Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse

There have been multiple ice ages when CO2 levels were four times higher than now.
– Dr. Jeffrey Foss

“Almost anyone who follows climate change discussions knows who astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon is, and how passionately devoted he is to sound, honest, reproducible science,”says Paul Driessen. “Anyone who has not spend time with him or heard him speak has missed a marvelous life experience. But in this essay by Willie’s friend and colleague, emeritus professor Jeffrey Foss, readers will at least learn a little about this energized and entertaining scientist who works so hard to defend humanity against the computer model-driven, anti-fossil-fuel  pseudo certainties of Climate Apocalypse.”

“As Dr. Soon has frequently explained, computerized climate models do not add up to, demonstrate or prove a real theory of climate. The models repeatedly predicted a continuous increase in planetary temperatures, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before. And that’s just the tip of the proverbial icebergs … that are also supposed to prove humans and fossil fuels are warming the planet and melting the Arctic.”

Please enjoy this eye-opening essay by Jeffrey Foss.

Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse

More honesty and less hubris, more evidence and less dogmatism, would do a world of good

Dr. Jeffrey Foss

“What can I do to correct these crazy, super wrong errors?” Willie Soon asked plaintively in a recent e-chat. “What errors, Willie?” I asked.

“Errors in Total Solar Irradiance,” he replied. “The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change keeps using the wrong numbers! It’s making me feel sick to keep seeing this error. I keep telling them – but they keep ignoring their mistake.”

Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon really does get sick when he sees scientists veering off their mission: to discover the truth. I’ve seen his face flush with shock and shame for science when scientists cherry-pick data. It ruins his appetite – a real downer for someone who loves his food as much as Willie does.

You have got to love a guy like that, if you love science – and I do. I’m a philosopher of science, not a scientist, but my love for science runs deep – as does my faith. So I cannot help but admire Willie and his good old-fashioned passion for science.

Willie Soon may one day be a household name. More and more he appears at the pointy end of scientific criticism of Climate Apocalypse. In two recent lawsuits against Big Oil, one by New York City and the other by San Francisco and Oakland, Dr. Soon is named as the “paid agent” of “climate change denialism.” As the man who – Gasp! – singlehandedly convinced Big Oil to continue business as usual.

Can you even imagine that? I can’t: Big Oil couldn’t turn off its taps in big cities even if it wanted to.

Putting such silly lawsuits aside, it is a big honor, historically speaking, for Dr. Soon to be the face of scientific rebuttal of Climate Apocalypse, since feeding the developed world’s apocalypse addiction is the main tool of a powerful global political agenda.

Desperately wanting to halt and even roll back development

The IPCC – along with the United Nations and many environmentalist organizations, politicians, bureaucrats and their followers – desperately want to halt and even roll back development in the industrialized world, and keep Africa and other poor countries permanently undeveloped, while China races ahead. They want Willie silenced. We the people need to make sure he is heard.

Our sun controls our climate

Dr. Soon never sought the job of defending us against the slick, computer model-driven, anti-fossil fuel  certainties of Climate Apocalypse. Willie just happened to choose solar science as a career and, like many solar scientists, after nearly three decades of scientific research in his case, came to believe that changes in the sun’s brightness, sunspots and energy output, changes in the orbital position of the Earth relative to the sun, and other powerful natural forces drive climate change. In brief, our sun controls our climate.

Even the IPCC initially indicated agreement with him, citing his work approvingly in its second (1996) and third (2001) Assessment Reports. That later changed, significantly. Sure, everyone agrees that the sun caused the waxing and waning of the ice ages, just as solar scientists say. However, the sun had to be played down if carbon dioxide (CO2) was to be played up – an abuse of science that makes Willie sick.

Martian ice-caps wane and wax in sync with Arctic ice caps on Earth

Unfortunately for the IPCC, solar scientists think solar changes also explain Earth’s most recent warming period which, they point out, began way back in the 1830s – long before we burned enough fossil fuels to make any difference. They also observed the shrinking of the Martian ice-caps in the 1990s, and their return in the last few years – in perfect time with the waning and waxing of Arctic ice caps here on Earth.

