[author’s note: this article was originally submitted as a “letter to the editor” to the Bellingham Herald, a newspaper that published an attack on Dr. Don Easterbrook. The Herald refused to publish my rebuttal. The executive editor, July Shirley (julie.shirley@bellinghamherald.com) explained “We only print letters from residents of Whatcom County. We are not publishing your letter.”]
Letter to the Editor by Dr. David Deming
I write in rebuttal to the March 31 letter by WWU geology faculty criticizing Dr. Don Easterbrook. I have a Ph.D in geophysics and have published research papers on climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature. In 2006 I testified before the US Senate on global warming. Additionally, I am the author of a three-volume history of science.
I have never met Don Easterbrook. I write not so much to defend him as to expose the ignorance exhibited in the letter authored by WWU geology faculty. Their attack on Dr. Easterbrook is the most egregious example of pedantic buffoonery since the Pigeon League conspired against Galileo in the seventeenth century. Skepticism is essential to science. But the goal of the geology faculty at WWU seems to be to suppress critical inquiry and insist on dogmatic adherence to ideology.
The WWU faculty never defined the term “global warming” but described it as “very real,” as if it were possible for something to be more real than real. They claimed that the evidence in support of this “very real” global warming was “overwhelming.” Yet they could not find space in their letter to cite a single specific fact that supports their thesis.
There is significant evidence that would tend to falsify global warming. The mean global air temperature has not risen for the last fifteen years. At the end of March the global extent of sea ice was above the long-term average and higher than it was in March of 1980. Last December, snow cover in the northern hemisphere was at the highest level since record keeping began in 1966. The UK just experienced the coldest March of the last fifty years. There has been no increase in droughts or wildfires. Worldwide hurricane and cyclone activity is near a forty-year low.
One might think that the foregoing facts would raise doubts in scientists interested in pursuing objective truth. But global warming is not so much a scientific theory subject to empirical falsification as it is a political ideology that must be fiercely defended in defiance of every fact to the contrary. In the past few years we have been told that not only hot weather but cold weather is caused by global warming. The blizzards that struck the east coast of the US in 2010 were attributed to global warming. Every weather event–hot, cold, wet or dry–is said to be caused by global warming. The theory that explains everything explains nothing.
Among the gems in the endless litany of nonsense we are subjected to are claims that global warming causes earthquakes, tsunamis and volcanic eruptions. Last year we were warned that global warming would turn us all into hobbits, the mythical creatures from J. R. R. Tolkien’s novels. I am not aware of any member of the WWU geology faculty criticizing these ridiculous claims. Their vehemence seems to be reserved for honest skeptics like Dr. Easterbrook who advance science by asking hard questions.
At the heart of the WWU geology faculty criticisms was the claim that peer review creates objective and reliable knowledge. Nonsense. Peer review produces opinions. Scientists, like other people, have political beliefs, ideological orientations, and personal views that strain their scientific objectivity. One of the most disgusting things to emerge from the 2009 Climategate emails was the revelation of an attempt to subvert the peer-review process by suppressing the publication of work that was scientifically sound but contrary to the reviewer’s personal views.
The infamous phrase “hide the decline” refers to an instance where a global warming alarmist omitted data that contradicted his personal belief that the world was warming. This sort of bias is not limited but pervasive. Neither is science a foolproof method for producing absolute truth. Scientific knowledge is always tentative and subject to revision. The entire history of science is littered with discarded theories once thought to be incontrovertible truths.
The WWU geology faculty letter asserted that technological advances arise from application of the scientific method. They claimed that airplanes were invented by scientists. But the Wright brothers were bicycle mechanics–not scientists. The modern age of personal computing began in a suburban California garage in 1976. The most significant technological advance in human history was the Industrial Revolution in Britain that occurred from 1760 through 1830. When Adam Smith toured factories and inquired as to who had invented the new machinery, the answer was always the same: the common workman. Antibiotics were not discovered through the rigorous application of scientific methodology but serendipitously when Fleming noticed in 1928 that mold suppressed bacterial growth.
Dr. Easterbrook’s contributions have furthered the advance of scientific knowledge and the progress of the human race. It matters not if a multitude of professors oppose him. As Galileo explained, it is “certain that the number of those who reason well in difficult matters is much smaller than the number of those who reason badly….reasoning is like running and not like carrying, and one Arab steed will outrun a hundred jackasses.”
