"Willie Soon Explains About the Sun, and How to Better Report Science", by Jennifer Marohasy. Ph.D.

Source:

https://jennifermarohasy.com/2021/09/willie-soon-explains-about-the-sun-and-how-to-better-report-science/

"Temperatures are always changing, and the pattern of change tends to follow cycles.

But most science reporters don’t understand this, because they have very little understanding of the solar system

 and are promoted within their organisations based on their capacity to repeat and repackage rather than for analysis.

For most locations on this Earth, temperatures change daily as the Earth spins on its axis relative to the Sun creating day and night.

(Where I live daily changes in temperature are in the order of 10 degrees Celsius.)

Temperatures change with the seasons because of the tilt of the Earth relative to its orbit around the Sun.

Then there are the ice ages, because of changes in the orbital path of the Earth around the Sun.

All these changes are essentially driven by the Sun, or at least the Earth’s distance and position relative to the Sun’s irradiance that is ever changing but in measurable and predictable ways.

Yet the elites, who control our once-independent scientific institutions, would have you believe that carbon dioxide is more powerful and has a more significant effect on temperatures than the Sun.

Instead of acknowledging the cycles,

they would have you believe that temperatures are rising in a linear way

and that this has created an imbalance that is causing the world to overheat and that this is all your fault.

They have an agenda, it is not about communicating the complexities of the solar system, but rather about social and economic revolution.

A recent paper with many authors, including my friend and colleague Willie Soon,

explains in detail that the institutions (most notably the IPCC) are mistaken in their assessment of the importance of carbon dioxide relative to the Sun,

at least in part because in making their calculations they fail to adequately consider all the relevant measures of solar irradiance

and are somewhat muddled when it comes to actual temperature trends for specific locations.

(Of course, the Australian Bureau of Meteorology deliberately muddles temperature trends by remodeling the raw data.)

The paper by Willie and colleagues is rather long, 71 pages in the pre-print that I have.

It is long because it goes into detail, explaining the potential complexity of solar irradiance

including the sixteen different ways of measuring changes in ‘total solar variability’ since the 19th century and earlier,

and even how the sun-climate effect is more pronounced at certain places on Earth.

The paper was recently published in the journal Research in Astronomy and Astrophysics Volume 21, beginning on page 131, and can be downloaded by clicking here:
    https://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1674-4527/21/6/131

This is an important contribution to our understanding of not only total solar irradiance and how this is measured,

but also how the institutions muddle the temperature, and also the solar irradiance, measurements.

Perhaps not surprisingly, there is an all-out campaign to discredit this important research by Willie Soon and his colleagues.

The campaign appears to be openly supported by Facebook as detailed in the following correspondence from Willie and two of the papers co-authors, Ronan and Michael Connolly.

In defence of their recent paper, and in a letter to a ‘Facebook Fact Checkers’, Willie Soon et al. suggest how science journalists might report contentious issues.

Specifically, with reference to a recent paper by Danish philosopher Mikkel Gerken. They suggest:

1. Inclusive Reliable Reporting

Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report hypotheses in a manner that favours the most reliably based ones by indicating the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications.

2. Epistemically Balanced Reporting

Science reporters should, whenever feasible, report opposing hypotheses in a manner that reflects the nature and strength of their respective scientific justifications or lack thereof.

Obviously, this type of reporting would be somewhat time consuming, certainly much more so than the current approach where journalists tend to simply and conveniently assume that the more important the affiliation the more reliable the science.

Of course, in this age of disinformation where the populous is mostly held in contempt by the elites, it would be a revolutionary way to report science.

A first requirement though would be a level of scientific literacy from science reporters.

The following article is about is the recent letter from Willie and colleagues to the misguided Facebook ‘Fact Checker’".