Climate Skeptic Willie Soon Addresses Packed Audience in L.A


Climate Skeptic Willie Soon Addresses Packed Audience in L.A.

by Joel B. Pollak 9 Feb 2017

LOS ANGELES — Dr. Wie-Hock “Willie” Soon of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics addressed a gathering of the American Freedom Alliance on Thursday night at the Luxe Hotel, describing the current state of debate about climate change as “spitting science in the face” and “treating science like a piece of rubbish.”

. . . . “The Sun is a primary driver of climate change — and has a far greater impact than changes in CO2,” he said,. . . .

Another slide added: “Climate science is dangerously corrupted and co-opted by multiple anti-science forces and players.” . . .

. . . . He then launched into his data-heady scientific presentation in earnest. For all the focus on carbon dioxide, the most important greenhouse gas in the climate system was water vapor, he said. And carbon dioxide, he noted, was not a “pollutant,” as the term was conventionally used. . . . .

. . . . He said that some climate scientists manipulated graphs to make climate change seem more severe than it was — for example, by representing temperature anomalies rather than absolute temperatures.

His latest work, he said, was in understanding how temperature data sets were constructed. He and his colleagues were examining data gathered in rural areas, to remove the distortion of measurements in urban areas. They found that there was, in fact, some surface temperature warming, albeit less severe than conventional data sets showed. . . . .

. . . . The major effect of cutting carbon dioxide emissions to zero, he said, would be “to kill and hurt poor people and greatly harm animals and the environment.”

In the past, Dr. Soon noted, the left had attacked his research because he had taken funding from fossil fuel companies. He cited the New York Times as one of his chief antagonists, after it ran a disparaging profile of him in 2015.

As a result, he said, he had not accepted any funding for his latest research on the composition and manipulation of climate data sets.

Link here for the whole story.


I want to know how he slipped in and out of CA without any riots? The left is slipping.


Why bother with such discredited denialists funded so heavily by the dev-oils.

“The Soon fallacy” at

Apparently he fishes for climate-solar correlations and cherry-picks the time stretches that correlate. NOT SCIENCE!

…the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2 must be diminished, if not obliterated altogether. But this is a fallacy. It is equivalent to arguing that if total caloric intake correlates to weight, that exercise can have no effect, or that if cloudiness correlates to incident solar radiation at the ground, then seasonal variations in sunshine are zero. The existence of one physical factor affecting a variable in a complex system says nothing whatsoever about the potential for another physical factor to affect that same variable.

Of course, where would we be without the sun? Even ancient Egyptians recognized it’s importance in maintaining a life-hospitable climate & even worshiped it as their primary god, and we all (at least some of us) know about photosynthesis.

Here’s something that can show both the impact of the sun AND GHGs on climate:

Also see the explanation of the roles of the sun and GHGs at


This is wonderful!

I’m so happy that the skeptic side is continuing to spread it’s truth despite harassment and lies from researches in American and British academia involved in scandal that could be grave in nature! :thumbsup:


What about “science is science” and all of that?

Why is it OK for you to criticize Dr. Soon’s funding sources but not OK for me to criticize Michael Mann’s?

Do you think New York City has been underwater since 2015 (as was put forth in Earth 2100)?

When these outrageous ridiculous global warming predictions are made WHY do the global warming activists largely sit by quietly? Could it be politics over “science”? Or is it something else?

Why accept a graph with a red line labeled as "Temperature” when the Y-axis is labeled as **not as “Temperature” **but as . . . . “Temperature anomaly”?

Do you think “Temperature” and “Temperature anomaly” are the same thing?

For readers that want some information on misleading Global Warming graphics see here.

Interesting ways graphic design data can be used to manipulate people (Thread here the site is here and here)

Elmer’s PowerPoint Presentation – Confessions of a Graphic Designer

By Elmer Beauregard on February 13, 2017

I decided to put part of my PowerPoint presentation online. As a Graphic designer I have been designing “graphs” for many years and I think bring a different perspective to the Global Warming debate.


Actually, NYC was SUPPOSED to be underwater by the year 2000.

Which scare is why the EPA was established.

Old May 21, '11, 1:54 am
Monte RCMS Monte RCMS is invisible
Forum Master

Join Date: November 9, 2008
Posts: 12,568
Religion: Roman Catholic
Default Re: Catholicism and Climate Change: The Sequel
Gotta read this.

