The establishment’s celebrated Israeli astrophysicist, Nir Shaviv, asserts that it is the sun, not carbon dioxide, that drives the Earth’s climate. “The correlation is as clear as day,” the professor explains. The interview was published in the mainstream media outlet Forbes, a well-known American economic magazine, which quickly removed the article after pressure from globalist climate alarmists. Shaviv is one of an increasing number of established scientists who are speaking out. In August, two American MIT researchers, a meteorologist and a physicist, sounded the alarm. They argue that climate regulations now being implemented are based on “a bluff” and will be a “catastrophe” for society, particularly concerning food security.
Nir Shaviv is a well-known Israeli astrophysicist and head of the Hebrew University of Jerusalem’s physics department. He explains in an interview with the well-known American business magazine Forbes that his research and that of his colleagues indicate that rising carbon dioxide levels play only a minor role in Earth’s climate compared to the impact of solar radiation and cosmic particles.
“Global warming is a problem, but not in the catastrophic terms claimed in Al Gore’s films or by climate alarmists”, says Shaviv, who then explains that it is the sun that governs:
“Climate changes have always existed and are unlikely to disappear. But CO2 emissions do not play the major role; instead, periodic solar activity does, Shaviv asserts.
What makes his statement particularly interesting is that he is part of the climate establishment, which continues to assert that “global warming” exists but has now realized that the sun is the decisive factor behind climate changes—just as Free West Media has been reporting for several years. This is crucial because it is not “global warming” that is practically used to impose the globalist agenda on us, but the lie that human-produced carbon dioxide emissions are driving climate change. This is used as a pretext to impose the globalist agenda the establishment desires. Without the false narrative, the entire argument that we must obey their mandates to save the planet falls apart.
That is why the interview with Professor Shaviv is so important and therefore so dangerous for those who want to impose their agenda on humanity. It was also evident when the climate establishment forced Forbes, which conducted the interview, to quickly remove it from the internet.
Shaviv wrote on his blog that Forbes editor-in-chief’s decision was “shameful.” It was not just the above statements that were problematic, but the fact that Shaviv presented scientific research he had conducted with the renowned Danish astrophysicist Henrik Svensmark. This research involved extensive studies over a long period with very clear results, proving the sun’s influence on our planet’s climate.
This is taboo among the establishment’s “climate researchers,” who often omit the sun as a factor affecting Earth’s climate in their models (guesses)—not scientific studies—largely because their invented explanatory models would not hold up.
The interview took place in August 2019, when researchers began to seriously worry about the changes they could observe on the sun, something that had escalated in the years before completely outside the public’s knowledge. The fact that Forbes deleted the article so quickly, and the media blackout that followed, kept the interview unknown for a long time. Free West Media is among the first to report on it.
Several other world-leading solar researchers sounded the alarm around the same time, such as Valentina Zharkova, but she too was silenced. Astrophysicist and mathematician Zharkova published a research report on various platforms, including the website of the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH). It was titled “Modern Grand Solar Minimum will lead to terrestrial cooling.” We can initially read the following:
“In this editorial, I will show from newly discovered solar activity proxy magnetic field [sunspot activity] that the Sun has entered into the modern Grand Solar Minimum (2020–2053) that will lead to a significant reduction of the Sun’s magnetic field and activity, as during the Maunder Minimum, leading to a noticeable drop in Earth’s temperature.”
The Maunder Minimum was a period of cold from 1645 to 1715 that particularly affected Europe with poor harvests, famine, and mass deaths. Despite many researchers sounding the alarm about this for several years, the public has been kept in the dark, as it goes against the globalists’ mandated climate narrative of “global warming.”
In December 2019, among others, NASA confirmed that Solar Cycle 25 had begun with a solar minimum. Shortly thereafter, the first news about an unknown virus in Wuhan, China, emerged, which would later lead to medical tyranny, lockdowns, and the beginning of an entirely new world known as “The New Normal” in the English-speaking parts of the world.
