Challenging UN, Study Finds Sun — not CO2 — May Be Behind Global WarmingThe full article here and the statement released by the scientists can be found here.
New peer-reviewed paper finds evidence of systemic bias in UN data selection to support climate-change narrative
By Alex Newman August 16, 2021 Updated: August 16, 2021
The sun and not human emissions of carbon dioxide (CO2) may be the main cause of warmer temperatures in recent decades, according to a new study with findings that sharply contradict the conclusions of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).
The peer-reviewed paper, produced by a team of almost two dozen scientists from around the world, concluded that previous studies did not adequately consider the role of solar energy in explaining increased temperatures.
The new study was released just as the UN released its sixth "Assessment Report," known as AR6, that once again argued in favor of the view that man-kind's emissions of CO2 were to blame for global warming. The report said human responsibility was "unequivocal."
But the new study casts serious doubt on the hypothesis.
Calling the blaming of CO2 by the IPCC "premature," the climate scientists and solar physicists argued in the new paper that the UN IPCC's conclusions blaming human emissions were based on "narrow and incomplete data about the Sun's total irradiance."
Indeed, the global climate body appears to display deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies, and data are included in its influential reports, multiple authors told The Epoch Times in a series of phone and video interviews.
"Depending on which published data and studies you use, you can show that all of the warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different data set to come up with the opposite conclusion," lead study author Ronan Connolly, Ph.D. told The Epoch Times in a video interview.
"In their insistence on forcing a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have decided to consider only those data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative," he added.
The following is the abstract of the study:
How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? An ongoing debateAn accusation of data cherrypicking to conceal uncertainty and in effect orchestrate a pre-conceived conclusion in my opinion is very serious. Accepting the IPCC's climate warnings at face value without considering strenuous objections from well qualified scientists as to the quality of the procedures which led to those conclusions could lead to a catastrophic global misallocation of resources.
Ronan Connolly1,2, Willie Soon1, Michael Connolly2, Sallie Baliunas3, Johan Berglund4, C. John Butler5, Rodolfo Gustavo Cionco6,7, Ana G. Elias8,9, Valery M. Fedorov10, Hermann Harde11, Gregory W. Henry12, Douglas V. Hoyt13, Ole Humlum14, David R. Legates15, Sebastian Lüning16, Nicola Scafetta17, Jan-Erik Solheim18, László Szarka19, Harry van Loon20, Víctor M. Velasco Herrera21, Richard C. Willson22, Hong Yan (艳洪)23 and Weijia Zhang24,25
In order to evaluate how much Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) has influenced Northern Hemisphere surface air temperature trends, it is important to have reliable estimates of both quantities. Sixteen different estimates of the changes in TSI since at least the 19th century were compiled from the literature. Half of these estimates are "low variability" and half are "high variability". Meanwhile, five largely-independent methods for estimating Northern Hemisphere temperature trends were evaluated using: 1) only rural weather stations; 2) all available stations whether urban or rural (the standard approach); 3) only sea surface temperatures; 4) tree-ring widths as temperature proxies; 5) glacier length records as temperature proxies. The standard estimates which use urban as well as rural stations were somewhat anomalous as they implied a much greater warming in recent decades than the other estimates, suggesting that urbanization bias might still be a problem in current global temperature datasets - despite the conclusions of some earlier studies. Nonetheless, all five estimates confirm that it is currently warmer than the late 19th century, i.e., there has been some "global warming" since the 19th century. For each of the five estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperatures, the contribution from direct solar forcing for all sixteen estimates of TSI was evaluated using simple linear least-squares fitting. The role of human activity on recent warming was then calculated by fitting the residuals to the UN IPCC's recommended "anthropogenic forcings" time series. For all five Northern Hemisphere temperature series, different TSI estimates suggest everything from no role for the Sun in recent decades (implying that recent global warming is mostly human-caused) to most of the recent global warming being due to changes in solar activity (that is, that recent global warming is mostly natural). It appears that previous studies (including the most recent IPCC reports) which had prematurely concluded the former, had done so because they failed to adequately consider all the relevant estimates of TSI and/or to satisfactorily address the uncertainties still associated with Northern Hemisphere temperature trend estimates. Therefore, several recommendations on how the scientific community can more satisfactorily resolve these issues are provided.
Update (EW): The following diagram beautifully illustrates how small variations in dataset choice produce wildly different outcomes and conclusions. In this case excluding likely contaminated urban temperature series, only using rural temperature series, produces temperature series which appear to correlate well with natural forcings.




Reader Comments
look at the REAL data not cherry picked by some ugly-ass globalist imp.
"Sooo, when filing this item, I don't put it in the bin labeled, "unicorn gendered people and drowning polar bears"?
"That's right. File it in the bin beside it."
"... I think that's the office shredder."
"We don't pay you to think."
"Um.., you don't actually pay me."
"And when you're done, fetch me another kombucha."
Unfortunately most people are not wired in a way to be able to assimilate this information.
I have discussed this with him and he agrees. Many in my own family and friends when confronted with patents over many years and satellite photos of clouds in waveforms still will not accept that Geoengineering has been going on for years on a massive scale.
Spreading this massage will be met with unpleasant resistance. I now this from personal experience . Good luck.
Like the Covid scam, official climate "science" is agenda-driven, to keep us in fear and darkness.
Many people have not realized that we as society and individuals are at a historical inflection point. There are some choices we currently have to make that will turn out to be live-or-death decisions - for both.
To my mind, and a lot of science can back this up, mankind does not have the power to significantly affect global warming trends in either direction. No matter how big our egos get, we can never match the raw power of Nature.
RC
The front page of this search has 10 articles on the effect of soot on glaciers. It is blamed for the rapid retreat, and ever increasing pace of retreat, starting from the beginning of the industrial revolution and the mass burning of coal, and forest fires figure in as well. The loss of glaciers has resulted in the loss of flow in rivers and streams, resulting in harm to people, livestock, wildlife, and industry itself. The burning of coal is also responsible for the mercury deposition in the oceans that is poisoning the flesh of food sources from the ocean, and affecting the life cycle throughout the oceans. Coal comes out of the ground contaminated with mercury. Petroleum comes out contaminated with dioxin and benzene.
This is an issue where I have to stand with ecologists, though I am most concerned about the direct poisoning effects. I do NOT however, believe in manmade global warming. The CO2 argument has too many fault lines and credible detractors. But the sun has been tracked for hundreds of years, and the weather changes that accompany the sunspot cycles are well established.
RC
As for the glyphosate, it is not only carcinogenic, it's first effect is ubiquitous. It disrupts the shikimate pathway in bacteria, shutting down their cellular production of proteins and other metabolites. It thus directly causes the death of bacteria in the soil responsible for fertility and tilth as the bacteria starve to death. Since foodstuffs treated with glyphosate contain residues, it's important to note it also does the same thing to all the bacteria in your gut that affect your health. Some of those bacteria help with blood glucose control, others with mental health, they have a whole host of benefits.
Garbage and Lies go in! Garbage and Lies come out!
Voila! Climate Catastrophe, a la mode. Bon appetit!
Which means, the truth can now be voted on.
And all of that votes can be bought.
Let's call this "Consenscience" ...
Kudos!
RC
To finish with that Galileo quote: