What to do when someone says that Earth's warming is caused by the sun

This experiment in user-based modular journalism is part of this analysis.

Valentina Zharkova, a Ukrainian scientist teaching at Northumbria University in Newcastle, UK, talked about global warming in an interview with La Verità: "The cause is not humans, but rather the Sun," she stated. The expert wants to disprove some common beliefs, including the one that the temperature of our planet has been increasing since the Industrial Revolution.

I will knowingly omit, distort, or misrepresent details in my reporting to support a narrative.
I will frame statements or events, giving an interpretation that supports a narrative.
I will cast opposing arguments as common beliefs, undermining their legitimacy and implying they are unoriginal, uncritical, or even mindless.

"In reality, the Earth has been warming since around 1690, which marks the end of the coldest phase of the Little Ice Age (LIA). In 1976, Professor John Eddy proposed that Earth's temperature follows cycles of solar radiation intensity, with temperatures increasing during solar maxima and decreasing during solar minima. Then, in 1995, it was discovered that the amount of solar energy reaching the Earth had decreased by about 3 watts per square meter during the Maunder Minimum (1645-1710), a period of significantly reduced solar activity that coincided with cooler global temperatures. Following the end of the LIA, solar radiation levels returned to their previous state, and Earth's temperature has continued to respond to cycles of solar activity," she revealed.

I will not challenge or fact-check statements that contain falsities or exaggerations if it is convenient for my faction.

Professor Valentina Zharkova has highlighted that the Sun's activity has decreased since the 1980s, but the warming of the Earth has not stopped. It is for this reason that the scientific community has mistakenly blamed humans. "The IPCC is wrong when it assumes that solar radiation is essentially constant, thus attributing the warming to the increase in CO2 concentration in the Earth's atmosphere. In reality, the increase in CO2 is a consequence, not the cause, of the increase in temperature."

I will not contradict false statements, not even when they go against the consensus of experts and scientists, if they support my tribe's arguments.
I will frame statements or events, giving an interpretation that supports a narrative.
I will respect your point of view, reinforcing that it is reasonable and worth consideration, even when most people disagree.

"The increase in temperature, rather, would be due to orbital effects. These are known as Milankovitch cycles, which result from cyclical variations in the eccentricity of Earth's orbit, the tilt of its axis relative to the ecliptic, and cyclical variations in precession around Earth's axis. These cycles have periods ranging from 25,000 to 100,000 years. However, there is a shorter cycle of solar irradiance variation, about 2,000 years, called the Hallstatt cycle. This cycle does not originate from activity within the Sun but from the Sun's variable position relative to the focus of its orbit, a phenomenon known as solar inertial motion (SIM). The origin of the additional terrestrial warming, therefore, would be this factor, which the IPCC has not considered, and it will influence climate until around 2600."

I will not challenge or fact-check statements that contain falsities or exaggerations if it is convenient for my faction.
I will not contradict false statements, not even when they go against the consensus of experts and scientists, if they support my tribe's arguments.
I will not weigh or place in context statements contradicting accepted or verified science or facts, nor will I give credit or dignity to minority arguments simply because they support a narrative shared with my faction.

Valentina Zharkova, however, revealed that solar inertial motion is not the only factor influencing Earth's temperature. "Within solar activity, there are two significant cycles: one, the small solar cycle, with a period of 11 years, and the other, the large solar cycle, with a period of 350 years. The large solar cycles are separated by grand solar minima, the most recent of which was the aforementioned Maunder Minimum. The current solar cycle (Cycle 25) has had more sunspot-free days than any other cycle in the last 280 years of observations. During the current grand solar minimum, solar radiation is expected to decrease by about 3 watts per square meter. As a result, Earth's temperature is projected to decrease by about one degree over the next three decades."

I will not weigh or place in context statements contradicting accepted or verified science or facts, nor will I give credit or dignity to minority arguments simply because they support a narrative shared with my faction.

Confirmation of the theory presented on La Verità, therefore, should arrive by 2050.

I will respect your point of view, reinforcing that it is reasonable and worth consideration, even when most people disagree.

"In the next 30 years, it will be demonstrated what is warming the Earth's atmosphere, whether it's the Sun or human activity. Currently, the Sun is approaching that Grand Solar Minimum that we predicted in 2015. This should cause a decrease in Earth's temperature of up to one degree in cycle 26 (2031-2042). This should happen even though the Sun is already closer to Earth and has increased its temperature from the Maunder Minimum in 2020. If anthropogenic warming were underway, there would be no decrease in Earth's temperature, only an increase. However, the last few years already clearly show that the Earth's temperature is about to decrease," she concluded.

I will not weigh or place in context statements contradicting accepted or verified science or facts, nor will I give credit or dignity to minority arguments simply because they support a narrative shared with my faction.

Behind this story

The initial article is a translation (by Google Gemini and ChatGPT 4) of a report that appeared on Italian site Il Sussidiario in January 2023, which covers an interview with Valentina Zharkova published in the newspaper La Verità. Zharkova, a professor of mathematics at Northumbria University in England, is famous for having co-authored a paper called "Oscillations of the baseline of solar magnetic field and solar irradiance on a millennial timescale," which claims the Sun causes global warming, not greenhouse gas emissions.

The paper was published by Nature's Scientific Reports on 24 June 2019 and retracted on 3 March 2020. A very long peer review thread on PubPeer has led to the retraction and is an absolutely unmissable and wildly enjoyable read.

I was not able to directly access the interview in La Verità, a newspaper known for a strong climate-change bias. However, the secondary report is perhaps even more interesting, as it would offer the journalist an even greater opportunity to provide context to the readers. The Trust Project categorizes an interview as an opinion piece in its Trust Indicators, specifically the Type of Work Labels one. An interview is expected to provide a perspective and not be fully fact-checked, and hopefully, it is fully transparent to the user that it falls within the realm of opinion pieces. From a news piece about the interview, however, we should fully expect fact-based journalism. Alas, the opportunity to provide context was not taken by Il Sussidiario. I am not sure whether the inherited bias in this secondary report is circumstantial or an editorial decision. If I had to guess, I would say it is circumstantial.

The 'rewrites' use the initial article as a starting point and add a modular information needs approach. In this particular case, taking into account that it is essentially an opinion piece with little context and no attempt at fact-checking the scientist's statements, a full rewrite was necessary to make it fit for purpose.

The modular article was not written with the intent to inform on the topic, but purely as an example of methodology in modular journalism. The example is also purposefully 19 months old so as not to risk being injected into any ongoing political discourse about climate.

That said, it would be interesting to compare the user effects triggered in the piece with those from a similar report, for example, this one by Breitbart titled: 'Winter is coming' warns the solar physicist the alarmists tried to silence, again featuring Zharkova.