This graphic is from a talk a bit ago on why models don’t really add much knowledge about doing the right thing in terms of climate change. I was struck by how little things have changed since SB375.
If you haven’t seen National Geographic’s latest story on the snowfall, it’s worth taking a look at.
NASA has just released its World of Change Series. Here are a couple of the photographs representing the series endpoints.
After reading the comments in the NYT article, I decided to point out one more thing in the article. Nearly all commenters are saying the science is the science it’s not about the researcher, which I completely agree with, and that the NYT didn’t demonstrate the science was not good science (oh, come on).
I want to point out the following statements which were in the article,
Many experts in the field say that Dr. Soon uses out-of-date data, publishes spurious correlations between solar output and climate indicators, and does not take account of the evidence implicating emissions from human behavior in climate change.
Gavin A. Schmidt, head of the Goddard Institute for Space Studies in Manhattan, a NASA division that studies climate change, said that the sun had probably accounted for no more than 10 percent of recent global warming and that greenhouse gases produced by human activity explained most of it.
“The science that Willie Soon does is almost pointless,” Dr. Schmidt said.
This whole thing is NOT about the science. As aptly stated in the article Dr. Soon is engaging in political theater. Scientists are jumping the gun when they rebuke the NYT.
The NYT published a piece today that focuses on Willie Soon, a Smithsonian employed scientist that publishes on the solar cycle and climate change. He has long denied that there were human inputs to climate change.
Greenpeace (send your extra donations to them) did a FOIA and guess what? Willie Soon made $1.2m for making industry supported claims, including scientific papers referred to as “deliverables” for corporate support.
As if that weren’t enough, take a look at these two statements made by Charles R. Alcock, director of the Harvard-Smithsonian Center,
“I think that’s inappropriate behavior,” Dr. Alcock said. “This frankly becomes a personnel matter, which we have to handle with Dr. Soon internally.”
and then later in the article,
Dr. Alcock said that, aside from the disclosure issue, he thought it was important to protect Dr. Soon’s academic freedom, even if most of his colleagues disagreed with his findings.
Since when is taking money from corporations to produce corporate directed findings about scientific freedom. Does he mean it’s okay to be corrupt?
And what’s up with the journals?? I mean it’s not like he is an unknown author with unknown controversies nipping at his heels. From Naomi Oreskes,
“I think universities desperately need to look more closely at this issue,” Dr. Oreskes said. She added that Dr. Soon’s papers omitting disclosure of his corporate funding should be retracted by the journals that published them.