migrations should be associated with the occurrence of a weaker East Asian Summer Monsoon and a stronger Australian Summer Monsoon, with opposing rainfall variations between the two hemispheres.
However, hydrological records from the Asia-Australia summer monsoon area, analysed by Professor Hong Yan and his coauthors, show that southward migration of the ITCZ did not occur during the cold Little Ice Age. Instead, the hydrological data support the operation of a new dynamic mechanism named ‘ITCZ/Rainbelt contraction’ in the Western Pacific region during the Little Ice Age.
Prima facie, a southward migration of the ITCZ should result in less precipitation in the East Asia Summer Monsoon area but more rainfall in Australia Summer Monsoon area. In contrast, the Synthesis of a large set of palaeoclimatological records from across the monsoonal area establishes that the precipitation in both continental East Asia and northern Australia decreased synchronously during the Little Ice Age. The unusual spatial variation in paleoclimate records therefore documents a distinctly different rainfall pattern that violates the former expectation of ITCZ southward migration. Furthermore, comparison of these results with solar records indicates that a relationship exists between the rainfall changes and Total Solar Insolation.
To explain these changes, the scientists propose an alternative dynamic scenario which they have tested using process-based climate modeling. Rather than strict north-south migration, the multi-decadal to centennial change for the western Pacific Intertropical Convergence Zone can excitingly be shown to have contracted or expanded in parallel with solar irradiance variations. This new understanding clearly adds to the richness of mechanisms by which the Earth climate system can vary naturally and significantly over periods between a few decades and up to a century in length.
Pattern of rainfall within the East Asia Summer Monsoon (left) and Australia Summer Monsoon (right) area during the LIA. Locations of proxy-hydrology records in the Asia-Australia monsoon area are indicated. Locations that were dry, without apparent change and wet during the LIA are marked in red, purple and blue, respectively. The decreased rainfall in East Asia continent and northern Australia suggested the synchronous retreat of the East Asian Summer Monsoon and the Australian Summer Monsoon during the Little Ice Age (Image by Dr YAN Hong).
Related posts:
Yes, the sun (was) driving global warming
The Sun explains 95% of climate change over the past 400 years; CO2 had no significant influence
Climate Modeling: Ocean Oscillations + Solar Activity R²=.96
Analysis: Solar activity & ocean cycles are the 2 primary drivers of climate, not CO2
Analysis shows accumulated solar energy explains 20th century global warming; no significant effect of CO2
The Time-Integral of Solar Activity explains Global Temperatures 1610-2012, not CO2
Natural Climate Change has been Hiding in Plain Sight
New paper confirms the Sun was particularly active during the latter 20th century
Global warming made simple: How natural variability explains 20th century global warming without man-made CO2
Sunspot Integral v. Temperature
The Sun can't possibly explain global warming
New paper finds recent Grand Maximum of solar activity was 'rare or even unique event' in 3,000 years
New paper finds up to 72% of temperature increase over past 150 years due to the Sun
Monday, September 8, 2014
New paper finds link between solar activity and monsoon rainfall
A recent paper by authors Drs. KM Hiremath, Hegde Manjunath, and Dr. Willie Soon, published in New Astronomy, finds "a physical linkage between solar activity and the Indian summer monsoon rainfall" and derives an equation relating solar sunspot activity to the rate of precipitation, finding "numerical solution captures very well the variability of Indian summer monsoon rainfall." The Indian summer monsoon is a "major global climatic phenomenon" which interacts with other atmospheric oscillations to affect global climate, and the effect of natural variations on monsoon rainfall has been found to be 9 times more important than greenhouse gases.
