Willie Soon's Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money

[LocoAko]

Surprise!

http://www.guardian....tic-willie-soon

http://www.huffingto...-_b_886232.html

Denial for Hire: Willie Soon's Career Fueled by Big Oil, Coal and Koch Money

Posted: 06/29/11 11:17 AM ET

Willie Soon, the notorious climate denier who has made a career out of attacking the IPCC and climate scientists, has received over $1 million in funding from Big Oil and coal industry sponsors over the past decade, according to a new report from Greenpeace.

The Greenpeace report, "Dr. Willie Soon: A Career Fueled by Big Oil and Coal," reveals that $1.033 million of Dr. Soon's funding since 2001 has come from oil and coal interests. Since 2002, every grant Dr. Soon received originated with fossil fuel interests, according to documents received from the Smithsonian Institution in response to Greenpeace FOIA requests.

The documents show that Willie Soon has received at least $175,000 from Koch family foundations (Soon is a key player in the Koch brothers' climate denial machine, as Greenpeace documented previously), $230,000 from Southern Company, $274,000 from the American Petroleum Institute, and $335,000 from ExxonMobil, among other polluters.

Dr. Soon is perhaps most well-known for his work with fellow astrophysicist Sallie Baliunas attempting to challenge the "hockey stick" graph of temperature records, first published by Dr. Michael Mann. 



But the documents reveal that he also fancied himself a ringleader of a coordinated effort to sully the IPCC's fourth assessment, plotting with Exxon staffers years in advance about how to attack the 2007 report.

A letter that Dr. Soon wrote in 2003, uncovered by Greenpeace, states:

Clearly they [the AR4 chapters] may be too much for any one of us to tackle them all... But, as A-team, we may for once give it our best shot to try to anticipate and counter some of the chapters, especially WG1 -- judging from our true expertise in the basic climate sciences...

Even if we can tackle ONE single chapter down the road but forcefully and effectively... we will really accomplish A LOT!

In all cases, I hope we can start discussing among ourselves to see what we can do to weaken the fourth assessment report or to re-direct attention back to science...

Soon has served on the roster of many oil- and coal-funded front groups over the past 15 years, from his role as "Scientific Adviser" at the coal-funded Greening Earth Society in the late 1990s, to his affiliations with a variety of Koch-Exxon-Scaife funded groups like the George C. Marshall Institute, the Science and Public Policy Institute, the Center for Science and Public Policy and the Heartland Institute.

Dr. Soon is among the speakers at the annual Denialapalooza climate denier meeting hosted by the Heartland Institute in Washington DC later this week. Since the theme of that Heartland junk science junket is "Restoring the Scientific Method," perhaps the attendees will query Dr. Soon about the ethics of accepting a million dollars from polluter interests while claiming that climate change is nothing to worry about.

From the first link:

Willie Soon: "I have never been motivated by financial reward in any of my scientific research."

[Sunny and Warm]

Interesting that Greenpeace makes such a claim while doing the same thing. I guess hypocrisy is alive and well.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/06/29/the-log-in-the-eye-of-greenpeace/#more-42427

I guess it is as Gandhi said,

First they ignore you ...

Then they ridicule you ...

Then they fight you ...

Then you win ...

Seems we are somewhere between steps two and three.

[AtticaFanatica]

I once read one of his papers (it was used as an example in class of how not to write a paper), it read like a bad 8th grade science project.

[OHSnow]

Interesting that Greenpeace makes such a claim while doing the same thing. I guess hypocrisy is alive and well.

http://wattsupwithth...ace/#more-42427

I guess it is as Gandhi said,

First they ignore you ...

Then they ridicule you ...

Then they fight you ...

Then you win ...

Seems we are somewhere between steps two and three.

I don't see you complaining when mainstream climate scientists are the attacks of vicious smear campaigns. Last week, Fox News compared James Hansen to a doctor being paided by tobacco companies to say smoking isn't a risk, just because he has recieved awards for his research from certain organizations. Even if there were an impropriety in those awards -- which there were not -- that still is an awful comparison to make. A better example would be a doctor who recieves funding or awards from NIH, American Cancer Society, or an anti-smoking group speaking out on the danger of tobacco smoke.

