I left the following message at
These sort of blogs get up my nose just more than a little.
Dr Willie Soon should not have his name blackened just because at some time in his career he was employed/contracted by an oil company.
Everyone has to work for someone at some time unless they are successfully freelance or have a private income.
Furthermore as I outline in my comment below, it is also laughable to expect that oil companys have good reason to oppose the global warming hysteria, (although it might be good politics to appear so), so it simply not very likely the Dr Soon is influenced to write whatever is upsetting Greenpeace.
The truth of the matter is that Greenpeace do not like Dr Soon’s assertions and scientific conclusions, which are no doubt quite demonstrably sound (why else would Greenpeace be upset), and of course facts are very difficult to counter when you do not have any yourself, therefore all one can do is try and attack the person.
Frank, with your social, behavioral and information sciences degrees from Carleton University, the University of Toronto, and the University of Western Ontario, your online teaching and learning certificate from the University of British Columbia and your career as a librarian, you should be above stooping to this!
I must admit that I have only one degree, but at least it is in a useful and relevant discipline.
Why did you not attempt to answer my comment on your blog? After all with all those “facts” supplied by Greenpeace, which no doubt you have carefully reviewed, you should be able to counter my quite reasonable assertions.
Did you also read Willie Soon’s academic papers and judge them on their content before you posted your blog?
Every honest economist, (not paid by anyone in particular of course) knows that the unproven “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis and the IPCC’s demands for reductions in the use of fossil fuels, will have an effect that is exactly what big oil has been trying to achieve for decades via OPEC. REDUCTION IN PRODUCTION and INCREASED MARGINS.
The dream of any businessman and corporate actually.
Lets do a simple analysis of what is likely to happen should the world decide to accede to the IPCC’s CO2 emission targets. About a 60% reduction in fossil fuel usage.
In the absence of sufficient alternative solutions/technologies, the only way western countries can ever attain the IPCC demands of CO2 emissions reduced to 40% below 1990 levels, (thats about 60% below todays) is to machine restrictions on the use of fossil fuels. Emission Trading schemes are an example.
As the use of fossil fuels is roughly linear with anthropogenic CO2 emissions, to attain a 60% reduction of emissions , means about the same proportion of reduction of fossil fuel usage, including petrol, diesel, heating oil, not to mention coal and other types including propane etc.
No matter how a restriction on the use of these is implemented, even a 10% decrease will make the price of petrol go sky high. In otherwords, (and petrol is just one example) we can expect, if the IPCC has its way, a price rise on petrol of greater than 500%. (And that is conservative considering the inelasticity of fossil fuel demand)
First of all, for all normal people, this will make the family car impossible to use. Worse than that though, the transport industry will also have to deal with this as well and they will need to pass the cost on to the consumer. Simple things like food will get prohibitively expensive. Manufacturers who need fossil energy to produce will either pass the cost on to the consumer or go out of business. If you live further than walking distance from work, you will be in trouble.
All this leads to an economic crash of terrible proportions as unemployment rises and poverty spreads.
I believe that this will be the effect of bowing to the IPCC and the AGW lobby. AND as AGW is a hoax it will be all in vain. The world will continue to do what it has always done while <b>normal people starve and others at the top (including energy/oil companies and emission traders) will enjoy the high prices.</b>
Neither this scenario nor any analysis of the cost of CO2 emission reductions is included in IPCC literature, and the Stern report which claims economic expansion is simply not obeying economic logic as it is known in todays academic world.
The fact that the emission reduction cost issue is not discussed, leads me to believe that there is a deliberate cover up of this issue. Fairly obviously the possibility of starvation will hardly appeal to the masses.
AGW is baloney anyway but anyone not supporting the “Anthropogenic CO2 causes Global Warming” hypothesis, while being paid by big oil, has to be an honest and genuine man.
I am very aware that sites such as yours tend to spam comments that they find difficult to answer and contradict, (probably because facts are hard to deny). However I will also publish this comment and your answer under your url, on my own website http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com where my readers will await your reply with interest.
Of course my comment was spammed again so I sent this polite message.
Your site will appear in due course on http://www.globalwarmingsupporter.wordpress.com
You have shown, as expected, that you cannot bear to have actual facts that contradict your beliefs on your site.
This means one of the following.
1. You do not understand what you are writing about and therefore are unable to support your views with any reason.
2. You have a superficial knowledge of Global Warming issues, mainly taking heed of what some people tell you and are unable to think for yourself.
3. You do not respond to reason at all, but have taken on a religious zeal to rid the world of “pollution” , in which category you include that life giving gas, CO2, and you cannot tolerate any attack on this faith.
All of these confirm that you are unable to distinguish actual facts and your act of spamming my comment confirms this.
If I refered to drivel in my comment you would have easily been able to counter it.
When I publish your site, the above will be in the minds of my readers. Your site will have no credibility in their eyes.
For criticism of a site that is entirely devoted to ruining a man’s reputation and character, one would think this was fairly mild.
However this little diversion came to my attention. You see quite often I am curious to see which blogs have accessed mine, and “Hey Presto” this popped up.
Frank, after publishing garbage, defamation and possibly libelous unproven facts about Willie Soon, is threatened by me publishing my comment against his URL so the public can see that he is unable to answer reasonable questions about what he is saying.
I can understand his embarrassment about being caught out writing such a narrow minded post.
My gosh what will people do to avoid facing the truth?
I must say I never saw the email that was claimed to be sent. Which address was it I wonder? Never saw a comment on my site either.
Anyway Frank is quite happy to parrot Greenpeace hysteria which are possibly libelous statements on someones character, on a public forum. Foolish site and foolish one eyed person.
Perhaps next time you have a scientist disagreeing with your preconceived notions, try examining the content and then judging the writer on that.
Ad hominem attacks simply indicate that you are unable to face the truth.
I gave Frank a chance to discuss Greenpeaces actions but Frank, even with his multiple degrees cannot even do that!
Frank, just take two steps back and think about what you wrote.