David Deming
Professor of Arts & Sciences
University of Oklahoma
email: ddeming [at] ou.edu
==============================================================
A list of Dr. Easterbrook’s credentials are listed here:
http://myweb.wwu.edu/dbunny/dje_cv.html
Cliff Mass said:
>> And as long as I am writing this, when are we going to get past the lack of warming of the last decade?….this really proves nothing about long-term global warming. Natural variability can easily create periods of no warming during times like this when human forcing is relatively weak.<<
What would, in your opinion, Cliff, prove something about long-term global warming? Would it be a lack of warming or even cooling over 20 years? 30 years? What empirical evidence would falsify the AGW theory?
And if natural variability is the cause of the recent 15 year hiatus, how can we be sure that it was not natural variability that caused the warming from the late 70s to the late 90s?
The claim was made above that I’m not an evolutionist: “Is it normal for this site to give webspace to evolution deniers?”
This is not opinion, but defamation. Everyone is entitled to their opinion, no one is entitled to make statements about other people that are factually and objectively untrue.
See here: http://www.lewrockwell.com/orig9/deming5.1.1.html
I wrote: “I’m an evolutionist. I’m committed to naturalism in science, and I believe that radioactive dating and other evidence shows the Earth to be about 4.6 billion years old.”
I don’t know how my position could be any clearer.
–DD
Cliff Mass:
Your post at April 8, 2013 at 11:08 am contains nothing but twaddle so I was tempted to let it stand because any rational person would ignore it. But one of your false statements is so wrong it has tempted me to refute it. You say
It “says nothing”? Who claims it “says nothing”? You?
The UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) does not agree.
The explanation for this is in IPCC AR4 (2007) Chapter 10.7 which can be read at
http://www.ipcc.ch/publications_and_data/ar4/wg1/en/ch10s10-7.html
It says there
In other words, it was expected that global temperature would rise at an average rate of “0.2°C per decade” over the first two decades of this century with half of this rise being due to atmospheric GHG emissions which were already in the system
This assertion of “committed warming” should have had large uncertainty because the Report was published in 2007 and there was then no indication of any global temperature rise over the previous 7 years. There has still not been any rise and we are now way past the half-way mark of the “first two decades of the 21st century”.
So, if this “committed warming” is to occur such as to provide a rise of 0.2°C per decade by 2020 then global temperature would need to rise over the next 7 years by about 0.4°C. And this assumes the “average” rise over the two decades is the difference between the temperatures at 2000 and 2020. If the average rise of each of the two decades is assumed to be the “average” (i.e. linear trend) over those two decades then global temperature now needs to rise before 2020 by more than it rose over the entire twentieth century. It only rose ~0.8°C over the entire twentieth century.
Simply, the “committed warming” has disappeared (perhaps it has eloped with Trenberth’s ‘missing heat’?).
I add that the disappearance of the “committed warming” is – of itself – sufficient to falsify the AGW hypothesis as emulated by climate models. If we reach 2020 without any detection of the “committed warming” then it will be 100% certain that all projections of global warming are complete bunkum.
Richard
James Ard says:
April 8, 2013 at 9:00 am
But were the Wright brothers really the first to get off the ground?
Hmm – some of the responses here indicate some obvious confusion with what I wrote, as well as a surprising degree of ‘Americocentrism’ for this day and age…
IanW suggests that I am missing the point, which is that the WWU academics were trying to say that you are only a scientist if you have the correct accreditation and degrees from a University. I address that point quite specifically pointing out that, in my view, anyone can ‘be a scientist’ – it just means using the scientific method.
Jim Brock thinks that Cayley’s airplane crashed into the Potomac. I was amazed. I am glad to see that a number of you have corrected him.
Ray Downng is of the opinion that “Not only did scientists not invent the airplane, they tried long and hard – and failed!”. That is an odd opinion, given that Cayley started the scientific study of Aerodynamics in 1799, and had specified most of basic aerodynamic theory by 1850. By the time Wrenham had developed the wind tunnel in 1871 all the theory was in place. The aircraft had been invented. What remained was essentially engineering – the need to design a strong yet light structure incorporating a powerful engine. This was beyond the technology of the time, and only became possible some 35 years later.
