It is The Sun
Erik Bye
November 7, 2025
The Sun’s variations may be the major contributor to global warming. New research is a challenge to the climate doctrine! We have used AI to edit and summarize a longer article from Global Research. The full text can be read here:
https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/acf18e
This is a short version of the original article:
https://www.globalresearch.ca/sun-influenced-temperature-trends/5904159
Knut Lindtner Editor (Derimot.no)
An international study by 23 scientists claims that the UN Panel on Climate Change has overlooked the Sun’s influence on climate. By narrowing down data and forcing political “consensus”, the IPCC has turned science into ideology – and built the world’s climate policy on an incomplete foundation.
Acomprehensive, peer-reviewed study published in «Research inAstronomy and Astrophysics» in 2022 may prove to shake one of the most fundamental dogmas of modern climate policy – the notion that human-made CO₂ is the main cause of global warming.
The 23-member research group was from different countries and disciplines – solar physics, atmospheric science, and climatology – and found that the UN Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) used a narrow range of datasets for the total solar irradiance (TSI). These datasets show very little variation in the Sun's energy irradiance, and the IPCC has thus concluded that the Sun plays a minimal role in modern climate change.
But the new analyses show that if you include more available data sets, the picture changes dramatically. Some show that variations in solar activity can explain large parts of the temperature changes over the past hundred years. In other words, which “sun” you choose to use in the model determines the result.
Lead author Dr Ronan Connolly argues that the IPCC’s mandate to create “consensus” has made science politically driven. Science is not based on consensus, he says, but on open discussion and testing of alternative explanations. When you systematically exclude data that challenges the narrative, you don’t create science – you create ideology.
Other researchers in the study, such as Professor Nicola Scafetta of the University of Naples, point out that the IPCC’s methodology effectively maximizes the anthropogenic component by minimizing the natural one. The result is a simplistic but misleading political narrative that all climate change must be caused by humans.
Dr Willie Soon, who has studied Sun-climate relations for over 30 years, stresses that variability is the rule rather than the exception in solar activity. It should never have been controversial to acknowledge this. NASAscientist Richard Willson points out that CO₂-based climate models have already failed to predict real observations.
The study reminds us that since 1988, IPCC reports have formed the basis for international climate agreements, tax and energy policies, and comprehensive economic reforms. This entire apparatus rests on the assumption that CO₂ is the main climate driver. If solar variations are more important than assumed, much of this foundation falls away.
Several researchers warn that a one-sided focus on carbon could yield minimal environmental gains but major socio-economic losses. ProfessorAna G. Elias says bluntly that all long-term climate factors must be considered – not just the humanmade ones.
The article also gets to the heart of a deeper problem: the IPCC’s “consensus model” has turned science into politics. When uncertainty is suppressed because it is politically inconvenient, science becomes a management tool – not a truthseeking project.
The researchers behind the study do not claim to have all the answers. But they reopen a question that has been closed for decades: how much of climate change is caused by the Sun? They call for scientific humility and a real debate about the role of Nature in the climate.
The conclusion is simple, but uncomfortable for today’s political leaders: If the Sun plays a bigger role than the models admit, much of global climate policy is built on an incomplete and ideologically distorted foundation.
My comments:
The low value for the solar radiative force (TSI), used by the IPCC in the climate models, is reported to be 0.05 W/m2 in AR4, WG1, Technical Summary, Fig. TS 5, p. 32. This is next to nothing, and the consequences are that, according to IPCC, Nature has no impact on the climate. This is obviously completely wrong.
In addition, it is important to remember The Nobel Fraud. The Nobel Prize in Physics in 2021 was given to Syukuro Manabe for his climate models constructed in 1967. These models have been used in all the main reports of IPCC, fromAR1 in 1992 until AR6 in 2024. Roy Clark demonstrated in 2024 that the models exaggerated the effect of the CO2 content.
Summing up, there is no surprise that climate modelling is a complete failure and cannot be validated against observations. The incorrect radiative factor (TSI) exaggerates the CO2 effect, and as a result, the major radiative factor was almost excluded.
How is it possible for IPCC to reject the real Science?