How Much Has the Sun Influenced Temperature Trends?

Mark Keenan
Global Research

What a Recent Study Means for Global Climate Policy

Highlighted by the Center for Environmental Research and Earth Sciences (CERES), the study found that the UN’s Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) considered only a small subset of available Total Solar Irradiance (TSI) datasets when assessing the Sun’s influence on climate change — specifically those showing low solar variability. The consequence, according to the authors, is that the IPCC may have been premature in ruling out a substantial role for the Sun in recent warming.

Re-examining the Sun-Climate Connection | The researchers analyzed 16 major solar output datasets, including those used by the IPCC. Their findings were striking: depending on which datasets are used, scientists can reach opposite conclusions about what drives modern temperature trends. Dr. Ronan Connolly, lead author of the study, explains:

💬 “The IPCC is mandated to find a consensus on the causes of climate change. But science doesn’t work by consensus. By effectively only considering the datasets that support their chosen narrative, the IPCC have hampered scientific progress into genuinely understanding the causes of climate change.”

This conclusion cuts to the heart of the “climate change attribution problem” — what proportion of the claimed small increases in warming should be attributed to natural versus human causes. By narrowing acceptable data, the IPCC may have ‘unintentionally’ amplified the apparent role of greenhouse gases while minimizing natural variability.

When Consensus Becomes Constraint | Nicola Scafetta, Professor of Oceanography and Atmospheric Physics at the University of Naples, argues that the issue is not simply technical but philosophical:

💬 “The possible contribution of the Sun to 20th-century warming depends on the specific solar and climatic records adopted. The IPCC’s approach, based on records showing the smallest solar variability, minimizes the natural component and maximizes the anthropogenic one.”

In other words, if the baseline assumption is that the Sun is stable, every change must be human-driven. This approach may simplify policy messaging but risks distorting reality.

Víctor Manuel Velasco Herrera of the National Autonomous University of Mexico noted that all 23 co-authors put aside their research priorities “to produce a fair and balanced scientific review” of the Sun–climate link — a perspective the UN reports “had mostly missed or neglected.”

Empirical Evidence from the Stars? | Several contributors bring decades of observational data to bear. Gregory Henry, Senior Research Scientist at Tennessee State University, has monitored brightness changes in more than 300 stars. He asserts that:

💬 “Stars similar to our Sun show brightness changes comparable to the Sun’s…”

Richard C. Willson, Principal Investigator for NASA’s ACRIM satellite series, adds that the “concept that devolved into the failed CO₂-based global warming hypothesis” rests on outdated circulation models that have failed to match observational data. He stresses that the Earth’s climate is determined primarily by variations in solar radiation.

Dr. Willie Soon of CERES, who has researched solar–climate interactions for over three decades, points out that variability is “the norm, not the exception”:

💬 “For this reason, the Sun’s role in recent climate change should never have been as systematically undermined as it was by the IPCC’s reports.”

Implications for Global Policy | The implications of this debate reach far beyond the laboratory. Since 1988, the IPCC’s reports have formed the scientific foundation for UN climate treaties and national energy policies. Trillions of dollars in carbon taxes, subsidies, and regulatory frameworks depend on the assumption that human CO₂ emissions are the dominant cause of modern warming.

If natural solar variability plays a larger role than acknowledged, then these vast economic transformations may rest on a fragile foundation.

Professor Ana G. Elias of the National University of Tucumán emphasizes:

💬 “All relevant long-term trend climate forcings — not just anthropogenic ones — must be considered.”

If her caution proves correct, climate policies focused narrowly on carbon control could deliver little environmental benefit while inflicting high social and economic costs.

The Politics of Certainty | The IPCC’s consensus model was designed to simplify science for policymakers, yet consensus can become constraint. By excluding data that might complicate the narrative, institutions risk turning science into a tool of governance rather than discovery.

The new RAA study underscores that uncertainty is not ignorance — it is the engine of scientific progress. When uncertainty is politically inconvenient, it tends to be suppressed.

Professor Velasco Herrera called the paper “special” precisely because it brought together researchers across disciplinary and ideological lines to reopen questions long considered settled. In that sense, the study represents not just a scientific re-evaluation, but a philosophical one — a call to restore open inquiry to a field increasingly governed by consensus politics.

Consider also that more than 2,000 scientists and climate experts have publicly stated that climate change is not driven by CO₂ emissions — and the picture becomes even more ‘unsettling’. For more information see the book Climate CO2 Hoax

Re-Opening the Climate Question | None of the authors claim to have a final answer. Rather, they invite a broader conversation about how natural and anthropogenic factors interact to shape climate. The Sun, as the Earth’s primary energy source, must remain central to that discussion.

If the findings hold, they suggest that modern climate change cannot be understood — or managed — through carbon metrics alone. The true drivers may include solar variability and natural feedback systems that no global policy can control.

For ordinary citizens, this means the sweeping economic and social transformations now justified in the name of “climate action” could rest on incomplete science. The call emerging from this study is not denial, but scientific humility — a willingness to ask whether the models guiding global policy truly reflect the complex reality of the Earth–Sun relationship.

____________________________________________________________________________________________

Mark Keenan is a former scientist with the U.K. Department of Energy & Climate Change and a former Environmental Affairs Officer at the United Nations Environment Programme. He is the author of CO2 Climate Hoax – How Bankers Hijacked the Real Environment Movement — an Amazon Top-20 Climatology title that challenges the political misuse of climate science. His other books include: The Debt Machine: How Private Banks Engineered Global Control. Original Christianity – Beyond Institutional Dogma. The War on Men: How the New Gender Politics Is Undermining Western Civilization. Explore all his works at his Amazon Author Page or through Reality Books.https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/aW2E

Image: © N/A; climatediscussionnexus.com. In line with our policies, we address notices of alleged violations under the United States "Digital Millennium Copyright Act" (DMCA). If you believe that your copyright has been infringed on our site, please contact us, and we will promptly remove your photo from display. editor@a-w-i-p.com. AWIP: https://a-w-i-p.com/index.php/aW2E