Fig. 1. Result on the left panel compares the computed (red curve) annual rate of precipitation variability to the smoothed observed (blue curve) yearly homogeneous Indian summer monsoon rainfall (sum over all the four monsoonal rainy months of June-September) variability data (i.e., so-called ‘‘Parthasarathy’’ record obtained from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology; the website is maintained by Rupa Kumar and colleagues, see Hiremath and Mandi (2004) for details of the data set) for the 1871 to 2005 interval. The simulated precipitation presented on the right panel is the same as left panel but the observed (combined data of North West and Peninsular India) rainfall is taken from Sontakke et al., 2008 (also obtained from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology website). Error bar (¼ r=ðnÞ1=2, where r is standard deviation and n is number of 4 monthly points of the June-September rainfall) of the observed rainfall is computed from the summer monsoon rainfall data and those error bars are not shown on the figure in order to avoid the excessive crowding of data points and time series. The maximum values of the measurement error bars for two observational data sets are 48 mm and 53 mm, respectively.
Fig. 3. Top panel: Same as Figs. 1 and 2, but both Parthasarathy’s and Sontakke’s data are over plotted on the simulated monsoon rainfall. The maximum values of the measurement error bars, not shown on the figure in order to avoid excessive crowding of data points, for both data sets are 48 mm and 53 mm, respectively. Bottom panel: Simulated and observed (both Parthasarathy and Sontakke) rainfall data from 1871 to 2005 plotted in percentage anomaly units also without the measurement error bars shown.
New paper finds another potential solar amplification mechanism via monsoon oscillations
New paper finds effect of natural variations on monsoon rainfall 9 times more important than greenhouse gases
The paper joins many other peer-reviewed publications in the literature describing solar amplification mechanisms, whereby tiny changes in solar activity have large-scale effects on global climate, and which are ignored by IPCC climate models.
 |
| Excerpt from paper showing derivation of numerical solution for rate of precipitation related to solar activity |
Fig. 1. Result on the left panel compares the computed (red curve) annual rate of precipitation variability to the smoothed observed (blue curve) yearly homogeneous Indian summer monsoon rainfall (sum over all the four monsoonal rainy months of June-September) variability data (i.e., so-called ‘‘Parthasarathy’’ record obtained from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology; the website is maintained by Rupa Kumar and colleagues, see Hiremath and Mandi (2004) for details of the data set) for the 1871 to 2005 interval. The simulated precipitation presented on the right panel is the same as left panel but the observed (combined data of North West and Peninsular India) rainfall is taken from Sontakke et al., 2008 (also obtained from the Indian Institute of Tropical Meteorology website). Error bar (¼ r=ðnÞ1=2, where r is standard deviation and n is number of 4 monthly points of the June-September rainfall) of the observed rainfall is computed from the summer monsoon rainfall data and those error bars are not shown on the figure in order to avoid the excessive crowding of data points and time series. The maximum values of the measurement error bars for two observational data sets are 48 mm and 53 mm, respectively.
Fig. 3. Top panel: Same as Figs. 1 and 2, but both Parthasarathy’s and Sontakke’s data are over plotted on the simulated monsoon rainfall. The maximum values of the measurement error bars, not shown on the figure in order to avoid excessive crowding of data points, for both data sets are 48 mm and 53 mm, respectively. Bottom panel: Simulated and observed (both Parthasarathy and Sontakke) rainfall data from 1871 to 2005 plotted in percentage anomaly units also without the measurement error bars shown.
New paper finds another potential solar amplification mechanism via monsoon oscillations
New paper finds effect of natural variations on monsoon rainfall 9 times more important than greenhouse gases
- •
- The purpose of this article is to find a physical linkage between solar activity and the summer monsoon rainfall.
- •
- Hydrodynamical equations are used to derive an equation for the rate of precipitation.
- •
- The equation for the rate of precipitation is similar to a forced harmonic oscillator.
- •
- Forcing variables are cloud and rain water mixing ratios.
- •
- Numerical solution captures very well the variability of Indian summer monsoon rainfall.