So, the Environmentalists were unanimous in their belief … religion, anyone? … that carbon dioxide would put NYC underwater by 2000 and raise temperatures by 7 degrees.

By the year 2000 …

… how real has this been???

This article is an absolute must read.

Global warming definitely going to cause total world chaos in 30 years … without question.…carbon-dioxide


Declassified documents show Nixon warned of global warning 30 years ago
Friday, July 02, 2010
YORBA LINDA, Calif. - Documents released Friday by the Nixon Presidential Library show members of President Richard Nixon’s inner circle discussing the possibilities of global warming more than 30 years ago.

Adviser Daniel Patrick Moynihan, notable as a Democrat in the administration, urged the administration to initiate a worldwide system of monitoring carbon dioxide in the atmosphere, decades before the issue of global warming came to the public’s attention.

There is widespread agreement that carbon dioxide content will rise 25 percent by 2000, Moynihan wrote in a September 1969 memo.

“This could increase the average temperature near the earth’s surface by 7 degrees Fahrenheit,” he wrote. "This in turn could raise the level of the sea by 10 feet.

Goodbye New York. Goodbye Washington, for that matter."

Moynihan was Nixon’s counselor for urban affairs from January 1969 - when Nixon began his presidency - to December 1970. He later served as the U.S. ambassador to the United Nations before New York voters elected him to the Senate.

Moynihan advised Nixon to monitor carbon dioxide levels in 1969 memo. (Duprey/News)

Moynihan received a response in a January 26, 1970 memo from Hubert Heffner, deputy director of the administration’s Office of Science and Technology. Heffner acknowledged that atmospheric temperature rise was an issue that should be looked at.

“The more I get into this, the more I find two classes of doom-sayers, with, of course, the silent majority in between,” he wrote. “One group says we will turn into snow-tripping mastodons because of the atmospheric dust and the other says we will have to grow gills to survive the increased ocean level due to the temperature rise.”

Heffner wrote that he would ask the Environmental Science Services Administration to look further into the issue.

Nixon established the Environmental Protection Agency and had an interest in the environment. In one memo, Moynihan noted his approval of the first Earth Day, to be held April 22, 1970.

“Clearly this is an opportunity to get the President usefully and positively involved with a large student movement,” he wrote to John Ehrlichman, Nixon’s adviser on domestic affairs.

Moynihan’s memo was among 100,000 documents released Friday.


In secret, apparently, since all the talk at the time was about pollution and clean air and water.


More graphs! I must see more graphs if I am to be convinced one way or the other!


I remember the esteemed climatologist Ted Danson said we would all be underwater by 1999!


That was an interesting movie – WATERWORLD, but it was a different actor.

The problem with movies about CC is that they have to juice it up into absurdity to make it more dramatic (like there just isn’t that much water in the cryosphere to be melted and cause that high of a sea rise as in WATERWORLD). I like sci-fi, but when Superman flew around the world opposite the spin to turn back time, that just bonked me out of “suspended disbelief.”

Actual CC and most of its knock-on effects are coming just too slowly to be dramatic enough for movies.

But I nevertheless started writing a screenplay some 12 years ago about CC (which I’ve since given up) and consulted climate scientists for it. It was about someone coming back from the dystopic, dying future to steer things right so those in the future could live.

The scientists told me even under a worst-case scenario it would take many 100s of years for glaciers to melt and the sea to rise, say, 60 meters (180 or so feet). So I set my dystopic future world I think in the 2400s or something like that. And I think even that is too soon for the sea to rise that much in a worst-case scenario, according to what the scientists said.

One of the screenwriting things I learned from a chapter, “Watch out for that glacier!” is to avoid writing about a threat coming sooo sloooly that the audience is sitting there wondering why they don’t just go around it as opposed to actually waiting for it to catch up.

And I used to tell people who seemed overly worried about impending sea rise that they can run (even walk) much faster than the sea will rise and come to where they are… :slight_smile:

BTW, why not consult the practicing climate scientists directly about various concerns and fears. They are a great bunch of people who would like for us to ask them rather than those who don’t know much and spin lies.


Now, this is a truly scary graph. It asserts that the CO2 content around 1750 was around 280 ppm. The death of all plant life would occur at somewhere around 180 to 225 ppm. I wonder if people at the time had any idea every tree, blade of grass, ear of grain and strand of seaweed was on the verge of extinction.

