Here in the United States science has been subordinated to the whims and desires of politicians. The 6th Assessment Report (AR6) on climate change from the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change stands as complete proof of that statement. It really contains no science just fabrications to support the leftist desire to enslave the world by eliminating inexpensive prolific fossil fuel energy. Energy which has raised the developed world to a standard of living never imagined a century ago. Energy which the Clear Energy Alliance calls TECHMAPS because we must understand it supplies the world with Transportation, Electricity, Cooking, Heating/cooling, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Products and Sanitation.
First we had the global warming frenzy, but when temperatures did not rise it became Climate Change because of course it is always changing. I went to school in Connecticut where they said if you don’t like the climate wait ten minutes. Scientists who did not go along with fraudulent doomsday scenarios found their grants dry up and their jobs in jeopardy. Politicizing science is not new. Hitler and Stalin were experts at it to the detriment of their unfortunate populations.
Now in the face of the leftist onslaught of another IPCC propaganda report, 23 serious ethical and courageous scientists set aside their regular research to produce a fair and balanced review on the topic of sun-climate connections. Their collective goal was to right an amazing wrong promoted for decades by the United Nations. That wrong, as incredible as it may seem is the lie that the Sun plays no significant role in the changes in the Earth’s climate.
The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun is one of the oldest science subjects studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. This paper blows open the mystery and explains why it has been difficult to make true scientific advances. This left questions the UN IPCC were happy to answer with politically motivated lies.
The group are experts in the fields of solar physics and climate science located in 14 different countries. The paper appears in Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics. It is the most comprehensive paper to date analyzing the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets including those used by the IPCC.
To begin they make it clear that UN evaluations of climate are based on no substantial physical evidence, but only the mathematical models that by now all readers have heard of though likely are yet to understand. This writer fully understands this problem as working with such models since 1960 it took me a long while not to recognize a model as a physical representation of something real. In fact mathematical models are representation of physical systems used primarily to try and understand how a physical system MIGHT work. No intelligent scientist would endanger a nations economic system based on a mathematical equation that has never included even a fraction of the variables that impact Earth’s climate. The 23 scientists, who are named at the end of this article all know this and it is why they so passionately took up this challenge to help the citizens of the world who have been so terribly misled.
Two of the authors in particular, Gregory Henry and Willie Soon of the US have studied more than 300 stars, similar to our Sun, for three decades. They have observed as the stars age, their rotation slows, their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Such changes would surely affect changes in climate in their planetary systems as they no doubt have in our own.
Paleoclimate evidence has long informed us of large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on scales of decades and centuries. The research of this team along with common sense of our readers indicate that Earth’s climate is determined by natural variations of radiation emitted by our Sun. These variations are a result of Earth-Sun geometry changes resulting from our planets rotational and orbital changes.
We have seen these changes to be synchronized with known past climate changes.
The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. However, science doesn’t work by a consensus. In fact science thrives when scientists disagree and they investigate the reasons for disagreement. The IPCC has now for decades hampered the opportunity for progress by requiring amazingly false agreements. Their executive body eliminates material from the their reports that call into question the reports consistently false conclusions.
Richard Willson, a co-author in charge of NASA’s Sun monitoring efforts said “contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations, in recent decades, have demonstrated that there is no climate change crisis. The concept that devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980s, vintage, global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.”
The paper I have described for our Cfact readers is 72 pages in length containing 18 figures , 2 tables and 544 references. Each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed and rather trying to reach the unscientific consensus they want the readers to be able to draw there own conclusions or beliefs. The consensus, however, that rises to the forefront of its own accord is the complete lack of validity to years of IPCC conclusions and predictions.
Note: The full citation for the paper described here is: R.Connolly, W.Soon, M.Connolly, S. Baliunas, J. Berglund, C.J. Butler, R.G. Coinco, A.G. Elias, V.M. Fedorov, H. Harde, G.W. Henry, D.V. Hoyt, O. Humlum, D.R. Legates,S. Luning, N.Scafetta, J.-E. Solheim,L. Szarka, H. van Loon, V.M. Velasco Herrera, R.C. Wilson, H. Yan, and W. Zhang (2021) How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate. Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics, doi: 10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131