The Wrights were the first group to develop a practical flying machine (by a short head) but they were by no means the first to leave the ground under their own power. AFAIR, their success was due to following a course of methodical improvements (this let them crash in a survivable way, unlike many of their co-experimenters), and their possession of an excellent engine. But if they had killed themselves, the aircraft would still have been developed at exactly the same time in the same way. They were far from being the sole aviation developers, and, in fact, had surprisingly little influence on the early development of aviation.
Santos-Dumont was independently developing 14-bis, demonstrated in France in 1906, and this had ailerons, not wing-warping (which was a dead-end design). He made his designs available to the world – the Wright brothers tried to monopolise the manufacture of aircraft, and successfully suppressed all further American development with legal suits. Much of the argument about ‘who was first with what’ (including the Smithsonian episodes) was generated as a result of this legal in-fighting.
In the meantime Santos-Dumont’s separate development, owing nothing to the Wrights, was leaping ahead.The French had an aircraft production factory in 1908. By the First World War the US had no mature aircraft industry of its own, unlike Europe, and had to buy its fighters from France…
Silver Ralph says:
April 8, 2013 at 8:46 am
.
“But the MSM has won again, because the wider public do not know of this. Even highly educated friends of mine know nothing of the criticisms and falsifications of Global Warming, because like most people they are too busy to search the web. They take the MSM at their word, and know nothing else.”
This seems to me the real nub of the problem. How do we change it? More pertinently, perhaps, how do we change it without adopting the warmista’s fraudulent methods?
Theo Goodwin is absolutely right about Galileo, in that his Heliocentric approach did not provide any improvement in planetary positional predictions over the Ptolemaic system. Epicycles were still necessary and the positional errors were mathematically identical.
It was Kepler’s Heliofocal system that abandoned all epicycles and provided predictions accurate to well below the errors of observation of the time.
Kepler get much less popular credit for his celestial mechanics, even though it took him most of his adult life to come up with his three laws.
Cliff Mass – re your criticisms of Don Easterbrook –
(http://wattsupwiththat.com/2013/04/08/rebuttal-to-the-attack-on-dr-don-easterbrook/#comment-1269271)
The first link you cite shows “Past and Predicted PDO”. It is a graph of past and predicted PDO. You say “This makes no sense. The PDO is not very periodic and may not even be a true cyclic phenomenon.“. Well, the first part of the graph is of past PDO, using the generally-accepted measure, so it does make sense. The last part of the graph is a prediction, and is clearly labelled as such. Without examining the basis of the prediction, I don’t see how it “makes no sense“. Prediction is one of the cornerstones of science – when a prediction is proved wrong, then the underlying theory is disproved. Perhaps you would like to describe what it is about the prediction’s underlying theory that “makes no sense“. [Note: I’m not saying you are wrong, just that a reason is needed.]
The second link you cite shows “IPCC Projected warming” and “Easterbrook Projected Cooling“. You say he “exaggerates the impact of solar cycle variability and explicitly shows major cooling during this century, and you indicate that this is an example of Dr. Easterbrook “saying things inconsistent with the facts“. This doesn’t seem to me to be a valid criticism. The IPCC forecast in the graph shows projected warming that has clearly not occurred. This indicates that the IPCC have exaggerated the impact of CO2, in which case their underlying theory is disproved. But Don Easterbrook’s projections based on current and past behaviour of the sun relate to 2014 onwards. Now it’s his theory’s turn to be tested. Your statement seems to be saying that when he projects major cooling this century, he is wrong. But until his projection is proved wrong, like the IPCC projection has now been proved wrong, it stands as a projection. If you want to tear down his theory without the long wait to find out how temperature behaves in future, the way to do that is to demonstrate flaws in his theory.
Then, you say “And as long as I am writing this, when are we going to get past the lack of warming of the last decade?….this really proves nothing about long-term global warming. Natural variability can easily create periods of no warming during times like this when human forcing is relatively weak.“.
The lack of warming for the last 16 years (not just a decade) is actually very significant. NOAA, in its “State of the Climate” report 2008 stated “The simulations rule out (at the 95% level) zero trends for intervals of 15 yr or more, suggesting that an observed absence of warming of this duration is needed to create a discrepancy with the expected present-day warming rate.“. (http://www1.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data/cmb/bams-sotc/climate-assessment-2008-lo-rez.pdf, section 1 page 2).
