Articles 

New Study: 23 Experts in the fields of Solar Physics and Climate Science Contradict the IPCC — the Science is NOT Settled

A diverse expert panel of global scientists finds blaming climate change mostly on greenhouse gas emissions was premature. Their findings contradict the UN IPCC’s conclusion, which the study shows, is grounded in narrow and incomplete data about the Sun’s total solar irradiance (TSI).

Most of the energy in the Earth’s atmosphere comes from the Sun. It has long been recognized that changes in the so-called “total solar irradiance” (TSI), i.e., the amount of energy emitted by the Sun, over the last few centuries, could have contributed substantially to recent climate change. However, this new study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) only considered a small subset of the published TSI datasets when they were assessing the role of the Sun in climate change and that this subset only included “low solar variability” datasets. As a result, the IPCC was premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent climate change.


A new scientific review article has just been published on the role of the Sun in climate change over the last 150 years.

It finds that the United Nations’ Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) may have been premature in their conclusion that recent climate change is mostly caused by human greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper by 23 experts in the fields of solar physics and of climate science from 14 different countries is published in the peer-reviewed journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics (RAA).

The paper, which is the most comprehensive to date, carries out an analysis of the 16 most prominent published solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC.

The researchers compared them to 26 different estimates of Northern Hemisphere temperature trends since the 19th century (sorted into five categories), including the datasets used by the IPCC.

They focused on the Northern Hemisphere since the available data for the early 20th century and earlier is much more limited for the Southern Hemisphere, but their results can be generalized for global temperatures.

How much has the Sun influenced Northern Hemisphere temperature trends? (click the image to enlarge)


The study found that scientists come to opposite conclusions about the causes of recent climate change depending on which datasets they consider.

For instance, in the graphs above, the panels on the left lead to the conclusion that global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to human-caused emissions, especially carbon dioxide (CO2), i.e., the conclusion reached by the UN IPCC reports.

In contrast, the panels on the right lead to the exact opposite conclusion, i.e., that the global temperature changes since the mid-19th century have been mostly due to natural cycles, chiefly long-term changes in the energy emitted by the Sun.

Both sets of panels are based on published scientific data, but each uses different datasets and assumptions.

On the left, it is assumed that the available temperature records are unaffected by the urban heat island problem, and so all stations are used, whether urban or rural.

On the right, only rural stations are used.

Meanwhile, on the left, solar output is modeled using the low variability dataset that has been chosen for the IPCC’s upcoming (in 2021/2022) 6th Assessment Reports. This implies zero contribution from natural factors to the long-term warming.

On the right, solar output is modeled using a high variability dataset used by the team in charge of NASA’s ACRIM sun-monitoring satellites. This implies that most, if not all, of the long-term temperature changes are due to natural factors.

Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES):

“The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. I understand the political usefulness of having a consensus view in that it makes things easier for politicians. However, science doesn’t work by consensus. In fact, science thrives best when scientists are allowed to disagree with each other and to investigate the various reasons for disagreement. I fear that by effectively only considering the datasets and studies that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have seriously hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of recent and future climate change. I am particularly disturbed by their inability to satisfactorily explain the rural temperature trends.”


The 72 page review (18 figures, 2 tables and 544 references) explicitly avoided the IPCC’s consensus-driven approach in that the authors agreed to emphasize where dissenting scientific opinions exist as well as where there is scientific agreement.

Indeed, each of the co-authors has different scientific opinions on many of the issues discussed, but they agreed for this paper to fairly present the competing arguments among the scientific community for each of these issues, and let the reader make up their own mind.

Several co-authors spoke of how this process of objectively reviewing the pros and cons of competing scientific arguments for the paper has given them fresh ideas for their own future research. The authors also spoke of how the IPCC reports would have more scientific validity if the IPCC started to adopt this non-consensus driven approach.

The full citation for the study, and indeed the study itself, can be found HERE.