[OHSnow]

American Association for the Advancement of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists

We are deeply concerned by the extent and nature of personal attacks on climate scientists. Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public.

http://www.aaas.org/...d_statement.pdf

I guess it's as Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

It appears we're entering the second stage of violent opposition, as climate scientists have long been the butt of ridicule by some, but the death threats and recent upgrade in rhetoric (accusations of fraud, etc.) appear to be a new phenomenon. Soon enough the truth will be self-evident, it probably is to most who would actually look at the data without blinders on.

[tacoman25]

American Association for the Advancement of Science Regarding Personal Attacks on Climate Scientists

We are deeply concerned by the extent and nature of personal attacks on climate scientists. Reports of harassment, death threats, and legal challenges have created a hostile environment that inhibits the free exchange of scientific findings and ideas and makes it difficult for factual information and scientific analyses to reach policymakers and the public.

http://www.aaas.org/...d_statement.pdf

I guess it's as Arthur Schopenhauer said, "All truth passes through three stages: First, it is ridiculed. Second, it is violently opposed. Third, it is accepted as self-evident."

It appears we're entering the second stage of violent opposition, as climate scientists have long been the butt of ridicule by some, but the death threats and recent upgrade in rhetoric (accusations of fraud, etc.) appear to be a new phenomenon. Soon enough the truth will be self-evident, it probably is to most who would actually look at the data without blinders on.

Lots of people involved in highly political issues like AGW receive violent threats. It has nothing to do with the "truth".

[Sunny and Warm]

I don't see you complaining when mainstream climate scientists are the attacks of vicious smear campaigns. Last week, Fox News compared James Hansen to a doctor being paided by tobacco companies to say smoking isn't a risk, just because he has recieved awards for his research from certain organizations. Even if there were an impropriety in those awards -- which there were not -- that still is an awful comparison to make. A better example would be a doctor who recieves funding or awards from NIH, American Cancer Society, or an anti-smoking group speaking out on the danger of tobacco smoke.

Please provide your definition of mainstream and non-mainstream climate scientists?? I sense I already know your answer and it likely falls along political lines, so save me the James Hansen/tobacco analogy, which frankly doesn't fit this case.

Besides, care to refute the Greenpeace takes money from Big Oil story?? I didn't think so.

[skierinvermont]

I once read one of his papers (it was used as an example in class of how not to write a paper), it read like a bad 8th grade science project.

yup I've read some of his papers too...

his letter about attacking the IPCC reads like a giddy school girl

Soon is an industry funded hack.. what else is new?

[Sunny and Warm]

yup I've read some of his papers too...

his letter about attacking the IPCC reads like a giddy school girl

Soon is an industry funded hack.. what else is new?

This can be said of 90% of any scientist or organization on both sides of the debate. Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc, etc. Let's just agree that both sides have this problem and move on.

[LocoAko]

This can be said of 90% of any scientist or organization on both sides of the debate. Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc, etc. Let's just agree that both sides have this problem and move on.

And all those scientists who receive money from NOAA, NSF, etc? Are they hacks too?

[Sunny and Warm]

And all those scientists who receive money from NOAA, NSF, etc? Are they hacks too?

Since the whole science has been polluted by politcal rhetoric, any and all money is tainted to me. You don't think NOAA is tainted. They lean heavily on the side of AGW. Ever notice when they put out monthly and yearly data. It is always "the 56th warmest year since record keeping began". That's a sutble message when there's maybe only 77 years in the history. Why not 22nd coldest year on record. The only time they seem to do it differently is when it is nearly a cold record. How about temp charts that lean heavily toward the warm hues now reverses back in the day? Go and look and report back that this isn't true. I know there may be exceptions to what I have written, but the reality is that subliminal messages supporting AGW do get out.

... and yes, I'm still waiting for your comments about Greenpeace being hypocrites for accepting Big Oil money. Am I incorrect??

[WeatherRusty]

When will actual frauds like Soon be publically ridiculed for their activities the way Mann, Hansen and Jones have been?

[skierinvermont]

This can be said of 90% of any scientist or organization on both sides of the debate. Al Gore, Greenpeace, etc, etc. Let's just agree that both sides have this problem and move on.

Funny.. I didn't know Al Gore or Greenpeace were scientists. None of the research pertaining to AGW has anything remotely to do with either of them.

NOAA is on the "side" of AGW because that is what basic physics known since 1900 dictates.