Abstract
There is strong statistical evidence that solar activity influences the Indian summer monsoon rainfall. To search for a physical link between the two, we consider the coupled cloud hydrodynamic equations, and derive an equation for the rate of precipitation that is similar to the equation of a forced harmonic oscillator, with cloud and rain water mixing ratios as forcing variables. Those internal forcing variables are parameterized in terms of the combined effect of external forcing as measured by sunspot and coronal hole activities with several well known solar periods (9, 13 and 27 days; 1.3, 5, 11 and 22 years). The equation is then numerically solved and the results show that the variability of the simulated rate of precipitation captures very well the actual variability of the Indian monsoon rainfall, yielding vital clues for a physical understanding that has so far eluded analyses based on statistical correlations alone. We also solved the precipitation equation by allowing for the effects of long-term variation of aerosols. We tentatively conclude that the net effects of aerosols variation are small, when compared to the solar factors, in terms of explaining the observed rainfall variability covering the full Indian monsoonal geographical domains.
Monday, September 1, 2014
New paper links solar activity to center of mass of solar system
A new paper by Dr. Willie Soon et al published in New Astronomy finds solar activity "corresponds remarkably well" with the Sun's orbital movement around the barycenter [center of mass] of the solar system. The authors
"find that the maximum variations of [the Sun's specific potential energy storage] correspond remarkably well with the occurrences of well-documented Grand Minima (GM) solar events throughout the available proxy solar magnetic activity records for the past 1000 yr."The paper finds "Grand Minima are related to the Sun's closest approaches to the barycenter," and predicts another Grand Minimum in solar activity will occur around 2150 AD. Several other researchers have linked changes in solar activity to the Sun's orbital position relative to the barycenter of the solar system, which along with multiple solar amplification mechanisms may possibly one day lead to a "unified grand theory of Earth's climate."
 |
| Computation of the Sun's orbit relative to the center of mass [barycenter] of the solar system |
 |
Solar system barycenter |
 |
| Sun's potential energy [PE] is related to its position relative to the barycenter of the solar system, as shown in 2nd graph, and corresponds "remarkably well" with the minima of reconstructed sunspot numbers [SN] shown in bottom graph |
 |
| Predicted solar Grand Minima based upon the theory |
Highlights
- •
- A physical model of Sun–Planets Interaction is described.
- •
- Solar activity Grand Minima (GM) are related to the Sun’s closest approaches to barycenter.
- •
- There are several candidate GM events in the next 1000 yr.
Abstract
We numerically integrate the Sun’s orbital movement around the barycenter of the solar system under the persistent perturbation of the planets from the epoch J2000.0, backward for about one millennium, and forward for another millennium to 3000 AD. Under the Sun–Planets Interaction (SPI) framework and interpretation of Wolff and Patrone (2010), we calculated the corresponding variations of the most important storage of the specific potential energy (PE) within the Sun that could be released by the exchanges between two rotating, fluid-mass elements that conserve its angular momentum. This energy comes about as a result of the roto-translational dynamics of the cell around the solar system barycenter. We find that the maximum variations of this PE storage correspond remarkably well with the occurrences of well-documented Grand Minima (GM) solar events throughout the available proxy solar magnetic activity records for the past 1000 yr. It is also clear that the maximum changes in PE precede the GM events in that we can identify precursor warnings to the imminent weakening of solar activity for an extended period. The dynamical explanation of these PE minima is connected to the minima of the Sun’s position relative to the barycenter as well as the significant amount of time the Sun’s inertial motion revolving near and close to the barycenter. We presented our calculation of PE forward by another 1000 yr until 3000 AD. If the assumption of the solar activity minima corresponding to PE minima is correct, then we can identify quite a few significant future solar activity Grand Minima events with a clustering of PE minima pulses starting at around 2150 AD, 2310 AD, 2500 AD, 2700 AD and 2850 AD.
Monday, March 9, 2015
Dr. S. Fred Singer's supporters slam 'Merchants of Smear'
CAGW alarmists never complained when Michael Mann & Andrew Weaver filed libel suits, but object to climate skeptic Dr. S. Fred Singer even considering the possibility of legal action against real merchants of smear, libel, and slander: Naomi Oreskes & filmmaker Robert Kenner.
'Merchants of Doubt' emails spark fiery debate about strategies of climate skeptics
'Merchants of Doubt' emails spark fiery debate about strategies of climate skeptics
Evan Lehmann, E&E reporter
Published: Monday, March 9, 2015
Before the release this Friday of the documentary "Merchants of Doubt," S. Fred Singer sought the advice of nearly 30 climate skeptics about their chances of halting the movie and whether he should sue Naomi Oreskes, who co-authored the book on which it's based.
"Has she finally gone too far?" asked Singer.
The discussion is outlined in a chain of emails initiated last fall by the 90-year-old physicist, who is featured in the film for his work questioning the amount of influence people have on rising temperatures. His request reached a mix of academics and others who have been mostly antagonistic toward mainstream climate findings. ClimateWire obtained the emails from a source who received them as a forwarded message.
Perhaps the strongest response came from James Enstrom, an epidemiologist who has challenged the science around the health risks of secondhand smoke and particulate air pollution. Enstrom told Singer that he could make "a very strong case" against Oreskes if Singer filed complaints with the universities she's affiliated with.
"I suggest you Attack Oreskes by Filing short Grievances with Harvard and Stanford," Enstrom wrote to Singer on Oct. 21. Oreskes is a professor of scientific history at Harvard University with a doctorate from Stanford University.
"Good thought," Singer responded.
The wider discussion is viewed by some as a window into the network of skeptical scientists, bloggers and conservative think tank scholars who often raise objections to mainstream climate science. The tactics discussed -- like lawsuits and grievances -- reflect previous efforts to constrain critics of Singer and others through legal attacks, or the threat of them, several people involved with the movie say.
"This is part of their intimidation," Oreskes said in an interview. "It's a part about trying to make people frightened that if they do speak up and they do expose what's going on, they'll get attacked. And they will get attacked. I've been attacked."
The documentary is based on her book, "Merchants of Doubt," published in 2010. In it, she outlined the similarities between the political fight around climate change and the earlier debates about whether smoking was dangerous. The effort to fight health problems from smoking was stalled for years. She suggested that a small group of scientists cooperating with think tanks and businesses managed to obscure basic truths about the harms of both. The movie will be released nationally Friday. It's directed by Robert "Robby" Kenner, the creator of the 2008 documentary "Food Inc."
Singer, who cooperated with Kenner to film a scene for the movie, said in an interview with ClimateWire that he has decided not to take legal action against Oreskes or Kenner. It would be too expensive and would require too much of his time, he said. He also ruled out filing grievances against Oreskes with university administrators because "they're just as bad as she is."
Still, Singer has sent mixed signals about his intentions. Last week, he sent a letter to Kenner to raise the possibility of legal action.
"I would prefer to avoid having to go to court; but if we do, we are confident that we will prevail," Singer said in the letter, which suggests that the film treats him maliciously and adds, "it is rather too bad that you got mixed up with Naomi Oreskes."
A 'liar for hire' or an honest skeptic?
The letter was posted on Climate Depot, a website critical of climate science run by Marc Morano, who is featured in the film and was a recipient of Singer's emails last fall.
"I think there's a pattern," Kenner said of Singer's letter in an interview. "It's to come after and try to silence critics and to intimidate. And when [Singer] implies litigation is very expensive, I think it's an attempt to be intimidating."
On the other hand, it might be going too far to suggest that Singer's goal is to stifle his critics if he feels he's been slandered, said Andrew Hoffman, a professor at the University of Michigan who studies the behavior of climate skeptics.
Singer says he believes the movie refers to him as a "liar for hire," though he hasn't seen it. That's false, he said, noting that he believes genuinely that humans have little effect on climate change. He also rejects the idea that he's being paid by fossil fuel companies, apart from an unsolicited $10,000 donation from an Exxon foundation 12 years ago to the Science & Environmental Policy Project, which he founded.