Quotes from some of the other co-authors

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera, Professor of Theoretical Physics and Geophysics at the National Autonomous University of Mexico (UNAM) said:

“This paper is very special in that all 23 co-authors set aside our research directions and specialties to produce a fair and balanced scientific review on the subject of sun-climate connections that the UN IPCC reports had mostly missed or simply neglected.”


Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples Federico II (Italy):

“The possible contribution of the sun to the 20th-century global warming greatly depends on the specific solar and climatic records that are adopted for the analysis. The issue is crucial because the current claim of the IPCC that the sun has had a negligible effect on the post-industrial climate warming is only based on global circulation model predictions that are compared against climatic records, which are likely affected by non-climatic warming biases (such as those related to the urbanization), and that are produced using solar forcing functions, which are obtained with total solar irradiance records that present the smallest secular variability (while ignoring the solar studies pointing to a much larger solar variability that show also a different modulation that better correlates with the climatic ones). The consequence of such an approach is that the natural component of climate change is minimized, while the anthropogenic one is maximized. Both solar and climate scientists will find the RAA study useful and timely, as it highlights and addresses this very issue.”


Ole Humlum, Emeritus Professor of Physical Geography at the University of Oslo, Norway:

“This study clearly demonstrates the high importance of carefully looking into all aspects of all available data. Obviously, the old saying ‘Nullius in verba’ is still highly relevant in modern climate research.”


Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist in Astronomy, from Tennessee State University’s Center of Excellence in Information Systems (U.S.A.):

“During the past three decades, I have acquired highly precise measurements of brightness changes in over 300 Sun-like stars with a fleet of robotic telescopes developed for this purpose. The data show that, as Sun-like stars age, their rotation slows, and thus their magnetic activity and brightness variability decrease. Stars similar in age and mass to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s and would be expected to affect climate change in their own planetary systems.”


Valery M. Fedorov, at the Faculty of Geography in Lomonosov Moscow State University, Russia:

“The study of global climate change critically needs an analytical review of scientific studies of solar radiation variations associated with the Earth’s orbital motion that could help to determine the role and contributions of solar radiation variations of different physical natures to long-term climate changes. This paper steers the scientific priority in the right direction.”


Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator in charge of NASA’s ACRIM series of Sun-monitoring Total Solar Irradiance satellite experiments (U.S.A.):

“Contrary to the findings of the IPCC, scientific observations in recent decades have demonstrated that there is no ‘climate change crisis’. The concept that’s devolved into the failed CO2 anthropogenic global warming (CAGW) hypothesis is based on the flawed predictions of imprecise 1980’s vintage global circulation models that have failed to match observational data both since and prior to their fabrication.

The Earth’s climate is determined primarily by the radiation it receives from the Sun. The amount of solar radiation the Earth receives has natural variabilities caused by both variations in the intrinsic amount of radiation emitted by the Sun and by variations in the Earth-Sun geometry caused by planetary rotational and orbital variations. Together these natural variations cause the Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) at the Earth to vary cyclically on a number of known periodicities that are synchronized with known past climatic changes.”


WeiJia Zhang, Professor of Physics at Shaoxing University (China) and a Fellow of the Royal Astronomical Society (UK):

“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 review paper blows open the mystery and explains why it has been so difficult to make scientific advances so far. It will take the real understanding of fluid dynamics and magnetism on both the Sun and Earth to find the next big leap forward.”


Hong Yan (晏宏), Professor of Geology and Paleoclimatology at the Institute of Earth Environment and Vice Director of the State Key Laboratory of Loess and Quaternary Geology in Xi’an, China:

“Paleoclimate evidence has long been informing us of the large natural variations of local, regional and hemispheric climate on decadal, multidecadal to centennial timescales. This paper will be a great scientific guide on how we can study the broad topic of natural climatic changes from the unique perspective of external forcings by the Sun’s multi-scale and multi-wavelength impacts and responses.”


