» Home > In the News


30 August 2019
Climate change

The SEPP newsletter of August 17th 2019 – see www.sepp.org – focusses on Nir Shaviv, a solar physicist in Israel. He has conducted a couple of interviews for the media which were subsequently disappeared. The interviews were not at his request but were initiated by interested reporters who obviously thought all angles of a subject should be explored and not just the one so called consensus theory. The first interview was axed by the editor and was never printed but the second one, interestingly, was written up and then pulled – which is how the matter came to public attention. One may wonder what are the climate change elite frightened of. The interview would have been published in Russia or China, we might expect, but why is the West frightened of drawing attention to views that differ from the consensus?

Shaviv is a supporter of the Henrik Svensmark theory in which clouds and cloud formation play an important role on climate on the surface of the Earth. The book, 'The Chilling Stars' by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder was a popular book a few years ago. Calder, a former editor of New Scientist, has since died. Shaviv contends there was an increase in solar activity during the 20th century and this contributed as much as a half to two thirds of estimated warming that took place. It is worth noting at this point that lower solar activity in the 21st century coincides with the so called flat line in global warming, a flatline that the propaganda has been keen to hide from public view. The idea of solar activity being responsible for warming is in direct contrast to the consensus narrative, as espoused in various communiques by the IPCC (or their self appointed activist spokespeople). The climate change view is that the Sun plays a minor role in climate – even a miniscule role (in relation to co2). One's brain should send alarm bells at that kind of reasoning but apparently a lot of people do not seem bothered at all and even quite proudly tell sceptics that the Sun does not have a role in climate as it is constant. Obviously, the same people don't have much interest in CMEs and the solar wind smacking up against the Earth's magnetosphere (or simply ignore anything that might contradict the consensus). Is that science – or is that indoctrination?

The publication that pulled the interview subsitituted it with a strange climate scientist who referred to 'zombie' theories – and the implication is that the Shaviv and Svensmark theory was just that. Solar physicists, in general, are a few ladders up in intellect from your average climate scientist, and a whole ladder up from your average activist – yet they feel free to ridicule solar physicists and atmospheric scientists. That is the strange part of this affair and the fact that he added, I call them zombie theories because they will never die (even though he spends a lot of time criticising them they all seem to bounce back and pop out of the woodwork). That is probably because science is not about consensus but about evaluating all kinds of different theories and therefore trying to suppress such theories is bound to cause a jack in the box reaction. Obviously, his published criticisms, presumably on blogs or in meetings, do not have a great deal of substance but a lot of hot air, otherwise Jack would be permanently in his box. He continued by referring to the Svensmark theory as 'myth making' and designed to delude sceptics – and was therefore bothersome to the true believers in climate change. It all sounds a bit like Galileo and the Pope. One has a theory that was eventually accepted as science and the other had a blind spot and an implacable belief that dogma must be applied in order to squash contrary views. After all, the dogma was man made – as much as the Galileo version of the solar system. Likewise, climate change dogma is man made – and its insistence that we are on the brink of the End of the World (but the renewables investors have first got to fill their pockets as after all it is they that are financing the anti fossil fuel agenda). It doesn't say a lot for your average politico that they pay lip service to the agenda as they are fearful of going against a powerful and financially wasteful juggernaut in much the same way the Pope's minions bowed and scraped and nodded their heads like the puppets they were, safe and secure in their heads as well as their material well being, by sticking to the status quo. Truth always comes out – as it did with Galileo. Truth hurts. It might take a while yet but the public can switch views as quick as a flash. Political reputations are at stake as much as the agenda itself and there will eventually be a defining point. The climate science gang hope to be retired with nice fat pensions when it breaks – but it might happen somewhat quicker than expected. There is a gathering storm.

The climate scientist claimed he had debunked the Svensmark theory by spraying climate science repellant at it. The fact the guy is a pompous git doesn't really endear him to anyone – even to your average activist. It does show that the two sides remain poles apart, and there is no chance this will change any time soon. Take sea level change as an example. We have evidence that that the co2 side are hypocritical – which means they are willing to tell porkies if it helps them to get at Joe Public. However, over 90 years, from 1915 to 2005, sea level change corresponds exactly with warming high points. The sea water expands when the oceans become warmer and contracts when they become cooler. The evidence comes from stable tidal gages. Shaviv, on the other hand, shows a relationship between sea levels based on satellite altimetry which includes solar cycles and the El Nino/southern oscillation. Again, the relationship is strong – but the climate science gang would rubbish it out of hand. Sea levels, we may note, rise during  high solar activity periods such as the 1990s and 2000s but sea levels have fallen over the last few years (as solar activity has declined). Hence, we have a problem on whether tidal gages or satellites are the more reliable data source. This is where the hypocrisy arrives. Mainstream climate science ignores satellite data when it comes to global temperature and much prefer temperature stations, very often situated in urban or semi urban situations (even at airports). On the other hand, when it comes to rising sea levels they prefer satellite data and ignore tidal gages. The latter do not support the idea of rising sea levels (to the same degree). What we have is data manipulation – to an extraordinary degree (without even getting to the problem of resetting temperature station data in order to tweak it). Such behaviour will surely rebound on them – but when.





Skip to content