Archive for the ‘willie soon’ Category
Through an email exchange between Roni Bell Sylvester, of Good Neighbor Law, and Kalee Kreider, spokesperson for Gore, it seems Gore is not interested in debating Dr. Willie Soon and Lord Christopher Monckton. Part of the email exchange follows.
March 13, 2008
Dear Mr. Al Gore,
Please consider this our formal request for you to come debate Dr. Willie Soon, at the Good Neighbor Forum. Many verifiable sources have informed us that you decline such invitations. If in fact this is true, please indulge us by explaining why. If this is not true, please indulge us by clarifying.
Good Neighbor is bias only towards sound science, fact and truth. We are not a militant, political, litigious or activist group. We are instead revolutionary in our drive to soundly educate, educate, educate. Our goal is to present entire pictures, and let the audience decide. We would be honored to clear the day, if you, Mr. Gore, would come debate Dr. Soon. If this date does not accommodate your schedule, please confirm a date and place that would. We’ll make it work! Please let us know immediately.
Roni Bell Sylvester
*Dr. Willie Soon – keynote speaker at the Good Neighbor Forum – was quoted in “Polar bears caught in a heated eco-debate” by Oren Dorell – U.S.A. Today, March 10, 2008.
His address “Global Warming 101- Al Gore CO2 Theory” (Good Neighbor Forum 3/15/08) was illuminating. One of Dr. Soon’s colleagues – Lord Christopher Monckton – has invited Mr. Al Gore to debate on many occasions. Mr. Gore has declined. We fail to understand why.
March 26, 2008
After meeting Dr. Willie Soon – and researching his papers further – I fail to see any reason as to why Mr. Gore would not want to clear an hour of his schedule – and openly debate either Dr. Soon or Lord Christopher Monckton. Surely he understands the gravity behind the fact that many non-govenmental agencies and all three candidates running for president are breathlessly dreaming up more policies and treaties -based on an allegedly warming earth.
As you’re well aware, making policy based on errors (I understand scientists have now documented close to 35 in Inconvenient Truth.) will have a horrific, negative impact on everyone in the world.
Many of these policies will destroy resource production in the United States. The ripple affect will be devastating. We’ll no longer be able to stave off world hunger, let alone feed our own poor and hungry.
I believe that if Tipper and Mr. Gore had the factual science on global warming, they’d reverse their positions in a heart beat for a child.
Please pose this request to Mr. Gore directly. For I believe he will be eager to vanquish these speculations surrounding global warming, and do the right thing. Again – we will make Dr. Soon or Lord Monckton available at a location convenient to Mr. Gore – within 48 hours notice.
I look forward to hearing from you soon, with a confirmation day, place and time – for us to present either Dr. Soon or Lord Monckton.
Thank you Kalee. Your attention to this critical matter is greatly appreciated.
Roni Bell Sylvester
March 26, 2008
Thank you again for your invitation.
Mr. Gore is not interested in a debate with either Dr. Soon or Lord Monckton.
As you may know, Lord Monckton and Mr. Gore exchanged op eds in a UK paper.
We are aware of Dr. Soon’s statements.
Thank you so much for reaching out and do accept my apologies that we cannot accept your kind offer.
The U. S. government commissioned studies to support the listing of polar bears as a threatened or endangered species. Polar bear numbers are currently high and the population has been increasing rapidly in recent decades. Everyone likes polar bears, so this is good news. A decision to list would require forecasts that the current upward population trend will reverse. The government studies concluded that polar bear populations would decrease substantially.
Decision makers and the public should expect people who make forecasts to be familiar with the scientific principles of forecasting just as a patient expects his physician to be familiar with the procedures dictated by medical science. Three scientists, J. Scott Armstrong of the University of Pennsylvania, Kesten Green of Monash University, and Willie Soon of The Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics, audited the government studies to assess whether they were consistent with forecasting principles. Their paper, “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public-Policy Forecasting Audit,” has been accepted for publication in the management science journal Interfaces. It is the only peer-reviewed paper on polar bear population forecasting that has been accepted for publication in an academic journal.
They concluded that the government forecasts were based on false assumptions and their polar bear population forecasts contravened many principles for scientific forecasting. Indeed, the reports followed fewer than one-sixth of the relevant principles. Given the importance of the forecasts, all principles should be properly applied. In short, the government reports do not provide relevant information for this decision.
Research shows that for issues such as the population of polar bears—situations that are complex and where there is much uncertainty—the best forecast is that things will follow a “random walk;” in effect, this model states that the most recent value is the best forecast for all periods in the future. Because the polar bear population has been increasing over recent decades, however, a continuation of that trend over the short term is possible.
Copies of Armstrong, Green and Soon’s forthcoming paper are available at http://publicpolicyforecasting.com.
Track 1: Paleoclimatology (10:30-12:00pm)
Willie Soon, Ph.D
Chief Science Advisor
Science and Public Policy Institute
An Overview of Global Warming Science
Soon sought to cut through the complex science by titling his presentation “Global Warming 101.” He began speaking of the popular carbon dioxide claims by the IPCC, the same carbon dioxide (hockey-stick) theory by Al Gore that can be shown to be false. He, like many others during the conference, emphasized that carbon dioxide is instead a lag variable in the transitional period from a period of cooler temperatures to warmer temperatures. In place of carbon dioxide, Soon’s research shows that the sun is most likely the dominant driver of recorded Arctic air temperature changes – with an effect factor of at least 10 times that of carbon dioxide. In closing, Soon explained in a humorous metaphor: himself as CO2, William “Refrigerator” Perry as the sun, and Tom Brady as the climate, that CO2 (Dr. Soon) would have little effect on the climate.
