Climate Scientists: Coal-funded #Fakexpert Willie Soon was Never Credible
by Connor Gibson
February 25, 2015
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless.”
Recent revelations regarding Smithsonian scientist Willie Soon’s financing and coordination with fossil fuel companies for studies undermining the science of climate change has received quite a bit of attention. Our friends at the Climate Investigations Center have links to source documents, letters to the IRS and Congress, letters to journals that Soon appears to have mislead, and some of the press covering all of this.
The drama has largely outshone the main point among most scientists: Willie Soon’s work is vastly discredited. For those who aren’t familiar with Willie Soon’s fossil fuel company contracting over the last fifteen years, there is probably a legitimate question of whether or not this guy deserves to be in his current pinch.
Frankly, he had it coming.
Scientists and science reporters have often had to waste their time addressing the interference of Soon and his cohorts, who take advantage of the public’s general unfamiliarity with scientific nuance.
But scientists too are talking about Dr. Soon’s work and what it means for the troubled peer-review process that the most stringent journals usually adhere to. Here is a summary of some of the most interesting conversations in science publications about Willie Soon’s #Fakexpert scandal.
First, Soon’s manager at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, Charles Alcock, has time and time again said that neither he nor Smithsonian support Soon’s fossil-funded conclusions. From E&E Publishing’s ClimateWire:
“I’d have to say that I’ve reached my conclusions independent of Dr. Soon’s work,” Alcock said. “Dr. Soon is not actively engaged in actually gathering new data. He’s principally disputing the interpretation of data gathered by other people. And I think this is an area where most of the progress will be made by people who collect new [climate] data or who build new models.”
Soon’s industry-financed papers have been debunked by climate scientists over and over. Just last month, Soon co-authored a paper claiming to debunk decades of science using a “simple” model of long term temperature projections. Scientists worldwide noted that Soon’smethodology was grossly oversimplified, ignoringkey factors that scientists have warned will lead to unprecedented temperature increases in the coming decades.
The Heartland Institute, a think tank with ties to the fossil fuel industry, paid to promote this paper inScience Bulletin, a journal published by the Chinese National Academy of Sciences.Heartland has misrepresented the Chinese NASfor political purposes before, andScience Bulletinwas the latest victim of Dr. Soon’s serial lack of disclosure of fossil fuel funding to science journals.Science Insider– published by the American Association for the Advancement of Science (AAAS) – interviewed editors at science journals who appear to have been fooled by Dr. Soon’s non-disclosure of his industry payments.
But Soon’s work was widely disregarded before his controversial 2015 paper in Science Bulletin.The prestigious science journalNature notes that Dr. Soon’s haggard relationship with science isn’t new:
The scientist has published numerous papers that go against mainstream climate science. Most famously, in 2003, Soon co-authored a paper in the journal Climate Research that questioned the standard interpretation of climate change over the past millennium and argued that recent warming is not unusual by historical standards. Subsequent controversy led to the resignation of several of the journals editors. In that case, the controversy revolved around scientific issues, not disclosure of funding sources. [More on this scandal in our profile of Willie Soon]
NASA climate scientist Gavin Schmidt for RealClimatere-starts, giving Soon the benefit of the doubt (selectclips):
However, a valid question is whether the science that arose from these funds is any good? Its certainly conceivable that Soons work was too radical for standard federal research programs and that these energy companies were really taking a chance on blue-sky high risk research that might have the potential to shake things up. […]
It is most succinctly highlighted in an article Soon wrote Its the Sun, stupid(not sure if it was ever really published anywhere, but he didsend itto his contacts at Koch Industries). Towards the end he states:
The evidence inmy paperis consistent with the hypothesis that the Sun causes climatic change in the Arctic.
It invalidates the hypothesis that CO2is 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, in the name of preventing catastrophic climate change.
It is the leap from the first to second sentence that drives Soons research the notion that if you can find enough correlations to solar forcing, the impact of CO2must 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.
If you’re feeling masochisticenough to read more from scientists into the documented gap between reality and Willie Soon’s research, check older RealClimate posts on Dr. Soon here, here, andhere, and this generously-detailed debunk of Soon’s presentation at the latest Heartland Institute climate denial conference by ecologist Richard Telford.
Telford isn’t the only scientist baffled by Soon’s awkward presentations. University of Rochester astrophysicist Adam Frank details his “depressing” encounter with Willie Soon, at an event and a personal encounter, from NPR:
When it was announced that Soon was giving a talk at the University of Rochester, I knew it would be interesting. I was more than willing to hear what the man had to say. The whole point of being a scientist is, after all, to try to leave your preconceptions at the door and let the work speak for itself. I also wanted to understand Soon’s own thinking about the role he was playing as a public skeptic.