AGW isn't a "side." It's basic science which you can deny or understand and accept.

[WeatherRusty]

Lots of people involved in highly political issues like AGW receive violent threats. It has nothing to do with the "truth".

And the truth does not reside in the poliitical arena. AGW is an issue of science. The deniers first brought the element of politics into it in response to the political and industrial implications.

[LakeEffectKing]

And the truth does not reside in the poliitical arena. AGW is an issue of science. The deniers first brought the element of politics into it in response to the political and industrial implications.

You'd better reread what you wrote....especially the part past "in response to the........"

The character assassination (and reasons thereof) of Dr. Soon is/are quite comical.....so they just hand out Phd.'s now in cracker jack boxes???

Disagree with the man? Fine. Point out that much of his research is funded by groups that have an opposing view as yours? Fine. But the discourse in this thread about Dr. Soon reads more like a teenager's FB page talking about the latest slut in school.

[skierinvermont]

So suddenly being funded by big oil and polluters = "being funded by an opposing veiwpoint"

seriously?

This is as bad as saying tobacco companies just had an "opposing viewpoint" on whether their product causes cancer.

I mean seriously? Come on people. Get real.

Oil companies have ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE funding research on the potential harmful effect of their product. There is no word to describe such an absurd conflict of interest.

Next thing we'll be hearing is that we should get rid of the FDA and let pharmaceuticals and big agro-business and meat packagers regulate themselves based on the findings of their own research. Do you have the faintest idea how far these corporations are willing to go to make a buck?

[LakeEffectKing]

So suddenly being funded by big oil and polluters = "being funded by an opposing veiwpoint"

seriously?

This is as bad as saying tobacco companies just had an "opposing viewpoint" on whether their product causes cancer.

I mean seriously? Come on people. Get real.

Oil companies have ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE funding research on the potential harmful effect of their product. There is no word to describe such an absurd conflict of interest.

Next thing we'll be hearing is that we should get rid of the FDA and let pharmaceuticals and big agro-business and meat packagers regulate themselves based on the findings of their own research. Do you have the faintest idea how far these corporations are willing to go to make a buck?

The research would speak for itself....Really, do you know how the scientific method works??? You do realize, don't you, that just about ANY research $$'s allocated (if you dig far enough) have some agenda behind them?

And there is a difference between "regulating" one's self and one's own "research"......you are going a bit over the top....

[skierinvermont]

The research would speak for itself, really, do you know how the scientific method works???

Yes. The research does speak for itself. It's full of gaping holes, manipulation and error just as one would expect.

[LakeEffectKing]

Yes. The research does speak for itself. It's full of gaping holes, manipulation and error just as one would expect.

Much like the CAGW CONCLUSIONS and how they have been drawn....

If the AGW hypothesis has been way overplayed....then the millions of family's who the industry employs and those who invest in fossil fuels would be owed an apology by the likes of you.

[AtticaFanatica]

You'd better reread what you wrote....especially the part past "in response to the........"

The character assassination (and reasons thereof) of Dr. Soon is/are quite comical.....so they just hand out Phd.'s now in cracker jack boxes???

Disagree with the man? Fine. Point out that much of his research is funded by groups that have an opposing view as yours? Fine. But the discourse in this thread about Dr. Soon reads more like a teenager's FB page talking about the latest slut in school.

I don't really care about this stuff, but it's easily the worst paper in a peer-reviewed journal I've ever read, which is why I guess three of the journal's editors resigned afterward. I was probably being generous with 8th grade science report.

[LakeEffectKing]

I don't really care about this stuff, but it's easily the worst paper in a peer-reviewed journal I've ever read, which is why I guess three of the journal's editors resigned afterward. I was probably being generous with 8th grade science report.

Don't get me wrong, I think the guy is a little "wacky" myself, however, not ever meeting the guy, nor am I completely educated on all his writings, I'd still give the man some "agree to disagree" respect. The same would be true of ANY Phd. Any other embellishing remarks emanating from hearsay, assumed affiliations, or the like are generally not part of scientific debate....and the same goes for skeptics who do likewise with Hansen, et al....

I know the conversations on here get heated at times on the scientific front of AGW, but the attacks on ANY scientist out there, has become more of a turn off to me lately.....and yes, that includes those that I disagree with. A little bit of turning over a new leaf, as the circular debate on these boards needs some introspective changes from many....myself included.