Following the conference, Willie Soon was featured along with Bob Carter on the Glenn Beck show. It is available to watch below from YouTube.
Professor of Physics Emeritus
University of Connecticut, U.S.
The Overstated Role of Carbon Dioxide on Climate Change
Howard Hayden’s talk began with an analysis of global warming models, saying that the simulations are based on curve-fitting and not on basic physics, or “garbage-in, gospel-out.” Take a closer look at the famous CO2 slide presented by Al Gore and listen to his words, “you can see how well they fit together,” and “there is one relationship that is more powerful than all the others, and it is this: when there is more carbon dioxide, the temperature gets warmer.” Hayden points to the old adage and fundamental scientific principle: “correlation is not causation.” Further, humans are only responsible for 3.5% of CO2 emissions, and the biggest source is actually warm water. Astronomical effects can then be examined for warming or cooling the oceans and its relationship with CO2 emissions.
Craig Loehle, Ph.D.
National Council for Air and Stream Improvement
Detection of a 1,500-year Periodicity in a Multiproxy Climate Reconstruction
Loehle began his talk by critiquing the method of temperature reconstruction through tree rings. Given the wide variety of issues not limited to: individual trees not responding to temperature, precipitation and species growth limits, Loehle set out on his global proxy study. Using 18 data sets each 2000 years long (sea sediments, cave stalagmites, pollen, ice, etc.), a corrected global temperature was constructed. This reconstruction under 95% confidence intervals fits with a 1500 year cycle proposed by Singer & Avery that implies the recent warming is merely part of a natural trend.
On January 30, 2008, Scott Armstrong gave a talk presenting his findings to the US Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works’ “Examining Threats and Protections for the Polar Bear”. Click here for full text of the talk. The following are selected excerpts. Full text is available of the paper “Polar Bear Population Forecasts: A Public Policy Forecasting Audit” by Armstrong, Green, and Soon.
We conducted forecasting audits of two of the nine administrative reports that were prepared in 2007 to “…Support U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Polar Bear Listing Decision.” We selected the reports Amstrup et al. and Hunter et al. as they appeared to be the primary forecasting documents. Our concern was to establish whether the reports’ forecasts of the polar bear population over the balance of the 21st Century were the product of scientific procedures.
Read the rest of this entry »
The following are some excerpts from the article discussing Alaska’s decision whether to list polar bears as endangered or not. Click here for the full text available online.
Ken Taylor has had easier jobs than this one. It’s not like the good old days chasing rhinos, climbing into bear dens and wrestling beluga whales in shallow water.
These days, sitting at a desk as deputy commissioner of fish and game, the veteran wildlife biologist has to muster the best science he can find to argue that Alaska’s polar bears are in good shape and need no special protection from hypothetical doomsday scenarios.
This requires Taylor to stand up to the prevailing wisdom about global warming in most of the world’s scientific community and the public — not to mention some pretty strong opinions in his own department.
But Taylor, the Palin administration’s point man on polar bears, argues that the scientific justification simply isn’t there — at least not yet — to declare the polar bear “threatened” and touch off a cascade of effects under the Endangered Species Act. A decision on the bears is expected from the U.S. Department of the Interior in the next few weeks.
“From my perspective, it’s very difficult to put a population on the list that’s healthy, based on a projection 45 years into the future,” Taylor says. “That’s really stretching scientific credibility.”
The state also pokes at studies used to predict the future of polar ice, quoting at length from the climate scientists’ own demurrals about margins of error. The chain of predicted problems following from those studies are based on “unsupported conjecture,” the state says.
The state’s critique was based on the work of a consultant, J. Scott Armstrong, a University of Pennsylvania expert on mathematical forecasting who has elsewhere challenged former vice president Al Gore to a $10,000 bet on whether the globe is truly warming.
Scott Armstrong and Kesten Green are two of the over 400 prominent scientists featured in a Senate Report debunking the scientific “consensus” on global warming. The report was released December 20th, 2007, and can be accessed at the U.S. Senate Committee on Environment & Public Works site. The following is a selected excerpt citing Armstrong’s climate challenge to Al Gore, scientific forecasts versus forecasts by scientists, and the recent study of polar bear prediction methodology.
Internationally known forecasting pioneer Dr. Scott Armstrong of the Wharton School at the Ivy League University of Pennsylvania and his colleague Kesten Green of Monash University in Australia challenged Gore to a $10,000 bet in June 2007 over the accuracy of climate computer models predictions. “Claims that the Earth will get warmer have no more credence than saying that it will get colder.” According to Armstrong, the author of Long-Range Forecasting, the most frequently cited book on forecasting methods, “Of 89 principles [of forecasting], the [UN] IPCC violated 72.” Armstrong and Green also critiqued the Associated Press for hyping climate fears in 2007. “Dire consequences have been predicted to arise from warming of the Earth in coming decades of the 21st century. Enormous sea level rise is one of the more dramatic forecasts. According to the AP‘s Borenstein, such sea-level forecasts were experts’ judgments on what will happen,” Armstrong and Green wrote to EPW on September 23, 2007.
A forecasting audit conducted by Scott Armstrong, Kesten Green and Willie Soon has concluded that the government’s administrative reports do not rely on scientific forecasting procedures. Thus, it would be irresponsible to classify polar bears as an endangered species. The authors are seeking additional peer review for their paper.