Sunspots and Global Warming

Test Ticker

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. The truth is, we're a long way from our $600,000 goal, and we have to get as close as we can by Tuesday so we don't have to make hard decisions come January. If you value our reporting, please consider pitching in today.

$600,000

We still need to raise 400,000: Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all matters.

Please support Mother Jones with a year-end donation. We need to raise $600,000, or get as close as we can, by Tuesday so we don't need to make hard decisions come January. Whether you can give $5 or $500, it all makes a difference.

Let our journalists help you make sense of the noise: Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily newsletter and get a recap of news that matters.

I was googling around a couple of weeks ago and happened to end up clicking a bunch of links that took me down a particular rabbit hole of climate change skepticism related to solar cycles. It was fascinating in a gruesome kind of way, but I never wrote a post about it and eventually it drifted from my mind. Today, though, Brad Plumer comes through with a link to a piece in the Independent explaining just where this theory originally came from and how it’s become so widespread. Also, why it’s wrong.¹ Worth a read.

¹An explanation largely notable because the scientist who originally advanced the sunspot theory refuses to address his main critic because he “is not a scientist.” Good to see the tables turned here for once.