Really interesting that of all the IPCC scientific staff and contributors, not one understands that the Sun’s variations change the heat energy received at the Earth’s surface. All  computer modelling assumes a constant solar input to their equation.

Given that there are so many other variables, some accurately known and some not, and their computations include unproven assumptions (feedback ratios of CO2 effects), one can conclude that their climate science is so “not settled” that their conclusions are only vaguely scientific.

This article is sound evidence of doubt being appropriate, at the very least, and dubious credibility validated, at the worst. (About the science of the ‘climate change’ agenda).

From ‘Principia Scientific International‘, the ‘PSI Staff’:

The sun defines the climate, not carbon dioxide. So says eminent Russian space scientist, Habibullo Abdussamatov (Dr. Sc. – Head of Space research laboratory of the Pulkovo Observatory). Also Head of the Russian/Ukrainian joint project Astrometria, Abdussamatov (pictured) is featured on page 140 of the 2009 U.S. Senate Report of More Than 700 Dissenting Scientists Over Man-Made Global Warming. 

Below Dr Abdussamatov explains why carbon dioxide is “insignificant” in climate change (translated from Russian by Lucy Hancock).

Key Excerpts: Observations of the Sun show that as for the increase in temperature, carbon dioxide is “not guilty” and as for what lies ahead in the upcoming decades, it is not catastrophic warming, but a global, and very prolonged, temperature drop. […] Over the past decade, global temperature on the Earth has not increased; global warming has ceased, and already there are signs of the future deep temperature drop. […]

It follows that warming had a natural origin, the contribution of CO2 to it was insignificant, anthropogenic increase in the concentration of carbon dioxide does not serve as an explanation for it, and in the foreseeable future CO2 will not be able to cause catastrophic warming. The so-called greenhouse effect will not avert the onset of the next deep temperature drop, the 19th in the last 7500 years, which without fail follows after natural warming. […] We should fear a deep temperature drop — not catastrophic global warming. Humanity must survive the serious economic, social, demographic and political consequences of a global temperature drop, which will directly affect the national interests of almost all countries and more than 80% of the population of the Earth.

A deep temperature drop is a considerably greater threat to humanity than warming. However, a reliable forecast of the time of the onset and of the depth of the global temperature drop will make it possible to adjust in advance the economic activity of humanity, to considerably weaken the crisis.

Read the source article here.