1. Willie Soon 1 Independent Scientist July 8, 2014 9 th International Climate Conference Panel 4: NIPCC vs IPCC (Physical Science) Las Vegas 1 All Views Expressed Are Strictly My Own IPCC: “Gangster Science” and Should Be Yours Too

3. Green TeamRed Team

4. Answer: “Let’s see: There were 10 experts, 6 said they were 50-50 and 4 said they were 162.5% sure—that averages to 95% certainty. QED” (by “Bernie” on Matt Briggs blog March 25th, 2010, comment #13) Scientific Objectivity from IPCC Reports? Q: Can someone explain to me how IPCC can put a numeric probability to the statement that there is some 95% (“very likely”) chance that global warming by man-made CO 2 emissions is true? Answer: “Let’s see: There were 10 experts, 6 said they were 50-50... d 4 said they were 162.5%

5. Two days after IPCC issued its press release for AR5 report: August 21, 2013

6. Three problems: (1) No expertise in solar physics (2) Misleading/Confused discussion on radiative forcing (3) Hide key physics: Absolute TSI calibration problem (4) Cherry picking: PMOD against ACRIM+RMIB TSI (5) Selective and outdated knowledge/citations (6) Dangerous ignorance: TSI reconstruction problems and assumptions in Steinhilber et al. (2009, 2012) should be pointed out (7) On artificial 11-yr solar cycles and flawed Sun-like stars studies: Danger of Schmidt et al. (2011) (8) Refusal to cite Fontenla et al. (2011)-the best paper on physical modeling of Sun’s irradiance on all wavelengths (9) Real story on Bill Livingston and Matt Penn’s solar magnetic field measurements at NSO (10) Zero expertise in the study of solar-type stars: Astronomers wanted

7. Still only one possible solar physics expert (1) No expertise in solar physics Why no scientists that are trained or strong in solar physics? Final version: from 29 to 38 authors

8. (6) Dangerous ignorance: TSI reconstruction problems and assumptions in Steinhilber et al. (2009, 2012) should be pointed out p. 8-33: “Our assessment of the range of RF from TSI changes is 0.0-0.1 W/m2 which covers several updated reconstructions using the same 7-year running mean past-to-present minima years (Steinhilber et al., 2009 …”

9. A careful look into the most popular reconstructed TSI values and results by Steinhilber et al. (2009 and 2012): p. 5-107 of AR5 Steinhilber et al. (2012) PNAS, vol. 109, 5967-5971; (2009) GRL, vol. 36, 2009GL040142

10. A careful look into the most popular reconstructed TSI values and results by Steinhilber et al. (2009 and 2012): Highly questionable TSI-B r correlation and its physical relevance! Steinhilber et al. (2012) PNAS, vol. 109, 5967-5971; (2009) GRL, vol. 36, 2009GL040142

11. A careful look into the most popular reconstructed TSI values and results by Steinhilber et al. (2009 and 2012): Highly questionable TSI-B r correlation and its physical relevance! Steinhilber et al. (2012) PNAS, vol. 109, 5967-5971; (2009) GRL, vol. 36, 2009GL040142

12. A careful look into the most popular reconstructed TSI values and results by Steinhilber et al. (2009 and 2012): Highly questionable TSI-B r correlation and its physical relevance! Steinhilber et al. (2012) PNAS, vol. 109, 5967-5971; (2009) GRL, vol. 36, 2009GL040142

13. IPCC is selling everyone split pant

14. A careful look into the most popular reconstructed TSI values and results by Steinhilber et al. (2009 and 2012): Highly questionable TSI-B r correlation and its physical relevance! Steinhilber et al. (2012) PNAS, vol. 109, 5967-5971; (2009) GRL, vol. 36, 2009GL040142 Shocking basis for the TSI-B r correlation : Based on only 2 points! plus 2 questionable points!!! Frohlich (2009) Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 501, L27-L30 Two points that should NOT be included in the fit

15. The schizophrenic TSI-B r correlations from Frohlich many papers? Frohlich (2009) Astronomy and Astrophysics, vol. 501, L27-L30; Frohlich (2013) Space Science Review, vol. 176, 237-252; Frohlich (2012) Surveys in Geophysics, vol. 33, 453-473; Frohlich (2013)-ppt dated September 24, 2013 Why the values of TSI and Br keep changing ?

16. You say you want a correlation? Sunlight in California versus Number of people who drowned by falling into a bath-tub

17. One can hardly accept such a weak result (based strictly on 2-point correlation!!!) let alone to beat the world with the news that the changes in the Sun’s TSI are small and therefore of minimal or no influence on global climate!

19. (9) Real story on Bill Livingston and Matt Penn’s solar magnetic field measurements at NSO p. 8-34: “A linear expansion of the current trend may indicate that of [sic.] the order of half the sunspot activity may disappear by about 2015 (Penn and Livingston, 2006).” Just not true and simply not the correct representation of Penn and Livingston’s works

20. +

21. Kitt Peak McMath-Pierce now

22. 82 cm image

23. Spectrum Zeeman Effect Fe 5250 A. 4130 Gauss vs White Light Spot Image

24. (New and More Sensitive) Infra red measurements Fe 15648 line Zeeman splitting for 3193 Gauss

25. Mag field decrease with time Courtesy of Bill Livingston NSO (March 7, 2014, updated through February, 2014)

26. Mag field decrease with time Courtesy of Bill Livingston (and Matt Penn) NSO

27. Cheshire Cat Effect Smile is there (magnetic fields) But no body (few dark spots)

28. How does it look for Cycles 24 and 25? David Archibald’s graphical presentation of Penn and Livingston (2011)

29. Sunspots Disappearing? Not just half as stated by AR5 Matt Penn, NSO (July 11, 2013)

30. Three problems: (1) No expertise in solar physics (2) Misleading/Confused discussion on radiative forcing (3) Hide key physics: Absolute TSI calibration problem (4) Cherry picking: PMOD against ACRIM+RMIB TSI (5) Selective and outdated knowledge/citations (6) Dangerous ignorance: TSI reconstruction problems and assumptions in Steinhilber et al. (2009, 2012) should be pointed out (7) On artificial 11-yr solar cycles and flawed Sun-like stars studies: Danger of Schmidt et al. (2011) (8) Refusal to cite Fontenla et al. (2011)-the best paper on physical modeling of Sun’s irradiance on all wavelengths (9) Real story on Bill Livingston and Matt Penn’s solar magnetic field measurements at NSO (10) Zero expertise in the study of solar-type stars: Astronomers wanted

31. Conclusion: The gangster science as practiced by the United Nations IPCC AR5 WG I report will not prevail (because even the almighty and super powerful IPCC does not get to vote on reality)