On all counts I was disappointed.
Taken as nothing more than a scientific talk, Dr. Soon’s presentation was, in my opinion, pretty bad. I watch a lot of these things. It’s part of my job. If Soon had been giving a Ph.D defense, he would have been skewered. I was left without a clear line of argument or clear justifications for his claims. More importantly, for a topic this contentious there was insufficient discussion of the voluminous and highly detailed response critics have offered to his claims that solar activity accounts for most observed climate variability. Many of my colleagues listening to the talk said they felt the same way. I came away thinking, “Is that the best they have?”
The presentation that Prof. Adam Frank found depressing was focused on Soon’s long-since-discredited thesis that the Sun, not industrial pollution, is responsible for climate change.Citing peer-reviewed material onSkeptical Science, science reporterChris Mooney re-examines how Soon’s primary argument is debunked, for the Washington Post:
[T]he idea that the sun is currently driving climate change is strongly rejected by the worlds leading authority on climate science, the U.N.s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, whichfoundin its latest (2013) report that There is high confidence that changes in total solar irradiance have not contributed to the increase in global mean surface temperature over the period 1986 to 2008, based on direct satellite measurements of total solar irradiance.
The IPCC basically says that global warming is not caused by the sun, saysGerald Meehl, a senior scientist at the National Center for Atmospheric Research. The strongest evidence for this is the record of satellite measurements of solar output since the late 1970s that show no increasing trend in solar output during a period of rapid global warming. […]
Arecent scientific review articleon climate and the sun similarly notes the lack of detection of an underlying irradiance trend in the past three decades, and concludes, in rather strong terms, that:
Claims that the Sun has caused as much as 70% of the recent global warming presents fundamental puzzles. It requires that the Suns brightness increased more in the past century than at any time in the past millennium, including over the past 30 years, contrary to the direct space-based observations. And it requires, as well, that Earths climate be insensitive to well-measured increases in greenhouse gases at the same time that it is excessively sensitive to poorly known solar brightness changes. Both scenarios are far less plausible than the simple attribution of most (90%) industrial global warming to anthropogenic effects, rather than to the Sun.
So in sum: Its not that the sun cant influence climate. It can, and it does. And climate scientists have accordingly been studying the influence of the sun for many years.
Discover Magazinehas a similar rundown of Soon’s debunked “it’s the sun” thesis, based on a video of a presentation Soon gave to a Koch-funded student group.
Even Koch-funded scientist Richard Muller has abandoned Soon’s solar theories in the face of overwhelming scientific evidence to the contrary, as Brad Friedman reminds us, in a study that Charles Koch Foundation itself helped finance (oops).
While most scientists may agree that Soon’s work is nothing to bat an eyelash at, Soon’s corporate funders aren’t trying to influence scientists – they’re trying to influence policymakers, and the people who vote for them.The Scientist quotes Harvard’s Naomi Oreskes, author of Merchants of Doubt, a book documenting corporate manipulation of science that is now being released as a critically-acclaimed movie (trailer here):
Though the vast majority of climate scientists agree that the Earths climate is changing as a result of human activities that increase the amounts of greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere, researchers like Soon foment debate by publishing alternate hypotheses or denials. The whole doubt-mongering strategy relies on creating the impression of scientific debate, Naomi Oreskes, a historian of science at Harvard, told theTimes. Willie Soon is playing a role in a certain kind of political theater.
And the implications for this? Jay Michaelson at the Daily Beasthas a brilliant summary of why these climate deniers matter, when their work is so discredited and marginalized in the scientific community:
Yet unlike 9/11 trutherism, and Obama-is-a-Muslim trutherism, the Climate Truther campaign has an air of respectability, a unanimous adherence among Republican presidential candidates. How is that possible?The answer is money. Lots of money. Billions of dollars, in fact, spent to create an entire industry of scientists, publicists, think tanks, and legislative organizations.Willie Soon, for example, should never have been given much credence in the first place. Like nearly all of the Climate Truthers scientists, he is not a climate expert. Hes not even an astrophysicist, as he is often presented. As the New York Times revealed, He is a part-time employee of the Smithsonian Institution with a doctoral degree in aerospace engineering.
Willie Soon (as amply documented in my book The Hockey Stick and the Climate Wars) was instrumental in the early attacks on the Hockey Stick by James Inhofe and other fossil fuel industry-funded politicians. Now we know for certain that his efforts were a quid pro quo with special interests looking to discredit my work as a means of calling into question the reality and threat of climate change.