[LakeEffectKing]

So suddenly being funded by big oil and polluters = "being funded by an opposing veiwpoint"

seriously?

This is as bad as saying tobacco companies just had an "opposing viewpoint" on whether their product causes cancer.

I mean seriously? Come on people. Get real.

Oil companies have ABSOLUTELY NO PLACE funding research on the potential harmful effect of their product. There is no word to describe such an absurd conflict of interest.

Next thing we'll be hearing is that we should get rid of the FDA and let pharmaceuticals and big agro-business and meat packagers regulate themselves based on the findings of their own research. Do you have the faintest idea how far these corporations are willing to go to make a buck?

BTW, you do remember in the emails, the CRU team was actively meeting/talking with reps from BP, Shell and Exxon regarding research monies/resources don't you??

[WeatherRusty]

The research would speak for itself....Really, do you know how the scientific method works??? You do realize, don't you, that just about ANY research $'s allocated (if you dig far enough) have some agenda behind them?

And there is a difference between "regulating" one's self and one's own "research"......you are going a bit over the top....

-1

Oh, come on, What first rate research is done by the "other side"? All the skeptics do is question the mainstream scientific findings and offer unsubstantiated alternatives. The deniers/conservatives/industry funded self interested ideologues seek to tear apart the science and ruin scientific careers, and then try to diminish or abolish the impact of the EPA (and not just over the issue of CO2) and IPCC .

Admit it. Your argument stems first from an ideological view rather than science. Your scientific argument is a thinly cloaked cover for your more deeply seated political stance which originates in your gut. Psychologically speaking, you have little choice but to deny a scientific finding which you "feel" a repugnance towards.

[WeatherRusty]

I don't really care about this stuff, but it's easily the worst paper in a peer-reviewed journal I've ever read, which is why I guess three of the journal's editors resigned afterward. I was probably being generous with 8th grade science report.

The paper you are referring to is the one used to accuse climate scientist of conspiring against skeptics in the peer-review process. The pirated e-mails refer to this episode and the denial-sphere treats it as proof of a conspiracy by prominent climate scientists. The paper has since been torn to shreds and reveled to be full of error. Yet it is the standard bearer of one of the main skeptic points, that something is wrong within the normal scientific process when it comes to climate science.

[LakeEffectKing]

-1

Oh, come on, What first rate research is done by the "other side"? All the skeptics do is question the mainstream scientific findings and offer unsubstantiated alternatives. The deniers/conservatives/industry funded self interested ideologues seek to tear apart the science and ruin scientific careers, and then try to diminish or abolish the impact of the EPA (and not just over the issue of CO2) and IPCC .

Admit it. Your argument stems first from an ideological view rather than science. Your scientific argument is a thinly cloaked cover for your more deeply seated political stance which originates in your gut. Psychologically speaking, you have little choice but to deny a scientific finding which you "feel" a repugnance towards.

I'm the first to EVER admit on these boards that ideology is the most difficult entity to remove from objectivety....you seem to not share the same view wheb reflecting upon yourself...

However, my non ideological perception is that the Scientific Method is not being preserved with the ongoing AGW hypothesis research, wrt the conclusions that are being pushed as FACT, and your take on skeptical arguments is dripping with ideological blinders wrt to the abandonment of the Sci. Method in this case.

You can certainly view me as some ideological pundent, from your perspective, however, it will in no way discourage me from my skeptical stance that we have a long way to go to draw conclusions on shaky evidence that CO2 increase correlates to CAGW...

Again, your belittling of any research, stance, evidence, unknowns supportive of QUESTIONING a premature conclusion wrt AGW has no place in the Sci. Method.....as a matter of fact, it only hurts the scientific process in studying the hypothesis, because the Sci Method ENCOURAGES skeptisism, and only STRENGTHENS a hypothesis when overcoming ALL arguments and tests that ANYONE can throw at it....The AGW'ers cower to such scientific means, and many people see through the "crying wolf" type science that many of the experts conduct and continue to do so.

Do science a favor and challenge your OWN thinking, stop assuming people are all ideologically driven who disagree with you, and continue to keep an open mind about the uncertainties that very well could result in feedbacks providing a "ho hum" result as CO2 continues to rise.

