Like a number of readers, I’m also quite puzzled by what is going on here. Maybe someone could fill us in on the background. It’s not the kind behavior we want to have. We’d prefer to see the long knives returned to the drawer.
Again I’m not taking any sides. But I will say I don’t like watching big guys beat up on little ones. Science is supposed to stay factual with emotions left aside as best as possible. If a scientist has something to say, I say let him get it out there on the table so everyone can see it and decide for himself.
Nicola posted a reader comment that I’m upgrading to a post. It can’t be that all a man has left to defend his reputation with (which he’s worked so hard for) is to post reader comments at a little blog like mine. Nicola’s comment is being upgraded to a post. His science is just as entitled to go through the process of rigorous review as anyone else’s, and to be so without petty attacks from the hinterhalt.
Maybe his science is completely wrong, but let it go through the process. What’s the BFD?
Because Pierre has linked above a new post on WUWT of Willis that criticizes one paper of the collection, I think that also the readers here might be interested in my comment.
Willis appears to criticize a paper without reading it. He picks up something extrapolated from the context like the famous guy jumping around the Bible who concludes that It says “There is no God.” while the full sentence says: “The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God.”
The graph is essentially taken from Shaviv (2008): Shaviv, N. J.: Using the oceans as a calorimeter to quantify the solar radiative forcing, J. Geophys. Res., 113, A11101, doi:1029/2007JA012989, 2008. It has been properly referenced by Solheim and where a lot of details are present. Solheim does not need to repeat the details given the fact that those are in the referenced work.
The uncertainty noted by some above is also discussed in Solheim’s paper and it is due to the fact that the decadal climatic cycle may be due to a soli-lunar oscillation at about 9.1 years and to the 10-12 year solar cycle. This is clearly shown in numerous figures of the paper such as Figure 7, which is taken from one of my papers, which are these:
Scafetta, N.: Solar and Planetary Oscillation control on climate change hind-cast, forecast and an comparison with the CMIP5 GCMs, Energ. Environ., 42, 455–496, 2013a; and
Scafetta, N.: Discussion on climate oscillations: CMIP5 general circulation models versus a semi-empirical harmonic model based on astronomical cycles, Earth-Sci. Rev., 126, 321–357, 2013b.
Willis, unfortunately, has not mastered the work of reading a scientific paper.
Is this all your science, Willis?”
One last note. One factor that motivated me to get active in climate science debate was having watched small, poorly-funded skeptical scientists and dissenters get dragged through the mud by the huge multi-billion dollar climate change industry. Even if the dissenters had been shown wrong, I still would have jumped in. Without an open and fair debate, society cannot possibly progress.