With no warming for more than 15 years, the CO2 theory has now been shown (at the 95% level) to be wrong, and must be modified or discarded.
Finally, how can you possibly refer to “times like this when human forcing is relatively weak, given that atmospheric CO2 levels have risen every year for many years?
GlynnMhor says:
April 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Thank you, Glynn. I do credit Galileo with the creation and championing of scientific method. Under better circumstances in his personal life, he might have embraced Kepler fully. Newton embraced Kepler fully. Kepler is appreciated far too little.
Tom J appears to be on the ground floor. Haven’t heard of the Earth Explosion Theory previously, but anything with such serious consequences shouldn’t be taken lightly. Wasn’t quite able to follow the mechanism exactly, but if it puts Santa in danger, it needs to be looked into.
It’s not entirely new–it’s appeared five times previously on WUWT (per my site-search).
Almost certainly the majority of them did not act spontaneously, but were presented with a document to sign by one or two of the most “concerned” members of the bunch. I suspect three or four of them would rather not have signed if they hadn’t been put on the spot, but succumbed to peer pressure.
This is probably also how scientific societies were nudged into endorsing alarmism also.
I love this post!
The Bellingham Herald is gutless for not printing this.
Do note that the editor’s email is at the top of the post – easy enough for any one on this thread to send her an ear full in support of Deming & Easterbrook.
The Wright history of aviation was tainted by banking and war industry interests who funded the legal battles against the four valid Wright patents. This prevented the Wrights from establishing world wide patents and when WW I broke out, as planned by the banking interests, all aviation patents were declared national security assets and paid only a 1% royalty. Bankrolled by the banksters, Glenn Curtis was able to buy out the Wrights and fat with decades of no-bid government contracts the Curtis Aircraft Company was the worlds largest corporation at the end of WW II. The Wright Flyer was exhibited in the British Museum for a decade and stored in various warehouses until finally being allowed into the Smithsonian in 1943. It is the heavy, unseen hand of the Ponzi banking system that distorts all science and history. See “Fractional Reserve Banking Begat Faux Reality” for more on these distortions. Thank you Dr Deming & Dr Easterbrook !
Theo Goodwin says:
Thank you, Glynn. I do credit Galileo with the creation and championing of scientific method.
What about Roger Bacon?
Well Dave you certainly sound like one.
“The single largest problem with Darwin’s theory of evolution by natural selection is that it contradicts the fossil record.” Those are your words, and the rest of them from that article on LR are even larger affronts to biological reality.
Your statement isn’t really true at all and I can’t imagine anyone saying it unless they were in the camp of denying the facts of evolution. For gods sake you even claimed that transitional fossils were “rare”. The difference between you and evolution-deniers is _________?
This kind of academic thuggery and bullying reflects poorly on the university and the individuals who participated in it. It seems that a zero tolerance policy towards dissent is not only accepted, but regarded as laudable, at WWU.
If Dr Easterbrook had been advocating genocide, or drowning cute puppies for fun, it might be understandable. But the notion that all academics must be in lockstep (even if, as seems to be the case, they have no expertise in the area under discussion) is the opposite of what a university should be about.
I do not know enough about Dr Easterbrook’s work to form a view about it. But ganging upon a colleague for the purposes of publicly humiliating him is a schoolyard tactic which, ironically, would not be acceptable in the modern schoolyard or workplace – except, it seems, at WWU.
Disgraceful.
1. Cliff Mass says:
The truth is that Don Easterbrook has often deviated from the facts or has made unsupported claims. Let’s be specific here.
YES CLIFF, LET’S BE SPECIFIC HERE. JUST WHAT FACTS HAVE I DEVIATED FROM? YOU MAKE VAGUE CHARGES, BUT NO ONE CAN TELL JUST WHAT FACTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR ARROGANT., UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES.
In several of his talks, he has shown the future temperature variations and based them on cutting and pasting from past PDO variations (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/pdoeaster.tiff). This makes no sense. The PDO is not very periodic and may not even be a true cyclic phenomenon.
