On May 5, our iruur1.com, Official Informal science Contributor Suspicious Observers, led by Ben Davidson, published a blanket challenge to man made global warming climatologists, to update their data to include evidence of solar and cosmic, electromagnetic and particle forcing. Last week some of the top global warming experts weighed in to differ.
Battle Of 2 Hypothesis | May The Best Data Win
Here is their rebuttal.
YouTube video falsely claims that climate models systematically over-estimated warming and that we are heading towards an ice age – Climate Feedback
The claim that climate models fail to predict the future or reproduce the past was published in a YouTube video by Ben Davidson on his channel, Suspicious0bservers, which has more than 500,000 subscribers. This video has been watched more than 57,000 times since it was published on May 5, 2021.
In the video, Davidson makes numerous false claims about climate models as explained in this review. He shows screenshots of titles and abstracts from recent climate science publications, which he misinterpreted to support his conclusion.
About Ben, Suspicious Observers and Space Weather
What Ben Davidson does in the video, Climate Science Destroyed In 8 Minutes, is present a strong argument for a hypothesis which challenges the older one held by leading experts in the government and MSM. Ben Davidson has been among the few public spokespersons, for a community of highly respected scientists and researchers, looking at solar and cosmic forcing climate information, to fill in the gaps of analysis and prediction, which in the 1990's, predicted noticeable coastal devastation due to rising seas, with major cities taking sea water by 2010. Didn't happen. Why.
New Science Emerging On Climate
The scientists pursuing the subject from the electromagnetic, particle physics perspective, have been actively analyzing the most recent satellite and ground monitoring projects and missions capable of retrieving the data. They are finding themselves now in the company of NASA, NOAA and the IPCC — Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. These, public agencies with influence and collaboration from peer review papers, published by Ben and a large community of researchers and lab technicians, have slowly systematically, begun including greater detailed discovery and analysis of solar/cosmic forcing in upcoming reports. This new data is increasing, due to present and planned satellite/ground missions and models able to measure more of the entire space weather electromagnetic spectrum, from the galactic center through the Milky Way and to our sun, solar system and earth than ever before.
As the evidence of the significant effect of electromagnetic, particle forcing and its influence on our weather continues to grow, a clearer long range pattern of climate activity on the earth for hundreds of thousands of years begins to emerge.. The charge that Ben Davidson, misinterpreted data to support his conclusion, comes off in the rebuttal as an attempt to belittle the entire realm of science shared by Ben, and now increasingly being analyzed by major others. Their approach carries with it, the sense of an unwillingness to debate a different hypothesis, but instead try to refute the person who advances it, by inferring they are an amateur YouTube science enthusiast, with a dangerous theory.
Man Made vs Solar Cosmic Forcing Induced, Climate Change
Here are the main points of the counter argument to global warming.
The science around all the various components of particle, solar cosmic forcing is available on the Suspicious Observers site and a few others willing to discuss their research. The argument for man made global climate change is available everywhere else. There is no question that the funding and promotion through government, banking institutions, and global business, is highly weighted towards advancing the hypothesis of people, being the primary driver of climate change, primarily global warming through uncontrolled activity and energy use..
The Need For Public Debate Is Clear
Therefore the need for public debate is forced by a charge of public responsibility for devastating climate change on earth, unless we change our lifestyles quickly. But is the evidence brought by the growing number of particle forcing scientists, and arguments against them by man made climate advocates, clear or simple enough for public comprehension? Without a clear agreement among scientists, even if the public understands the science well enough to debate it, can we make a public decision in time to take actions to avert the effects of the climate change? Each side is stating that drastic climate change is coming, both for different reasons and both are predicting 2 different results.
![]()
What is clear is that the team of globally authoritative officials, politically and economically in charge of health and safety, have continued to contradict themselves in a now widely disputed pandemic. They have abandoned tried and true quarantine and instituted policies including dangerous martial law enforcement. These same agencies now want to be in charge of the ecosystem of the planet. They also want to dictate the lifestyle of the People, in that ecosystem.
What is clear is that the team of globally authoritative officials, politically and economically in charge of health and safety, have continued to contradict themselves in a now widely disputed pandemic. They have abandoned tried and true quarantine and instituted policies including dangerous martial law enforcement. These same agencies now want to be in charge of the ecosystem of the planet. They also want to dictate the lifestyle of the People, in that ecosystem.What is also clear is both sides agree a major climate shift is coming and that new data in the last few years is now available and growing. Also new satellite/ground missions are planned around the influence of solar/cosmic particle, electromagnetic forcing. The fact that the rebuttal by man made global warming experts, failed to include any new data from over 500 papers published on the subject of solar cosmic forcing cited in the Ben Davidson challenge to global warming, indicates the need for public knowledge of new data and further scrutiny is self evident, and should not be ignored by detractors.
Database Of Debate
These are 2 basic areas of data to begin an informational foundation, from which individuals can begin breaking down the facts around such things as, urban heat islands, carbon emissions, and solar irradiance vs particle forcing.
Global Warming Model Data -First Basic Data Set - A wider range of data to improve Predictability
The new dataset emerging, leading to an improved understanding of the significance of space weather with regards to climate in general and global warming models, is the first block of data for public consideration. Predictability is cited by these experts as the core point of Ben Davidsons conclusions, presented in his challenge to global warming video. They address predictability first in their rebuttal.
Zeke Hausfather, Director of Climate and Energy, The Breakthrough Institute:
[Comment from a previous evaluation of a similar claim]
While models can never be a perfect representation of the Earth’s system, they do an excellent job of reproducing many aspects of the Earth’s climate, from rainfall and wind patterns to storm and hurricane formation and warming of the climate. In a 2019 paper we evaluated the performance of 17 historical climate model projections published between 1970 and 2001[1]. We found that 10 of those 17 projected a rate of future temperature change nearly identical to what actually happened in the real world in the years after they were published, while four of the models projected too much warming and three models too little warming[1]. This is particularly impressive for the 1970s-era models, which were published at a time when evidence of observed global warming was limited (and some even thought – based on limited observations – that the world was modestly cooling).
This chart above includes six climate models. The dark black line is the actual outcome relative to the rate of predicted increase in global warming based on those models. The chart includes data from some models, incorrectly weighted towards cooling developed in the 1970's. They rely on a core dataset based primarily of co2 and solar irradiance. They leave out the data that indicates considerably more significance attributed now to solar/cosmic forcing influence, than previously known.
The next chart is from solar cosmic forcing researchers. They eliminate the obsolete, cooler weighted data of older models before 1979. The chart above by Dr. Roy Spencer includes 68 climate models not 6, as in the previous chart. This analysis shows that in general, traditional climate models were not predictive of he actual global warming increase outcome, shown by the dark black graph line.
But this was not the core argument of the Suspicious Observers challenge to global warming however. Their core argument is, that with all the new data, firm conclusions cannot be reasonably drawn yet at this time. New models must be adapted and studied.
Dataset Block 2 - Earth Time - Longer Range Climate History
The second data set was sadly not able to be included in previous global warming models, as it was difficult to obtain accurate measurements of historic electromagnetic influenced data. Global warming again offers a limited data set on climate history in general, and with regards to the statistics of volcanic activity specifically. Volcanoes role in adding aerosols over the last 170 years, is said to have had a minimal effect on climate in global warming models. But critics say 170 years s too short a time to judge he true extent of potential and historic volcanic influence on global climate from aerosol emissions.
The new data is showing a different picture with regards to volcanic eruptions, by calculating the history of activity since 900 AD, considered a 0 point in man made contribution to aerosol and carbon in the environment, due to increased civilizational growth and industrial emissions.
