Posted a couple articles, one from WUWT and a crazy exercise in regression of temperature data. You can always find a lot of correlations and other relationships but does not mean they are real!

Poor lees just does not have the education to winnow good papers from bad, sense from nonsense and his fear always makes him select papers that seem to say what he wants them to say.

Meanwhile, the globe keeps warming.

lees continues searching for papers that say AGW is not real. Most of the papers seem to be ones Judith Curry mentions.

There is one on Halstatt/Bray cycles said to control climate. Just more statistical bullshit. Solar variation does not vary much on a millennial scale. Over geologic time—over half a billion years the sun has brightened by 6%.

You know it is but statistical buggerery—no mechanism is suggested. The Milankovitch Cycle has to do with the orbit of the earth around the sun, the inclination of the axis of rotation of the planet and precession of the equinoxes. The Milankovotch Cycle has a mechanism that drives it. Halstatt/Bray cycles do not.

You start looking at a set of data and you can find a lot of statistically significant correlations. That just happens by chance: 1 in 20 tests will give a false positive at the 5% confidence rate.

Not just my opinion:


Quote:

Scientists from NASA believe that the current changes in Earth’s climate cannot be primarily attributed to the solar cycle and its associated short-term variations in irradiance. One reason is that, over the course of the cycle, the Sun’s energy output only varies by up to 0.15%, which is less than what would be required to drive the shift in temperature that we observe. Additionally, there is no convincing evidence that the 11-year cycle is reflected in any climate features that are not related to the stratosphere, such as surface temperatures, rainfall, or wind patterns. . . . The majority of the last 35 years of space-based observations have not detected significant variations in the Sun’s energy output. Nevertheless, while examining climate change, scientists take into account all the factors they can, including solar variations. According to these projections, a modest drop in  solar irradiance over the past 35 years would have resulted in a slight cooling of the climate over this time, but only in the absence of additional climate-altering factors. The concept that variations in the Sun constitute a significant driver behind the current climate change is likewise not supported by the physics of the situation. The high atmosphere of Earth is most affected by the Sun’s irradiance, whereas the lower atmosphere protects Earth from the added heat. It would be reasonable to anticipate that the higher atmosphere would warm up more if the Sun were the primary driver of Earth’s warming. As opposed to this, observations reveal that the high atmosphere is becoming colder while the lower atmosphere is becoming hotter. Instead, this closely resembles the alterations brought on by a rise in carbon dioxide.

https://climatefactchecks.org/post-falsely-claim-that-solar-cycles-are-causing-climate-change/

LOL sometimes lees really fancies he gets this science stuff. But he doesn’t really.

Did the lunatic ever buy a copy of “Statistics for Dummies?” Because it would help him, a bit.