In the since deleted interview with Forbes, Shaviv revealed another uncomfortable truth for the climate establishment, which is that research is not set in stone, and it doesn’t matter how many “climate scientists” the globalist establishment “buys and showcases.” Regarding the first point, many, especially serious researchers, have pointed out that today’s mandated climate narrative, with its dogmas that cannot be questioned, exhibits a clear unscientific and religious character. As for the second point, where the climate establishment and its media often repeat the mantra that “97 percent of all scientists” support the theory of global warming, Shaviv strongly criticized it:
“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97 percent statistic seriously. Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers, and how the questions are formulated. Science is not a democracy, after all. Even if 100 percent of scientists believe in something, a person with good evidence can still be right,” Shaviv explained.
He thus pointed out something that few think about in a time when mainstream media have almost full-spectrum control of the information sphere, affecting people’s perception of “reality.”
Shaviv criticizes the fact that the sun is entirely ignored in the IPCC’s climate models and explains that solar activity is the most influential factor on the climate and, consequently, sea levels. The latter is something that is rarely discussed.
“Solar activity varies over time. There is a significant variation over approximately eleven years or more, which clearly affects the climate. This principle has been widely known, but in 2008, I was able to quantify it using sea level data. When the sun is more active, sea levels rise here on Earth. Higher temperatures cause water to expand. When the sun is less active, temperatures drop, and sea levels decrease. The correlation is as clear as day,” Shaviv explains.
Climate alarmists use this in their propaganda by selectively reporting when sea levels temporarily rise and then ignoring when they fall, creating the illusion that the seas are constantly rising. We have previously reported that the opposite is true in the Nordic countries, on the European continent, and all other places that were under large ice masses during the last ice age. This is because the landmasses, compressed by the ice masses, are still rising.
Shaviv then points out how billions of dollars have been spent to create and maintain the dogmatic climate narrative through models created based on the answers they want, rather than through genuine research and the use of available data:
“Since 2003, literally billions have been spent on climate research, yet the accepted perception has not changed. Advocates for human-caused climate change still ignore the sun’s impact on Earth’s climate, which undermines our understanding of 20th-century climate change.”
In the quickly deleted interview with Forbes, Shaviv also explained that the connection between solar activity and the Earth’s warming and cooling is indirect. An important factor is galactic cosmic radiation, which consists of a mixture of high-energy photons and electrically charged subatomic particles accelerated toward Earth by supernova explosions and other violent events in the cosmos. When this radiation hits the Earth’s atmosphere, it creates aerosols, which, in turn, form clouds, as Svensmark has explained in detail in his theory. This makes them crucial for the Earth’s weather and climate.
During solar minimum, the sun’s magnetic field weakens, which typically shields the Earth from a significant portion of cosmic radiation. This allows more cosmic rays from space to penetrate our planet’s atmosphere and create more clouds. More clouds lead to a drop in temperature but also an increase in precipitation.
This phenomenon becomes even more pronounced during a grand solar minimum, which we have now entered and is likely to worsen during the next solar cycle 26, expected to occur between 2030 and 2041. This is the reason behind the recent dramatic extreme weather events and unusual celestial phenomena worldwide. It will significantly and negatively impact harvests and food availability in the coming years and likely decades, a fact known to the globalist elite and the true reason behind all the rushed political changes happening now.
Shaviv argues that the scientific evidence and available research data are overwhelming, leaving no doubt that the sun plays a crucial role in controlling the climate.
“Today, we can demonstrate and prove the sun’s effect on the climate based on a wide range of evidence, from fossils hundreds of millions of years old to buoy readings in the ocean to satellite altitude data from recent decades. We can also reproduce and simulate atmospheric conditions in the laboratory to confirm the evidence. Everything points to the same conclusion: the majority of climate change is caused by the sun through its influence on atmospheric charging, meaning that most of the warming comes from nature—even a fresh physics student can understand this.”
