There is no longer any doubt that the director of the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID), Dr. Tony Fauci, lied repeatedly to Congress last May that NIAID has "unequivocally" never funded gain-of-function research at the Chinese Wuhan...
23 Scientists, 14 Countries, 1 Result – UN Undermines the Impact of the Sun
To counter the media and government onslaught that has accompanied “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis,” yet another of the United Nations climate change propaganda reports, 23 courageous scientists have set aside their regular research to produce a fair and balanced review of how the Sun influences climate. Their collective goal was to right an amazing wrong promoted for decades by the UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC). That wrong, as incredible as it may seem to unbiased observers, is the lie that the Sun plays no significant role in the changes to our climate.
The group of 23 (listed at the end of this article) are experts in the fields of solar physics and climate science located in 14 different countries. The paper, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debate,” appears in the journal 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.
The abstract of the paper reads, in part:
“It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded [that the Sun’s output contributed negligibly to Earthly climate change] had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of Total Solar Irradiance and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates.”
In other words, the 23 expert authors of the new paper conclude that the UN IPCC was wrong to only consider research that supports the hypothesis that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions. As if we didn’t already have enough evidence to suspect that the IPCC is cooking the books to generate support for the UN’s official narrative, the new paper proves beyond a shadow of a doubt that the UN IPCC reports are subordinated to the whims and desires of politicians. “Climate Change 2021: The Physical Science Basis” contains little reliable science and consists mostly of fabrications to support the totalitarian drive to enslave the world by eliminating inexpensive, prolific fossil fuel energy.
The quest to understand how the Earth’s climate is connected to the Sun was originally studied by the ancient Greeks and Chinese. Indeed, it is one of the oldest science subjects. The new paper blows open the mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make true scientific advances in today’s “woke” environment dominated by politically-correct, but scientifically flawed narratives.
To begin, the 23 make it clear that UN evaluations of climate are based on no substantial physical evidence, but only mathematical models that by now all readers have heard of. The senior author of this article has been working with such models since 1960, and it took him a long time to recognize how models relate to the real world. Mathematical models are merely representations of physical systems used primarily to try to understand how a physical system MIGHT work. No intelligent scientist would endanger a nation’s economic system based on a mathematical model that has never included even a fraction of the variables that impact Earth’s climate or the equations that describe it. 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 U.S., have studied more than 300 stars, similar to our Sun, for three decades. They have observed that, as the star’s 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 the common sense of our readers, indicates that Earth’s climate is largely determined by natural variations of radiation received from our Sun. Besides actual changes in the Sun’s output, these variations are a result of Earth-Sun geometry and changes resulting from our planet’s rotational and orbital changes. We have seen these changes to be synchronized with known past climate variations.
The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. However, science doesn’t work by 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 their reports that call into question the report’s consistently false conclusions.
Richard Willson, a co-author of the new report, is in charge of NASA’s Sun monitoring efforts. He 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.”
Refreshingly, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed and, rather than trying to reach an unscientific consensus, they want the readers to be able to draw their 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.
Inexpensive, reliable energy has raised the developed world to a standard of living never imagined a century ago. Clear Energy Alliance has coined the term TECHMAPS to describe how this energy has supplied the world with Transportation, Electricity, Cooking, Heating/cooling, Manufacturing, Agriculture, Products, and Sanitation. In other words, everything that climate activists and many of their political allies want to restrict and bring under tight government control.
The 23 conclude in the new paper:
“In the title of this paper, we asked, “How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends?” However, it should now be apparent that, despite the confidence with which many studies claim to have answered this question, it has not yet been satisfactorily answered. Given the many valid dissenting scientific opinions that remain on these issues, we argue that recent attempts to force an apparent scientific consensus (including the IPCC reports) on these scientific debates are premature and ultimately unhelpful for scientific progress. We hope that the analysis in this paper will encourage and stimulate further analysis and discussion. In the meantime, the debate is ongoing.”
Kudos to the brave 23 scientists listed below for standing up to the woke mob!
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,
Disclaimer: The information contained in this website is for educational, general information, and entertainment purposes only and is never intended to constitute medical or legal advice or to replace the personalized care of a primary care practitioner or legal expert.
While we endeavor to keep this information up to date and correct, the information provided by America Out Loud, its website(s), and any properties (including its radio shows and podcasts) makes no representations, or warranties of any kind, expressed, or implied, about the completeness, accuracy, reliability, suitability, or availability with respect to its website(s) or the information, products, services or related graphics and images contained on the website(s) for any purpose.
The opinions expressed on the website(s), and the opinions expressed on the radio shows and podcasts, are the opinions of the show hosts and do not necessarily represent the opinions, beliefs, or policies of anyone or any entity we may endorse. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.
At no time, nor in any event, will we be liable for any loss, or damage, including without limitation, indirect or consequential loss of data or profits arising out of, in an association of, or connection with the use of this website.
Through this website, users can link to other websites that may be listed. Those websites are not under the control of America Out Loud or its brands. We have no control over the nature, content, or availability of those sites. America Out Loud has no control over what the sites do with the information they collect. The inclusion of any links does not necessarily imply a recommendation, nor does it endorse the views expressed with or by them.
Every effort is made to keep the website up and running smoothly. However, America Out Loud takes no responsibility for, nor are we, and will not be liable for being temporarily unavailable due to technical difficulties beyond our control. America Out Loud does not sell, trade, nor market email addresses or other personal data.
Use the code ‘OUTLOUD’ and receive your 20% discount on your first order.