Ana G. Elias, Director of the Laboratorio de Ionosfera, Atmósfera Neutra y Magnetosfera (LIANM) at the Facultad de Ciencias Exactas y Tecnología in the Universidad Nacional de Tucumán (FACET-UNT), Argentina:

“The importance of this work lies in presenting a broader perspective, showing that all the relevant long-term trend climate variability forcings, and not just the anthropogenic ones (as has been done mostly), must be considered. The way in which the role of these forcings is estimated, such as the case of solar and geomagnetic activity, is also important, without minimizing any one in pursuit of another. Even the Earth’s magnetic field could play a role in climate.”


Willie Soon, at the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), who also has been researching sun/climate relationships at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics (U.S.A.) since 1991:

“We know that the Sun is the primary source of energy for the Earth’s atmosphere. So, it always was an obvious potential contributor to recent climate change. My own research over the last 31 years into the behavior of stars that are similar to our Sun, shows that solar variability is the norm, not the exception. For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports. Hopefully, this systematic review of the many unresolved and ongoing challenges and complexities of Sun/climate relationships can help the scientific community return to a more comprehensive and realistic approach to understanding climate change.”


László Szarka, from the ELKH Institute of Earth Physics and Space Science (Hungary) and also a member of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences:

“This review is a crucial milestone on the way to restoring the scientific definition of ‘climate change’ that has become gradually distorted over the last three decades. The scientific community should finally realize that in science there is no authority or consensus; only the right to seek the truth.”

The science is settled, right? That’s what we’re led to believe?

Well no, even that statement is a lie, and these 23 eminent solar physicists and climate scientists are evidence of that–they are putting their reputations -and in some cases their careers- on the line to share with you their findings. Help their voices grow louder by spreading their message. Give others in your ‘circle of influence’ -to steal a gross climate change trope– the opportunity to become awakened, and to discover the true meaning of scientific endeavor: question everything.

Social Media channels are restricting Electroverse’s reach: Twitter are purging followers while Facebook are labeling posts as “false” and have slapped-on crippling page restrictions.

So, be sure to subscribe to receive new post notifications by email (the box is located in the sidebar >>> or scroll down if on mobile).

Please also consider disabling ad blockers for electroverse.net, if you use one.

And/or become a Patron, by clicking here: patreon.com/join/electroverse.

The site receives ZERO funding, and never has.

So any way you can, help us spread the message so others can survive and thrive in the coming times.

Grand Solar Minimum + Pole Shift

Related posts

22 Thoughts to “New Study: 23 Experts in the fields of Solar Physics and Climate Science Contradict the IPCC — the Science is NOT Settled”

  1. P. J. Flanders

    How much weight will these scientists carry in the scientific community at large, as compared to the IPCC?

    1. prioris

      When political agendas and science get intertwined, power structures are what carry the weight. The states have an enormous amount of carrots and sticks they can give out. There have veiled threats for those thinking of crossing the line and telling the truth. All sorts of laws, punishment and regulation have been passed to suffocate or suppress anyone who don’t comply.

      Since 2012, China has shutdown any real opposition to global warming. China is fully aware global warming is a lie. Russia has went along with global warming. There is cooperation between all the major countries. Look at how easily they all went along with the Fake Covid containment and vaccinations. What kind of quid pro quo have been given to achieve this cooperation. Are they involved in any secret projects together. Are they all involved building underground cities and transportation together. Do they have a breakaway society.

      Power structures have most of the scientists on a leash. The Sun will ultimately trump the power structures

      1. P. J. Flanders

        Thank you for a thorough but disheartening answer.

      2. Matt Dalby

        Russia went along with global warming in order to secure a trade deal with the E.U. China plays along because it stands to gain economically and geopolitically from the West destroying their economies to try and achieve net zero, as well as being the world’s largest supplier of solar panels, rare earth minerals used in wind turbines, battery technology etc. Most developing countries go along with global warming as it means they can demand
        $100’s of billions in aid/compensation from the West.
        There doesn’t have to be a massive global conspiracy, simply countries acting in their own best interests, which very often happens to be agreeing with the West about global warming.

        1. prioris

          It’s still not enough to explain the extent of the cooperation in so many other lies

          They all march in lockstep with suppressing technology on earth.