Shaviv then points out another aspect that the climate establishment and the IPCC deliberately omit, which amounts to nothing less than historical distortion and data manipulation—an ultimate taboo in genuine research.
“Our research findings are very uncomfortable for the accepted perception (climate narrative). We know that there have been very significant climate variations in the past that have little to do with the burning of fossil fuels. A thousand years ago, the Earth was as warm as it is today. During the Little Ice Age three hundred years ago, the Thames froze more often. These events were mentioned in the first and second IPCC reports. In 2001, they disappeared. Suddenly, there is no mention of natural warming, no mention of a Little Ice Age. The climate of the last millennium was presented as essentially constant until the nineteenth century. This is a kind of Orwellian cherry-picking to fit a predetermined narrative,” asserts an indignant Shaviv.
Recently, two prominent American MIT researchers at Princeton raised alarms that the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) proposed climate regulations are based on “a hoax” and that the mandated climate agenda is “a disaster” for the United States and the world. The researchers are none other than William Happer, professor emeritus of physics at prestigious Princeton University, and Richard Lindzen, professor emeritus of atmospheric science at the Massachusetts Institute of Technology (MIT). They warn, among other things, that the EPA’s new rules to reduce carbon dioxide emissions in electricity production “will be disastrous for the country, without any scientifically motivated reason.”
Referring to extensive data to support their arguments, they claim that the claims used by the EPA to justify the new regulations are not based on scientific facts but rather on political opinions and speculative models that have consistently proven to be incorrect. Happer and Lindzen strongly criticize the EPA’s methods in their report:
“The unscientific analysis method, which relies on consensus, internal review, government-mandated opinions, non-functioning models, data selected to fit the narrative while extensive contradictory data is omitted, is often used in the studies that form the basis for the regulations the EPA now wants to introduce.”
The top researchers in their respective fields then write about what a growing number of other frustrated scientists are trying to point out, that “climate research” is anything but scientific:
“All models predicting catastrophic global warming fail the key test of the scientific method: they predict significant warming versus actual data. The scientific method instead proves that there is no risk of fossil fuels and carbon dioxide causing catastrophic warming and extreme weather.”
The whistleblowers support their objections with a wealth of measurement data and charts. One such chart (page 10) clearly shows the difference between observed actual temperature and temperature from the climate models that underpin the prevailing climate narrative. They also point out that for a quarter of a century, the models no longer rely on existing measurement data.
Happer and Lindzen then delve into the claims about carbon dioxide and prove that carbon dioxide is not what drives climate change. We are only publishing one of their carbon dioxide-related graphs, which in itself is sufficient to prove this.
The two researchers then address something that Free West Media has been sounding the alarm about for several years now, that reduced access to artificial fertilizers and lower carbon dioxide levels—actively imposed on us through Net Zero—will lead to global food shortages, mass starvation, and mass death. For example, they show that the historically marginal increase in carbon dioxide levels from 280 ppm before industrialization to 420 ppm today—which is portrayed as the greatest threat of our time—has been beneficial for the planet and humanity by increasing vegetation and thus crop yields by 20 percent. The researchers warn that Net Zero will result in more than 40 gigatons of carbon dioxide disappearing from the atmosphere each year, leading to a corresponding decrease in food production. Just the goal of eliminating artificial fertilizers would halve global food production in one fell swoop. The consequences would be so catastrophic that they can hardly be described.
The level of carbon dioxide and the availability of artificial fertilizers—the globalists’ targets—are nearly directly proportional to crop yields and food availability, which in turn are directly related to the planet’s population.
Agenda 2030 is therefore hostile to humanity, as it will inevitably lead to mass starvation and mass death. More and more people are beginning to wonder if this is the real goal behind the fine words of “climate neutrality,” “sustainability,” and “saving the planet.”
https://freewestmedia.com/2023/09/05/the-sun-drives-earths-climate-not-carbon-dioxide/