Only the sun – not the CO2 from our fires – could cause that Earth-Mars synchronicity. And surely it is no mere coincidence that a grand maximum in solar brightness (Total Solar Irradiance or TSI) took place in the 1990s as both planets’ ice caps shrank, or that the sun cooled (TSI decreased) as both planets’ ice caps grew once again. All that brings us back to Dr. Soon’s disagreements with the IPCC.

The IPCC now insists that solar variability is so tiny that they can just ignore it, and proclaim CO2 emissions as the driving force behind climate change. But solar researchers long ago discovered unexpected variability in the sun’s brightness – variability that is confirmed in other stars of the sun’s type. Why does the IPCC ignore these facts? Why does it insist on spoiling Willie’s appetite?

Looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science

It sure looks like the IPCC is hiding the best findings of solar science so that it can trumpet the decreases in planetary warming (the so-called “greenhouse effect”) that they embed in the “scenarios” (as they call them) emanating from their computer models. Ignoring the increase in solar brightness over the 80s and 90s, they instead enthusiastically blame the warmth of the 1990s on human production of CO2.

In just such ways they sell us their Climate Apocalypse – along with the roll-back of human energy use, comfort, living standards and progress: sacrifices that the great green gods of Gaia demand of us if we are to avoid existential cataclysms. Thankfully, virgins are still safe – for now.

Actual evidence shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness

Surely Willie and solar scientists are right about the primacy of the sun. Why? Because the observable real world is the final test of science. And the data – actual evidence – shows that global temperatures follow changes in solar brightness on all time-scales, from decades to millions of years. On the other hand, CO2 and temperature have generally gone their own separate ways on these time scales.

Global temperatures stopped going up in the first two decades of this century, even though CO2 has steadily risen. The IPCC blames this global warming “hiatus” on “natural climate variability,” meaning something random, something not included in their models, something the IPCC didn’t see coming.

Temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before

This confirms the fact that their models do not add up to a real theory of climate. Otherwise the theory would be falsified by their incorrect predictions. They predicted a continuous increase in temperature, locked to a continuous increase in CO2. But instead, temperature has remained steady over the last two decades, while CO2 climbed even faster than before.

IPCC modelers still insist that the models are nevertheless correct, somehow – that the world would be even colder now if it weren’t for this pesky hiatus in CO2-driven warming. Of course, they have to say that – even though they previously insisted the Earth would not be as cool as it is right now.

Still, their politically correct commands stridently persist: stay colder in winter, stay hotter in summer, take cold showers, drive less, make fewer trips, fly less, don’t eat foods that aren’t “local,” bury your loved ones in cardboard boxes, turn off the lights. Their list of diktats is big and continuously growing.

There have been multiple ice ages when CO2 levels were four times higher than now

Unlike the IPCC, Willie and I cannot simply ignore the fact that there were multiple ice ages millions of years ago, when CO2 levels were four times higher than now. And even when CO2 and temperature do trend in tandem, as in the famous gigantic graph in Al Gore’s movie, the CO2 rises followed temperature increases by a few centuries. That means rising CO2 could not possibly have caused the temperature increases – an inconvenient truth that Gore doesn’t care about and studiously ignores.

Unfortunately, through their powerful political and media cadres, the IPCC has created a highly effective propaganda and war-on-fossil-fuels vehicle, to herd public opinion – and marginalize or silence any scientist who dares to disagree with it. For better or worse, richer or poorer, my dear, passionate Dr. Soon is one scientist who is always ready to stand in the path of that tank and face it down: anytime, anywhere.