          Economic pressure and bribes will reel in the smaller fish but not the big fish. It has bribed the smaller nations or tell them there is free money down the road and that if they sign up, they can share in it. They can be threatened with violence. There is self interest to rulers to an extent.

          What did they offer russia and china to go along with covid and vaccination lies.

          1. ddwieland

            I don’t know about Russia, but China has always had a vested interest in suppressing everything pointing to their responsibility in the origin of Covid. Of course, the CCP is well-practiced in also suppressing the Chinese people.

    2. JonB

      Let’s see, 23 Scientists deny Greenhouse gases are the main culprit. Exactly how many Scientists agree that Greenhouse gases are the main culprit?
      I think that I will have to go with the vastly, vastly, vastly greater number of Scientists.

      1. Boza M

        Well, there was one Copernicus, and many who believed in Ptolemy’s model of Universe.

      2. ddwieland

        You’re missing the main point: Consensus isn’t science. Of course, scientists, as all humans, are political creatures, but it’s a mistake to count the number of people in favour of an idea as a way of determining scientific validity. It’s even that the claimed 97% consensus has any real meaning, since no survey of scientists on a clear question has even been done. But, yeah, go with the biggest number and don’t bother with scientific data.

        1. ddwieland

          … It’s even DOUBTFUL that the claimed 97% …

  2. Jack

    I have been watching weather radar (clouds, storms, temperature, 24-hour precipitation and snow, etc.) very closely since early June, and I have been reading news about severe weather.

    In all of the news about recent heatwaves, I noticed that nobody wanted to report the source of this heat. It was always high-pressure or low-pressure in a non-specific area of a region or just “heat dome”.

    If you looked at the temperature radar, it couldn’t have been more obvious unless it punched you in the nose. It all came from the Phoenix-Vegas urban heat island. The Oregon heatwave. The Canada heatwave. Montana. The Dakotas. You name it. It all traced back to Phoenix-Vegas.

    Every singke time.

    But nobody would say it.

    Just a few years ago, we were having multiple three-digit temperature days annually here in RURAL Taylor-Snowflake area, nowhere near Phoenix or Vegas. I’ll let you guess the source of the heat.

    Meanwhile, people have been moving to Phoenix or Vegas, from the California flight.

    Just the other day, my mother volunteered that her nextdoor neighbor’s house sold for $545K, and it isn’t a mansion and the houses in the neighborhood barely have yards.

    It’s like there is an unspoken rule that nobody is allowed to report it.

    Is everyone supposed to know it but not worry about it?

    There have been plenty of articles about making cities greener or about constructing with different materials that don’t absorb and radiate so much heat, but nobody wants to name the biggest offenders in news about heatwaves.

    Here’s a solution. Stop building the problems. Stop expanding the cities in the name of greed. Stop packing large populations into these high-density atrocities because that’s the only place to find gainful employment or because it’s better than California, which is becoming unbearable for various reasons, including the disgusting leadership.

    Who the heck wants to move to Phoenix anyway?

  3. Irritable bill.

    I would just like to add that a very large % of the rural weather stations have been deleted from the sets…but very few if any from the heats island effect areas like Sydney’s Mascot airport.
    Geology show’s us that what they are saying is going to happen is complete bullshit as CO2 levels have been thousands of % higher for the vast majority of the geological timeframe since the Cambrian…and no runaway holocaustic warming at all. quite the opposite, a more stable atmosphere is a denser atmos. DUH!
    And what about Einstein’s unchallenged CO2 scientific law which states CO2 dissipates heat at the exact same rate as heat is applied to it…meaning CO2 cannot store heat and so therefor CO2 cannot force heating….what about that eh? Are these geniuses so clever we should believe their dubious load in favour of an Einsteinian scientific law? Fuck that.
    Or the 450,000 year Vostok ice core sample which shows a rise or fall in atmos. temp. always precedes a rise or fall rise in CO2 levels…I mentioned this to one of the “dreamers ” once and his reply was…”There were no humans around then…” Whaaaa? Jesus Christ! Thick as whale omelet.
    I could go on….What a childish load of bullshit, you would have to be the worst kind of simpleton to give it a moments thought….let alone believe it completely and attack others as “science deniers.” That statement alone shows the level of their sciency understanding…. >dismal.

