NoTricksZone reports:
Proven by thousands of temperature datasets, the earth’s climate fluctuated cyclically in the past, and there’s an overwhelming body of evidence showing a close correlation with solar activity and other powerful natural factors. If the IPCC had truly examined past temperature developments and compared them to solar data, they’d have seen there is something remarkable there.
Yet in the IPCC AR5, Working Group 1 takes only a cursory look at solar activity and its possible impacts on climate in IPCC AR5 before simply dismissing the sun altogether. The Earth’s sole supplier of energy, the sun, and all its dynamism, in fact gets only a couple of pages in a 2200-page report, about 0.1%. That alone is a monumental scandal. It’s incompetence and negligence on the grandest of scales.
This will certainly go down in the books as one of the greatest scientific debacles of human history.
Judith Lean wrote in the previous IPCC report IPCC AR4 in 2007 that the influence of the Sun is negligible. She quoted as reference a paper by herself and Klaus Fröhlich showing that the temperature had gone up although the output from the Sun had diminished. In that paper,Fröhlich had adjusted the Sun output data for the period 1990-2005 to look like the output had gone down, although in realtity it had increased. Further, Lean left out five other papers wherwhere it was shown that the Sun output had increased,
If I remember right about one of the earlier reports, the sun also got dismissed out of hand without any solar data that I can remember.
I think it read something like the panel looked at the sun and some other possible sources for the additional warming but concluded they were not significant factors. End of story.
Oh no. Our climate models need to account for another small variable. You mean that input of solar energy for the sun needs to be accounted for.
There was an old joke; “Why doesn’t the sun come out at night–when we need it?”
The IPCC and its media mentors wouldn’t get the joke. They think daylight (and life-giving warmth) just happens–and the sun is not involved.
Remember the song from :Annie” where she sings “the sun comes out tomorrow…”. If the sun goes away and does not come out for a few tomorrows, it’s going to get real cold–no matter how much CO2 there is.
We learn’t the sun don’t warm the Earth,
Ain’t causin’ us to fry,
It’s just a big fluorescent bulb,
A lite’n up the sky.
Howdy LIonell
That’s kinda what I was thinking.
I am sure that IPCC scientists did study the sun’s role. IPCC scientists have protested and quit on a regular basis because their work counter to the narrative was minimized, omitted, or presented fraudulently. The SPM in particular has been the target of scientists’ anger and frustration but the rest of the report has often come in for criticism from its contributors.
Increasingly outrageous taxes and irrational regulation of our use of energy all based upon the monumental fraud that CO2 controls climate is not human sacrifice?
How many have already died as a result of fuel poverty? How many have lost their jobs, their livelihood, and their property due to the irrational regulations? How many have starved to death due to the irrational practice of turning food into transportation fuel? All without a measurable impact upon the climate.
That looks a lot like human sacrifice to me except that it is not as “hands on” as it was for the Aztecs. In some respects, the Aztecs were more humane. Their victims did not suffer nearly as long.
Human sacrifices are out as a method to control the sun so we have to look for some other culprit, like human generated CO2, which appears to have different properties than the non-human generated garden variety CO2.
It does seem that the affects of solar variation are somewhat masked by noisy temperature data.