Singer acknowledged that he has "made a lot of money on oil," but it was decades ago, from fees he charged to financial institutions, major corporations like IBM and some oil companies to predict the price of crude using a computer model he created, Singer said. The money wasn't related to research around climate change, he said.
"I'm real sad about this attack, but it's not unexpected," Singer said of the "liar for hire" phrase.
But does the movie say that?
No, said Kenner, who provided a transcript of the scene with Singer to ClimateWire. He and others say it appears to be a phrase created by a media outlet that reviewed the film.
Besides, lying isn't a common tool of skeptical scientists, Oreskes said. These contrarians are generally successful, and trusted by some, in one field or another.
"This isn't about lying," Oreskes said. "This is something much more terrible, in a way. Much more devious. A kind of what we call doubtmongering."
"I never said that anyone was lying, and I never would say that," she added. "But this is part of the strategy, too. These people put words in other people's mouths, and then they act all outraged about it, and they spread the claim that you said something that you never said. And then they threaten to sue you for it."
Singer supporters slam 'Merchants of Smear'
Oreskes has an example in mind.
Singer filed a libel suit in the early 1990s against Justin Lancaster, a climate researcher at the University of California, San Diego, who claimed that Singer had taken advantage of his mentor and colleague, Roger Revelle, a noted climate scientist, in the months before Revelle's death.
Singer approached Revelle a month before his triple bypass heart surgery to cooperate on a journal article that downplayed the urgency of addressing climate change. It marked a reversal for Revelle, who supported policies to reduce greenhouse gases and was a mentor to former Vice President Al Gore. The paper roiled the climate debate as Gore's opponents highlighted it to raise questions about the certainty of warming.
But Revelle missed the debate. He died in July 1991 and was unable to shed light on Lancaster's assertions that Singer had pressured Revelle into co-authoring the paper in his weakened state after surgery. So Lancaster accused Singer of acting unethically, and Singer sued. Lancaster eventually settled the suit and entered a yearslong gag period.
He would later say the settlement was one of his biggest regrets. And he accused Singer, in even stronger terms, of pressuring Revelle to cooperate.
"It was one of the worst things I ever did, was to give him a retraction," Lancaster said in an interview. "I did it to try to save my marriage."
Singer frequently points to his success with that case. He raised it in his letter to Kenner and in his emails last fall.
"The lawsuit was not filed to intimidate," Singer said in the interview. "It was filed because what Lancaster suggested was that I faked the participation of Roger Revelle as a co-author. That's completely untrue. We have a complete retraction and an apology."
In his October emails, Singer reaches out to some of the most recognizable opponents of mainstream climate science and policies, including Willie Soon, Patrick Michaels, Anthony Watts, Steven Milloy, Joe Bastardi and Joe Bast.
An English climate change denier, Christopher Monckton, viscount of Brenchley, responded to Singer's request for advice by saying he would "draft the complaint" for a lawsuit, but Singer never followed up.
"In every way, they have bent the science," Monckton said of mainstream scientists and the filmmakers. "And having bent the science and not convinced anybody, not even themselves really, they're not simply resorting to the fallback position which Hitler and Goebbels on the left did, which Mao Tse-tung and Pol Pot did, and of course ... Stalin and Lenin did, and that is smear."
"So this film should really be called 'Merchants of Smear,'" he added.
The pre-release controversy around the movie provides more than just a glimpse into the stormy messaging strategies on climate change. It also promotes the film. But does it help convey the facts?
Hoffman, of the University of Michigan, says tit-for-tats between mainstream and contrarian researchers tend to raise the profile of skeptical scientists, despite their relatively small number. He pointed to the recent inquiries undertaken by Democratic members of Congress, who want the identity of donors who help fund skeptical academics, as an advantage for those who challenge climate science.
"Frankly, this degradation benefits the skeptics," Hoffman said.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)