  4. I found that it it is a very useful paper, which, at least, demonstrate that the Sun can account for a large increase of the terrestrial temperature. Although I felt the authors missed an opportunity to point out why the Sun become heating the Earth more in the past 300-400 years than before.

    We found that this is caused by solar inertial motion induced by the gravitation of large planets, as it was first mentioned in our paper Zharkova et al, 2019, SR https://www.nature.com/articles/s41598-019-45584-3, and verified with the Sun-Earth distance ephemeris in the chapter by Zharkova, 2021 https://www.intechopen.com/chapters/75534.

    The authors Zharkova et al, 2019 appreciate the very sympathetic citation of our paper in the current survey.

    However, we feel the authors of Connolly et al, 2021 did not notice the sufficient and important evidences provided in our paper of2019 and chapter of 2021 to prove the solar influence on the terrestrial climate change. By adding these evidences from the baseline magnetic field and from the ephemeris of S-E distances provided in citations above, the solar effect can be strongly improved as it is a natural phenomenon present in every planetary system. This inclusion of the SIM effect into any models of solar forcing will leave a very little room to deny the solar effects by the current and future IPCC reports.

    1. Qur Ious

      Interesting. I’am not familier with this process about peer-review and publishing etc. But is Zharkova et al,2019 now regarded as republished?

      Very interesting information in your research

  5. The Mronz

    Well this was bound to start happening.
    Genuine eminent proper scientists having their real world talents dismissed by a group of mercenary blatant fraudsters (IPCC).
    Thin end of a thick wedge my friends.
    Grab the popcorn.

  6. Alex

    Thank you for sharing this information, Cap. This is the kind of bedrock information on which we can build solid arguments. And the observations presented in the paper makes it very clear that further scientific inquiry into the nature of these climactic cycles is warranted, especially now. To the sun-deniers I say this: all “facts” have a half-life. New evidence and new minds will eventually come along to tear down your so-called “consensus”.

  7. Dallas Schneider

    Seems to me the CO2 Based assumptions (remember what happens when one
    ASS U ME something) was to give a BIG reason to spend money on equipment handling CO2 by the major corporations who want to jumpstart us into a space based society. That is to wit
    1) CO2 Accumulators – https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63S0t4k_Glw
    “Climeworks – Capturing CO2 from air”
    2)US Navy converts CO2 into jet fuel at sea – https://www.huffpost.com/entry/seawater-to-fuel-navy-vessels-_n_5113822
    3) NASA makes Oxygen from CO2 on Mars – https://mars.nasa.gov/resources/22532/crazy-engineering-making-oxygen-on-mars-with-moxie/

    Also it is very convenient to be spending public money for private gain with the oil companies loving CO2 for EOR (EOR with CO2)
    https://pubs.usgs.gov/of/2015/1071/pdf/ofr2015-1071.pdf
    Researched by no less USGS
    https://www.globalenergyinstitute.org/sites/default/files/020174_EI21_EnhancedOilRecovery_final.pdf
    on a Global Basis!!!

    Have Fun, expose the hidden agenda!!!

    1. Celton McGrath

      I agree with you… I think this is a huge push for space technology.

  8. yougottaloveme

    So what is to be done by any to help mankind weather the certain and upcoming perfect storm of Global Cooling? Are we to inactively take our knowledge of the truth with us into the Valley of Cold And Starvation, suffering as will the hoodwinked and willfully ignorant?

    1. P. J. Flanders

      I concur wholeheartedly.
      It doesn’t seem fair, does it?

  9. Creeky

    This is great stuff. Such a group of significant scientists cannot be easily dismissed. The quotes are good but the one from Richard Willson, from NASA of all organisations, is a doozy.

Leave a Comment