"We found that, depending on which scientific datasets you choose, you could explain the global warming since the 19th century as being anything from mostly natural to mostly human-caused," they wrote. "The huge uncertainty over such a key question is a major concern."
Several days after Soon and Connolly's paper was published and posted online, the United Nations's Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) published its Sixth Assessment Report. This report claims that there is "unequivocal" evidence that climate change is almost entirely caused by human activity. (Related: Theory of annual rise in Earth's temperature due to climate change is now exhaustively DISPROVED.)
"The journalist Alex Newman was struck by the contrast between the two different reports," wrote Soon and Connolly. "He interviewed us, representatives for the IPCC, and several other scientists for an article in The Epoch Times."
Soon and Connolly described how Newman's article spread like wildfire on social media, including Facebook.
But one of Facebook's so-called independent fact-checkers, a group known as Climate Feedback, soon stepped in to prevent the article from being seen by a wider audience.
"This 'fact-checker' website, financially supported by Facebook, TikTok, Google News Initiative and others, declared the article to be 'incorrect' and 'misleading.' Facebook then began censorsing any posts sharing the link," wrote Soon and Connolly.
Soon and Connolly fought back by using Climate Feedback's own framework for determining what is and is not misinformation. They found out that Climate Feedback's "fact-check" was guilty of 11 of the 14 classes of misinformation that the group warns against. Meanwhile, Newman's article was guilty of none of them.
"'Fact-checkers' claim to provide a solution. But a weaponized 'fact-check- is nothing more than a 'narrative-check,'" wrote Soon and Connolly.
IPCC report not based on proper science
Soon and Connolly's peer-reviewed paper was created with the help of nearly two dozen other scientists from around the world. It came to the conclusion that the hundreds of other studies supposedly proving that climate change is caused almost entirely by human activity did not adequately consider the role of the sun in explaining the increase in temperatures.
In fact, the paper argues that virtually all the changes in temperature over the recent decades can be explained by the amount of solar energy arriving on Earth.
In explaining why the IPCC's report differs wildly from Soon and Connolly's paper, the latter pointed out that the IPCC has different goals and used different approaches.
The IPCC was set up by the United Nations Environment Program. In 1989, when the UNEP first established the IPCC, it had already decided that humans were responsible for climate change through greenhouse gas emissions. This was before the IPCC began studying the effects of climate change.
Soon and Connolly's approach was to study the conclusions other scientists before them had come to. They wrote:
In contrast, Soon and Connolly's paper was written by a group of scientists. Their approach was to reviews where the science agrees and disagrees on the subject of climate change. All scientific opinions regarding global warming, no matter how politically inconvenient they may be, were acknowledged.
"This is different from the IPCC's approach of enforcing a 'scientific consensus' whenever there is a scientific disagreement," wrote Soon and Connolly. "Both approaches have their pros and cons."
"Politics works best when everybody agrees with each other. Science works best when scientists are allowed to disagree openly."
Learn more about the attempts to push a "scientific consensus" that climate change is real and caused by humans despite the lack of evidence by reading the latest articles at ClimateAlarmism.news.
Sources include:
Please contact us for more information.