I’m frightened by the dangers to Willie, his family and his career, due to his daily battles with the Climate Apocalypse industry. I can’t get it out of my mind that the university office building of climatologist John Christy – who shares Willie’s skepticism of Climate Apocalypse – was shot full of bullet holes last year. But let’s not let a spattering of gunfire spoil a friendly scientific debate. Right?

Willie’s courage makes me proud to know him, and to be an aficionado of science like he is. When it comes to the long game, my money is on Dr. Willie Soon. We the people hunger for truth, as does science itself. And that hunger will inevitably eclipse our romantic dalliance with the Climate Apocalypse.

Dr. Jeffrey Foss is a philosopher of science and Professor Emeritus at the University of Victoria, Victoria, British Columbia, Canada



16 thoughts on “Dr. Willie Soon versus the Climate Apocalypse”

  1. I just keep coming back to the obvious: There seems to be an elite bunch of devils that want to help mother nature wipe out a bunch of folks. It’s Time To Revolt!!

    • The French are doing that right now against Macron’s idiotic gas tax increase of 30 cents US with continued rises built into the tax. Paris is burning and all sides, Left, Right and Middle are angry.
      They and some other nations are angry that none of their leaders give a damn about those who work and pay all of the exorbitant taxes that maintain a lifestyle of the rich and famous for their pol’s and the bureaucrats in their governments and, esp., at the EU in Brussels while they allegedly worry only about the world instead of their own people.

  2. Not only does the Sun control Earth’s climate, carbon dioxide is not a “warming gas”, quite the opposite is the truth: carbon dioxide is a cooling gas. Over and above that issue, there is no so-called “radiative greenhouse effect” in our atmosphere and not even in a real greenhouse either. Sending infrared radiation back to the source does not make the source any warmer than it was. Every single “fact” put on the proverbial table by the UN IPCC is 180 degrees removed from the truth. Get the facts, make the right decisions.

  3. willie soon rocks!
    he was also the person that READ the entire copenhagen climte screed and found a pile of errors and hidden clauses in the “deals” they were pushing.
    Bob Carter now deceased and Willie and Ian Plimer amongst others are in my would deserve Nobels(if they (nobel prizes)also werent so corrupted) list

  4. Sometimes it is worth restating that the IPCC’s remit is to prove that human activity is causing global warming. Many don’t know this and assume that it is the font of all climate knowledge. Anything inconvenient, as this post shows, is ignored. They also believe those writing the report are those pre-eminent in their fields – they are not as those people are either excluding from participation or refuse to get involved in what they know is a rigged one-sided report.

  5. This is refreshing, I am an alumni of UVIC, and I have heard nothing but alarmism coming from my Alma Mater. They have one of the most “progressive” (repressive) environmental departments anywhere led by Mike Weaver Canada’s modeller in chief.

  6. The IPCC is not making mistakes, they are making BS propaganda on purpose and it has nothing to do with science and everything to do with money and power.

  7. IPCC/UN has an great impact on a lot of people in the Netherlands. Churches will ringing the clocks to warn about the drastical climate change. One speaks about climate change but in fact they mean a change caused by human beings as what are doing is the final cause of all bad things nowadyas; even climate has changed in a wrong direction caused. According to UN year 2030 will be catastrophic if and when temp. arise from now on more than 2 degrees C as said by newsservices. Not so long ago it was as far as I know 5,7 degrees C.

    • But, yet, the Netherlands are hell bent on bringing in MILLIONS of non-Whites, which will only dramatically increase this “carbon footprint”….Why?

      Why would the UN and EU want millions upon millions of non-White people to flood into Europe and increase this awful pollution? You would think they would want the population of Europe to DECLINE and then to educate the rest of the World to do the same thing?

      Do they push population control in Arabia? Africa? North Africa?

      Can somebody explain this all to me. Something does not make sense, and when you notice something like that, there has to be some other reason you haven’t noticed.

