Scientists refute UN findings and publish evidence that the sun, not CO2, is behind “global warming”

Climate scientist Dr. Ronan Connolly, Dr. Willie Sun and 21 other scientists argue that the conclusions of the latest IPCC climate report and the confidence with which those conclusions are expressed depend on the IPCC authors’ limited choice of data sets. Scientists argue that the inclusion of additional reliable data sets would lead to very different conclusions about the perceived threat of anthropogenic global warming.

A new peer-reviewed scientific publication provides evidence of systemic bias in the selection of UN data to support the climate change narrative

The sun, not anthropogenic carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions, may be the main cause of warming temperatures in recent decades, says a new study whose findings sharply contradict those of the United Nations (UN) Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC).

The peer-reviewed research paper, prepared by a group of nearly two dozen scientists from around the world, concludes that previous studies did not adequately account for the role of solar energy in explaining the temperature rise.

The new study was published just as the UN released its sixth “Assessment Report,” known as AR6, which again argued for the view that humans are to blame for global warming by emitting CO2. The report states that human responsibility is “unequivocal.”

But a new study casts serious doubt on that hypothesis.

Calling the IPCC’s accusations of CO2 “premature,” climate scientists and solar physicists argue in a new paper that the UN IPCC’s conclusions blaming human emissions are based on “narrow and incomplete data about the sun’s overall irradiance.”

Indeed, the UN’s global climate body, demonstrates a deliberate and systemic bias in what views, studies and data are included in its influential reports, the authors of the scientific study said.

“Depending on what published data and studies you use, you can show that all warming is caused by the sun, but the IPCC uses a different set of data to come to the opposite conclusion,” said Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study.

“In its quest for a so-called scientific consensus, the IPCC seems to have chosen to consider only data sets and studies that support their chosen narrative,” he added.

The charge of cherry-picking data to conceal uncertainty and, in effect, orchestrating a preconceived conclusion, is a very serious matter.

Taking the IPCC climate warnings at face value without considering cogent objections from qualified scientists about the quality of the procedures that led to these conclusions could lead to catastrophic global misallocation of resources.

Notify of

Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Would love your thoughts, please comment.x