Close call there.:rolleyes:

It appears the absolute lowest anyone has ever figured it to have been was about 280, with the highest about 7000. Obviously, then, we’re dangerously near the low, not the high at the current 380-400 ppm.


It’s a really pity the ice core data ended up showing increasing CO2 level lagged past temp increases, instead of preceding it. Their correlation argument was so much stronger when they could claim increasing CO2 levels caused past warming, instead being a byproduct of increasing temps (cause still TBD).

And then when CO2 is at it’s peak, the historical temp does a decline, which also doesn’t help their logic.


Your reference cites an unknown poster giving this fact. I doubt that it is true without a lot of qualification. I’m sure some plants thrive in a lot less CO2 than others. It doesn’t look to me like we had a “close call”. A close call would mean there would have been many more sensitive plants that would have already failed. We would see evidence in the history books of a world-wide famine just getting “close” to that kind of event.

It appears the absolute lowest anyone has ever figured it to have been was about 280, with the highest about 7000. Obviously, then, we’re dangerously near the low, not the high at the current 380-400 ppm.

Humans were not roaming the earth when it was 7000 ppm, so I would not necessarily include that in the “safe” range. Also when things changed before, they changed so slowly that evolution could adapt species to deal with the change. If CO2 goes up slowly enough, we could adapt too. But compared to previous changes, this was is almost instantaneous.


In the article, Dr. Soon talked about misrepresentations in science saying . . . .

“Climate science is dangerously corrupted and co-opted by multiple anti-science forces and players.”

This (below) MAY be yet another example (at least in a microcosm sense) of what Dr. Soon was alluding to in this case (below) with very influential people. Very influential people who likely have many children as an audience.

Popular Media science project at least **appears **to be fake science, at least as it has been exposed by Anthony Watts website. (In all fairness to Mr. Gore and Nye, they may have had poor communication as to how to reproduce materials and methods too.)

Here is a summary of the critique (bold mine) . . . .

Al Gore and Bill Nye FAIL at doing a simple CO2 experiment

. . . . I direct your attention to the 1 minute mark, lasting through 1:30, where the experiment is presented. . . .

. . . . The most egregious faked presentation in that video was the scene with the split screen thermometers, edited to appear as if the temperature in the jar of elevated CO2 level was rising faster than the jar without elevated CO2 level.

It turns out that the thermometers were never in the jar recording the temperature rise presented in the split screen and the entire presentation was nothing but stagecraft and editing.

. . . . The reason why I took so much time then to show this chicanery was Mr. Gore’s pronouncement in an interview the day the video aired.

His specific claim was:

“The deniers claim that it’s some kind of hoax and that the global scientific community is lying to people,” he said. “It’s not a hoax, it’s high school physics.” – Al Gore in an interview with MNN 9/14/2011

So easy a high school kid can do it. Right?

Bill Nye, in his narration at 0:48 in the video says:

You can replicate this effect yourself in a simple lab experiment, here’s how.

…and at 1:10 in the video Nye says:

Within minutes you will see the temperature of the bottle with the carbon dioxide in it rising faster and higher.

So, I decided to find out if that was true . . . .

. . . Mr. Gore’s Climate 101 experiment is falsified, and could not work given the equipment he specified. If they actually tried to perform the experiment themselves, perhaps this is why they had to resort to stagecraft in the studio to fake the temperature rise on the split screen thermometers.

The experiment as presented by Al Gore and Bill Nye “the science guy” is a failure, and not representative of the greenhouse effect related to CO2 in our atmosphere. The video as presented, is not only faked in post production, the premise is also false. . .




From Catholic Answers Forums 2010:

In fact, carbon dioxide … CO2 is not a toxic substance … unless your lips are wrapped around the exhaust pipe of a car.

Sarcasm intended.

Source for the information below is a bunch of different Web sites and a book or two, but it only took me a short time to collect it.

I do invite you to do additional research, but I do ask that you refrain from making blanket, global statements that are false.

The increase of carbon dioxide is not a cause for alarm and, in fact, will be good for mankind.

CO2 is not a pollutant. It is the gas of life for plants, man, and animals. All plant life is sustained by photosynthesis, where CO2 plus water plus the Sun’s energy form carbohydrates plus Oxygen. Humans and animals breathe in oxygen and exhale CO2. Plants must absorb carbon dioxide (CO2) in combination with water, soil nutrients and sunlight to produce the sugars vital for growth. A shortage of any of these requirements will retard the growing process.

