Svensmark has never tried to defend himself properly, i.e., by a peer reviewed reply article, against these serious
charges. Friis‐Christensen once tried to defend himself against the criticism of the 1991‐Science article. However, the
apparent rebuttal in his reply‐article was only achieved by introducing two simple arithmetic errors, which were well
hidden in the article and quite difficult to spot. The two arithmetic errors artificially created an agreement of the new
observational data with the values of the 1991‐article. Applying correct arithmetic the support of the solar theory
totally vanishes (See my 2003‐article for details).
The strong human appeal of solar theory
The solar theory apparently has a strong emotional appeal to an important segment of the public. And, opposition to
it can lead to political reprisal with severe consequences for the funding of individual researchers and research
institutes.
Several books and many TV ‘documentaries’ have appeared, promoting the solar theory. To mention a few: The TV
documentary ‘The Great Global Swindle’ by Martin Durkin was shown on UK’s Channel 4 in March 2007. And a whole
series of films by Lars Mortensen: “The Climate Conflict” from 2001, broadcast in Denmark, Sweden, Norway,
Finland, France, Germany, Belgium, Spain and Portugal . “Doomsday Called off” from 2004, broadcast in Denmark,
Belgium, Finland, Canada, Norway, Middle East and Asia. And “The Cloud Mystery” from 2008, broadcast in
Denmark, Norway, Finland, Sweden, France, Belgium, Australia, Poland, Greece, Italy, Israel and France.
Some readers may find this list long and boring. Others may find it scary. It can be seen as a threat to the authority of
sound science, originating from a mixture of popular wishful thinking, populist deception and industrial interests.
Many of these films are created with great artistic talent, and have – apparently – convinced millions of ordinary
people and many political decision makers all over the world that global warming is caused by solar activity and not
by human made greenhouse gasses. How can the world’s politicians make responsible decisions, when their voters
are seduced to believe in fairytales?
The myth – describing a small group of ingenious scientists, who have arrived at the ultimate truth about climate,
who have identified the sun as the mighty culprit, and who are shunned by a stubborn, envious establishment of old,
narrow‐minded professors – has a strong appeal to many. It is good stuff for an artistic film maker. It can be molded
into a moving story – mixing images of lonely heroes, brave, fighting underdogs, with beautiful pictures of the sun
and clouds. And it turns out that neither the filmmaker nor the audience can be influenced by being told that the
solemnly presented graphs on the screen are rigged.

Who is to blame?
Who is to blame for the development of this irrational cult of a postulated solar influence upon the Earth’s climate?
The IPCC is not without responsibility for providing the free ride for solar crusaders. Because the IPCC has never
made it clear, that the problem with the widely circulated, infamous figures of 1991 and 1998 ‐ which probably have
been the most important persuaders ‐ is not a question of scientific uncertainty and differing opinion, but a case of
manipulated data that have nothing to do with reality. Instead of merely describing Svensmark’s contributions as
‘controversial’, some stronger words from the IPCC would have been appropriate. In a language that could be
understood by ordinary citizens.
There are many other examples of the failure of the scientific community to prevent misinformation.

Sek they are continuing up because they all have the relevant fiddle factor applied

They are not anomalies

I wish as much as you do that they were a true representation of reality as that would be science

However....this is not science. This is science perverted by political goals.

Eso it would only be a conspiracy if it wasn't so publicly acknowledged

∴ not conspiracy