      • In America, we call it “virtue signalling.” Supporting mass immigration from foreign races signals their anti-racist bona fides, as well as making them feel good about themselves. It may be disloyal to the nation that elected them to govern, but loyalty is not a virtue of the political and cultural left. They are individualists and cosmopolitans (really two sides of the same coin). You have to be a nationalist or tribalist or someone else with a moral commitment to a particular ingroup to value loyalty. The left views everyone as a potentially interchangeable part. Further, socialists have been talking since at least 1950 that I can document of using the fear of global warming from industrial emissions to unite the world under a “revolutionary” government.

  8. I hate to admit but the Climate Apocalypse media machine isn’t going away any time soon.

    Children are being indoctrinated from young ages – far younger than the teaching of science subjects.

    One of our grandchildren recently told us all about the “greenhouse effect” on Venus – there can be no “greenhouse effect” on Venus – and this “explained” why Venus is the hottest planet in the solar system – it isn’t.

    Physics 101 says the “greenhouse effect” is caused by sunlight passing through the “transparent” atmosphere, heating the Earth’s surfaces which radiate IR which the atmospheric “greenhouse gases” absorb thus heating the atmosphere.

    But this cannot happen on Venus where the atmosphere is so thick and encircled by highly reflective sulphuric acid clouds (isn’t injecting sulphur particles into the stratosphere to reflect sunlight back into space the basis of “geo-engineering”?) that NO sunlight reaches the ground.

    So there cannot be any “greenhouse effect” on Venus and our governments need to cease indoctrinating children in falsehoods.

    Last week school children in Australia went on strike, skipping school to protest against the lack of action on climate change.

    The kids, a lot of whom aren’t old enough to have studied any science, have been indoctrinated and a lot of their discourse involved insult and abuse of government politicians and other sundry deniers.

    While I respect everyone’s right to protest and be heard I am sure the last time children supported a government sponsored “movement” involved tyrannical regimes seeking total control.

    Aside from the usual comparisons with communist regimes there is the hopefully not forgotten example of Hitler Youth, and the similarity to youth being indoctrinated into Climate Apocalypse should not be ignored.

    Let’s hope the youth of today begin to think for themselves rather than espouse the smug Climate Apocalypse message as if they are superior. The Hitler Youth movement did not end well for all involved.

    • Rosco:

      Here in Canada, we have seen a big upsurge in climate armageddon reports this Autumn. Perhaps the biggest of these is the ludicrous report that the California wild fires were the result of human caused climate change.

      I assume all of this PR work was done to set the stage for the Poland luxury conference, currently underway.

      Your mention of the Hitler Youth Movement is apdt. It strikes me that the upsurge in climate catastrophe reporting is straight out of the Joseph Goebbels playbook.

  9. This article, “Solar energy at birth and human lifespan”, made the hair on my neck raise. Via Suspicious0bservers at youtube.

    -“Increased solar energy at birth shortens human lifespan an average of eight years.”

    -“Twice as many persons with multiple sclerosis are born in increased solar energy than in the general population.”

  10. It can be informative when you talk with someone who thinks the IPCC narrative is a factual one. It is even more interesting to see their eyes open wide and their jaws drop when you explain that you *wish* global warming were real. They are shocked when shown actual scientific literature that demonstrates that the planet has only been this cold and this impoverished of CO2 once before during the last 600 MY, and that that time immediately preceded the greates extinction event in geological history. If you want worry about climate which is worse, bigger tomatoes, or a mass extinction caused by an ecological collapse driven low CO2 levels?

  11. The problem with AGW modeling is that they look at heat flow backwards… the surface heats the atmosphere and NOT the reverse..

    h20 and co2 COOL the planet radiatively… h20 much more so than co2

    if you increase h20 and co2 at the expense of an insulator like O2 (by burning fossil fuels), you increase the efficiency of cooling and temp will drop..

    if you increase co2 at the expense of the much better coolant h20 you will decrease the efficiency of cooling and temps will rise dramatically… this of course explains Venus, which has been cooking off its h20 for hundreds of millions of years (there is very little left)

Comments are closed.