[ORH_wxman]

-1

Oh, come on, What first rate research is done by the "other side"? All the skeptics do is question the mainstream scientific findings and offer unsubstantiated alternatives. The deniers/conservatives/industry funded self interested ideologues seek to tear apart the science and ruin scientific careers, and then try to diminish or abolish the impact of the EPA (and not just over the issue of CO2) and IPCC .

Admit it. Your argument stems first from an ideological view rather than science. Your scientific argument is a thinly cloaked cover for your more deeply seated political stance which originates in your gut. Psychologically speaking, you have little choice but to deny a scientific finding which you "feel" a repugnance towards.

You are probably one of the most biased posters on here and yet you do not realize it. Almost every single post you make is some sort of back handed knock on skeptic research or how they are just trying to "undermine the science". You are of the view that opposing research is bad for science when it is usually the opposite. That is what advances science. You can give all the equations you want about how much CO2 forcing changes temperatures in a test tube, but understanding the climate system goes a lot deeper than that, and on a multi-decadal scale matters...not just the bottom line 100 or 500 years from now.

[BethesdaWX]

-1

Oh, come on, What first rate research is done by the "other side"? All the skeptics do is question the mainstream scientific findings and offer unsubstantiated alternatives. The deniers/conservatives/industry funded self interested ideologues seek to tear apart the science and ruin scientific careers, and then try to diminish or abolish the impact of the EPA (and not just over the issue of CO2) and IPCC .

Admit it. Your argument stems first from an ideological view rather than science. Your scientific argument is a thinly cloaked cover for your more deeply seated political stance which originates in your gut. Psychologically speaking, you have little choice but to deny a scientific finding which you "feel" a repugnance towards.

Oh Please, what is it with you and double standards? Catastrophic AGW isn't some sort of scientific fact that is exempt from the scientific method for validation. Telling Scientists on this Board that their "view" is "idealogical", when yours is very much the same it seems, is quite hypocritical.

All I've heard you mention...the Earth's energy budget is somewhere near 340W/m^2, and CO2 forcing since 1850 is about 1.4W/m^2. OK fine. How about the fact that Low Cloud Changes of 3% eqyate to a RF change of 1.8W/m^2? Or how about the fact that OLR has increased substantially since 1979? Or that, despite models predicting 20% more warming in the LT, we've actually seen about 20% less? Or maybe, our falling out of the IPCC's 95% confidence interval in the 2001 report somehow may give a clue that we're doing something wrong?

Bottom line is, CO2's RF of 1.4W'm^2 is Tiny Compared to even yearly fluctuations in OLR, usually at least 20W/m^2...in the 2010 El Nino to the 2011 La Nina, OLR varied by over 70W/m^2! Since 1979, OLR increased by a running mean of 10.8W/m^2...that increase in OLR coincided with 0.35C of warming. If you don't believe me... http://www.cpc.ncep....ata/indices/olr

Maybe...Just Maybe....can you think that we've over-estimated climate sensitivity to CO2 emissions? Models are not some sort of proof to go to...when you can't model what changes clouds...Or don't even figure that Ozone depletion in the Stratosphere letting in more High Frequency UVA/UVB rays somehow doesn't warm the oceans?

And yet you call people Ideologists because their opinions differs from yours? Not cool man...

[iceicebyebye]

IMO the terms AGW and CAGW are redundant....unaltered BAU paths lead to things that some insisit on calling "alarmist" outcomes...throwing alternative or fringe ideas or "research" around does nothing to change the basic science

Yes - there are complexities within the climate system

Yes - there are oscillations and negative forcings

Yes - we have yet to realize the bulk of the projected global temperature rise and parralel impacts

But none of this means that the positions being peddled by those outside the scientific mainstream, and on the fringe, deserve equal attention or consideration, even if they have a Phd or some other title

[BethesdaWX]

IMO the terms AGW and CAGW are redundant....unaltered BAU paths lead to things that some insisit on calling "alarmist" outcomes...throwing alternative or fringe ideas or "research" around does nothing to change the basic science

Yes - there are complexities within the climate system

Yes - there are oscillations and negative forcings

Yes - we have yet to realize the bulk of the projected global temperature rise and parralel impacts

But none of this means that the positions being peddled by those outside the scientific mainstream, and on the fringe, deserve equal attention or consideration, even if they have a Phd or some other title

Fringe Research...lol. The "basic science/consensus" is the fact that CO2 is a greenhouse gas and is contributing at least slightly to the warming we've seen...thats it bud. There is no "basic fact" on climate sensivity to increased CO2...no one gives a rats ass if over-simplfied computer models replicating a hockeystick say otherwise...that is still hypothesis via the Scientific Method, even if it is somehow correct (very unlikely).