YOUR MODEL- BASED PREDICTIONS WERE FOR A FULL DEGREE (F) OF WARMING FROM 2000 TO 2011 BUT YOU WEREN’T EVEN CLOSE. IT ACTUALLY GOT COOLER! YOUR CLIMATE MODELS ARE WORTHLESS WHEN YOU CHECK THEM AGAINST WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED. I CORRECTLY PREDICTED A SHIFT FROM THE 1978-1998 WARMING TO COOLING AND SO FAR HAVE BEEN CORRECT.
His exaggerates the impact of solar cycle variability and explicitly shows major cooling during this century (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/easterbrookcooling.tiff).
WELL, YOU GOT THAT RIGHT—AND IT DID HAPPEN, UNLIKE YOUR WORTHLESS PREDICTIONS.
I could many other SPECIFIC examples of Dr. Easterbrook saying things inconsistent with the facts.
YOU KEEP SAYING ‘SPECIFIC’ BUT THEN YOU NEVER SAY ANYTHING SPECIFIC!
This group of all groups should be sensitive to this….you do the field a service by noting the exaggerations of those hyping global warming but you really need to police those on “your” side that make unsupported claims.
MY ‘CLAIMS’ AS YOU CALL THEM ARE SUPPORTED BY REAL, PHYSICAL DATA, UNLIKE YOUR COMPUTER MODELS THAT HAVE BEEN CONSISTENTLY WRONG.
And as long as I am writing this, when are we going to get past the lack of warming of the last decade?….this really proves nothing about long-term global warming.
BUT IT SAYS REAMS ABOUT YOUR PREDICTION OF ONE DEGREE OF GLOBAL WARMING PER DECADE (WHICH DIDN’T HAPPEN!). YOU NEED TO GO BACK AND READ MY PAPERS AND LOOK AT THE DATA. HOW CAN YOU DEFEND YOUR RECORD OF ACCELERATING GLOBAL WARMING WHEN IT ISN’T HAPPENING?
Natural variability can easily create periods of no warming during times like this when human forcing is relatively weak. The end of the century will be different.
SO YOU AGREE THAT HUMAN FORCING IS WEAK AND CAN EASILY BE OVERSHADOWED BY NATURAL WARMING! HOW ABOUT THE WARMING FROM 1915 TO 1945 WHICH OCCURRED BEFORE RISE IN CO2? HOW ABOUT THE 20 PERIODS OF WARMING SINCE 1500 AD WHICH ALSO OCCURRED BEFORE RISE IN CO2. HOW ABOUT THE MULTIPLE PERIODS OF INTENSE WARMING (20 TIMES MORE INTENSE THAN RECENT WARMING)?S
I HOPE NEXT TIME YOU ACCUSE PEOPLE OF DEVIATING FROM FACTS THAT YOU EXPLAIN JUST WHAT THOSE FACTS ARE AND WHAT EVIDENCE YOU HAVE THAT DISAGREES WITH THESE FACTS.
” TomB says:
April 8, 2013 at 11:01 am
Thom says:
April 8, 2013 at 7:50 am
I will steal this line Mr. Deming: “The theory that explains everything explains nothing.”
That quote is a loose and poor paraphrase of the original by Michael Crichton. I prefer the original: “A theory that can mean anything means nothing.”
”
Since we’re splitting hairs…
“An expression that can mean anything means nothing. Speaking precisely, the Drake equation is literally meaningless…”
🙂
An excellent reply, Dr Deming. Unfortunately your experience is something that many of us on this blog have experienced countless times in our own locality . It appears to me that the Liberal media have chosen to become the gate keepers and advocates of scientific untruths to the public . It has been my personal observation that they will publish all articles or letters in support of global warming but refuse to publish any that provide clear evidence even when supported by peer reviewed papers that the science may be quite flawed. It looks like there is no such thing as freedom of the speech when it comes to global warming dialogue .
Mike McMillan asks at April 8, 2013 at 7:18 am above about some negative comments Joe Bastardi’s Wikipedia page. Wikipedia allows negative comments in biographies as long as they meet a few conditions.
1) The negative accusation or opinion must be sourced and attributed. Those comments are both attributed to MediaMatters and sourced by direct link to their article (where there is further sourcing of the original quotes which presumably led to the authors’ opinions). Note that the truth of a negative claim is irrelevant – many untrue things have been said about historical figures. Often, the untruth is the most relevant part of the biography. Marie Antoinette, for example, never said “Let them eat cake” yet no biography would be complete without covering that phrase.