[All high school freshmen should know all this from their biology classes and should have studied and drawn the details of plant leaves.]

According to the Mauna Loa observatory the present atmospheric CO2 is about 385 ppm (parts per million.), but in times past it was as high as 2450 ppm. (Jaworoski, 1992a,1992b).

[Some contend that Mauna Loa is not a good place to measure it because the ocean is the major source and sink of carbon dioxide and Mauna Loa is in the middle of the ocean.]

Normal CO2 concentration varies = ~ 300 ppm = 0.03%

In order to increase their yield, commercial greenhouses may increase CO2 concentration to 600 to 1500 ppm or more = 0.06% to 0.15%

1000 ppm = 0.1%

We try to keep CO2 levels in our US Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 times current atmospheric levels.

10,000 PPM = 1% drowsiness

20,000 ppm = 2% feeling of heaviness; awareness of deeper breathing

30,000 ppm = 3% breathing rate doubles

Our exhaled breath contains about 4% CO2. That is 40,000 parts per million, or about 100 times the current atmospheric concentration. CO2 is absolutely essential for life on earth.

50,000 ppm = 5% breathing rate increases by four times normal.

above 50,000 ppm = more than 5% toxic level of carbon dioxide.

If atmospheric CO2 drops to the 220 ppm, plants get sick. They start to die at 160ppm. In a field of corn on a sunny day, unless wind currents stir up the air, all of the CO2 is consumed within one meter of the ground in 5 minutes. Nighttime levels in a greenhouse range from 400 to 500 ppm due to plant respiration. Shortly after sunrise this level will drop to normal atmosphere (300 ppm) due to the plant using the early light to start photosynthesis. After 3 to 4 hours of early morning sunlight the CO2 level can drop to around l00 to 150 ppm, then growth is practically stopped. So, CO2 levels need to be monitored and adjusted with carbon dioxide generators if necessary.

If some of the carbon dioxide sequestration [a poor idea under any circumstances] people want to find a place to get rid of it, they might want to consider spreading it on farm fields … just like other fertilizers.


Carbon Dioxide in U.S. Navy submarines.

8000 ppm allowed.

Interesting quote from Dr. Happer.

“We try to keep CO2 levels in our U.S. Navy submarines no higher than 8,000 parts per million, about 20 time current atmospheric levels. Few adverse effects are observed at even higher levels.” – Senate testimony of Dr. William Happer,


True, but all highly irrelevant. (Watts is very good at bringing up irrelevant facts that seem to support his point. And apparently so is Harper.). No scientist has ever said that the danger from high CO2 was from humans breathing it!


This is sort of interesting, because during the Eocene Optimum it got to some 8C warmer than today with CO2 at about 700 ppm, with some studies suggesting much more (see ). Now the increase happened over millions of years, and life did adapt. There were palm trees and alligators in the Arctic and lots of lush plant life.

So when these eventually died out with colder temps and their methane remains got trapped in ice cages (in permafrost and ocean clathrates) it loaded that “methane shotgun” for our current warming episode. I think that’s why the shotgun is more loaded this time around.

It is also interesting that there was a poster here some years back who used the Eocene Optimum to claim that global warming would be good for us. She accepted that GHGs cause GW, and that our industrial GHGs are causing the warming now, but she did not realize that the rapid timeframe of our current warming is a problem. However, I remember some climate scientists even back in the 90s worried more about the rapidity of the warming than the warming itself. It’s like (the use the term) “orders of magnitude” faster than even the PETM (which, unlike the Eocene Optimum, was fast enough to cause great extinctions).

I guess the problem is for us humans, why so many are not concerned about GW, is it just doesn’t seem very fast. It seems glacially slow. Which is also why the “if it bleeds it leads” media have not been reporting on it much.

A thousand years is like one day to God (and geologists). :slight_smile:


No scientist has ever said that the danger from high CO2 was from humans breathing it!

I think you are missing the point here LeafByNiggle.

They sometimes DO refer to CO2 as a “pollutant” and want to use CO2 output as a international TAX.

DISCLAIMER: The views and opinions expressed in these forums do not necessarily reflect those of Catholic Answers. For official apologetics resources please visit