And what we don't know will change what we do know significantly...that is the issue..its like a chain with 30% of the links missing. The so called "consensus", is the fact that CO2 warms the planet, and our Emissions are contributing at least a bit to the warming we've seen... there, however, is no consensus on "catastrophic AGW", especially among Particle Physicists, there are many thousands of scientists around the world who are skeptical...actually, retired scientists who no longer rely on funding/tenure are more highly Skeptical.

There is no such thing as "fringe research" if it is all a piece to the puzzle. Those who do not understand how AGW is supposed to work don't think of the LT warming significantly less than the Surface as an issue...and cloud changes of 3% equating to 1.8W/m^2 of Increased RF to CO2's 1.4W/m^2 since 1850 somehow are not a factor, even though the profile of the warming suggests otherwise...And ozone depletion..."heh, we can't model Ozone levels in the future..so we'll just leave that out of the equation as a "large uncertainty".......Welcome to the IPCC's rational!

Since January, OLR has varied near 700% more (9W/m^2) than CO2's RF since 1850 (1.4W/m^2) Is this not a big deal? What does this say about climate sensitivity? Now do you realize why a Hockeystick is needed to verify Mass AGW? That way, CO2 can be seen as the only major driver, and it's 1.4W/m^2 causing temperature increase would lead one to suspect high climate sensitivity...unfortunately, basic satellite measurements thoroughly debunk this crap. Since 1979, 10.8Wm^2 increase in OLR has led to 0.35C of warming...wow, are you surprised? I'm not.

This is not that hard to figure out when you dig in a bit.

[WeatherRusty]

You are probably one of the most biased posters on here and yet you do not realize it. Almost every single post you make is some sort of back handed knock on skeptic research or how they are just trying to "undermine the science". You are of the view that opposing research is bad for science when it is usually the opposite. That is what advances science. You can give all the equations you want about how much CO2 forcing changes temperatures in a test tube, but understanding the climate system goes a lot deeper than that, and on a multi-decadal scale matters...not just the bottom line 100 or 500 years from now.

You are correct, I am biased and argue strictly on the basis of the large supportive science which recognizes that human activities are causing the surface environment of the Earth to warm and will continue to do so to a significant degree well above that forced by non-anthropogenic factors. You are also correct that I recognize the organized skeptical/denial machine promoted by politically/ideologically motivated folks who wish only to create the illusion of discord within the scientific community of researchers and to influence the political process by creating confusion. They don't really care about the science.

What is "opposing research"? NO ONE should set out to oppose anything if they are objective. Let the bits fall where they may. Each bit of research results adds to the totality of knowledge. Nothing is being purposefully overlooked or disregarded. Please refresh our memories as to what "skeptic research" has passed muster yet been squashed by mainstream science.

Some have said our knowledge is too limited to hold a strong position with regard to the reality and impacts of AGW. I agree many details remain beyond our ability to understand and not all the dice line up in perfect order. What we do know however are the most important, influential components of what determines Earth's surface temperature and how these things are being altered by human activities.

The equations are not specific to test tubes or in isolation. They represent how radiation warms the Earth's surface, and are used to accurately pin down the surface temperatures of distant star and planets. Earth should be no different. Greenhouse gases are a very important component in determining planetary surface surface temperature. We know very, very accurately how CO2 affects the planetary radiative balance. We know that warmer SST and lower atmosphere will be a more humid one in terms of specific humidity of water vapor. Water vapor, being a prominent greenhouse gas, further enhances surface warming. There are only two other factors which can possibly impact surface temperature. They are incident solar radiation and the Earth's albedo. Nothing else matters to a system near thermodynamic equilibrium, which any and all systems are constantly seeking.

The equilibrium response is what I am concerned with. Maybe you are not. That's why climate scientists and myself care little about coupled oceanic/atmospheric oscillations like PDO, ENSO, AMO or MJO in this discussion.