2) Even sourced negative material may be inappropriate for non-public figures. While Wikipedia’s policy is not derived from US libel/slander law, it does follow the general principle (and legal precedent) that you can freely say things about the President which, if you said them about your neighbor, would get you sued for slander. Bastardi, through his own media activities, no longer qualifies as a non-public person.
3) The negative commentary must be “proportionate”. This is a value-judgment that is subject to editorial debate. Weighing in favor of a finding of proportionality are the facts that the lead paragraph is neutrally-written, the negative commentary is relatively late in the article and is confined to the section where his competence is specifically asserted and that the negative comments are described in context.
You might argue proportionality but that would be an uphill argument given the strength of the sourcing.
I was startled by this bit of honesty from David Hirsch:
“I don’t want the media to present both sides of an issue.”
…and…that’s post-normal science thinking in a nutshell. Science is validated by muzzling one side. No one is then heard arguing? Consensus.
Dr Easterbrook has my full support and admiration . He was among the first group of scientists who proposed the idea that global warming might not happen at all and that global cooling was the more likely future possibilty . Looks like he was right on his main arguments. His material was well documented and he made himself availabale to the media and the public to defend his points of view . History will prove him to be right and one of the real pioneers of climate science.
Theo Goodwin says: April 8, 2013 at 1:21 pm
GlynnMhor says: April 8, 2013 at 1:00 pm
Thank you, Glynn. I do credit Galileo with the creation and championing of scientific method. Under better circumstances in his personal life, he might have embraced Kepler fully. Newton embraced Kepler fully. Kepler is appreciated far too little.
Tycho Brahe kept very precise records of planetary movements, but he wouldn’t share his data with his employee Kepler. After Brahe’s death, Kepler got the data and eventually figured out his three laws. But consider what he was dealing with. The data were angles – right ascension, azimuth, that sort, and dates.
The angles were measured from a horizon that rotated at a tilt (latitude) around an axis (Earth’s) that was in motion and was itself tilted from the plane of an Earth orbit of unknown shape and inconstant speed. The angles were measures of planets that orbited in planes different from the Earth’s, against a background of ‘fixed’ stars that constantly shifted over the year.
Boiling that down to three laws that Newton later confirmed was an amazing achievement.
I attended Western in the 70’s and graduated from Huxley College of Environmental Studies back in 1979. I do recall it was for the most part rigorous. I cannot imagine what it is like today.
Don,
You appending of the past PDO record to produce a future variation is not reasonable and is unsupportable. You have no basis for doing so. I don’t understand what you are saying about “your model-based predictions” and “my climate models are worthless”. Which models are mine? I am also unhappy with your name-calling–like “arrogant.” One thing I really respect about Anthony Watts is that he has a respectful tone to those he disagrees with.
Again, for you Don and some of the others, GLOBAL WARMING IS WEAK NOW AND CAN BE OVERWHELMED BY NATURAL VARIABILITY. A period of ten or 15 years of no trend has no meaning….really.
Don Easterbrook Remark Below:
1. Cliff Mass says:
The truth is that Don Easterbrook has often deviated from the facts or has made unsupported claims. Let’s be specific here.
YES CLIFF, LET’S BE SPECIFIC HERE. JUST WHAT FACTS HAVE I DEVIATED FROM? YOU MAKE VAGUE CHARGES, BUT NO ONE CAN TELL JUST WHAT FACTS YOU ARE TALKING ABOUT. STOP HIDING BEHIND YOUR ARROGANT., UNSUPPORTED ASSERTIONS AND ADDRESS THE ISSUES.
In several of his talks, he has shown the future temperature variations and based them on cutting and pasting from past PDO variations (http://www.atmos.washington.edu/~cliff/pdoeaster.tiff). This makes no sense. The PDO is not very periodic and may not even be a true cyclic phenomenon.
YOUR MODEL- BASED PREDICTIONS WERE FOR A FULL DEGREE (F) OF WARMING FROM 2000 TO 2011 BUT YOU WEREN’T EVEN CLOSE. IT ACTUALLY GOT COOLER! YOUR CLIMATE MODELS ARE WORTHLESS WHEN YOU CHECK THEM AGAINST WHAT ACTUALLY HAPPENED.
Solar variability exists but as you should know, insolation has not changed by more than a tenth of a percent or so…..not enough to produce the big cooling your are predicting during this century.