- Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon argues the sun, not CO2, is the dominant driver of Earth's climate, citing solar activity correlations.
- Soon criticizes the focus on CO2 as politically motivated, describing an "Iron Triangle" of politics, science and media that marginalizes dissent.
- New research reveals plants absorb 31% more CO2 than previously thought, highlighting a critical error in global carbon cycle models.
- The study emphasizes the enhanced role of tropical rainforests as carbon sinks and the importance of accurate photosynthesis data for climate predictions.
- Experts call for a shift in climate policy toward adaptation and resilience, prioritizing practical measures over regulating atmospheric CO2.
In a direct challenge to the prevailing climate policy framework, an astrophysicist has declared carbon dioxide “unfairly demonized,” arguing that the sun’s variable energy output is the primary engine of Earth’s climate system. This critique emerges alongside groundbreaking research revealing a significant scientific underestimation of how much CO2 plants absorb from the atmosphere annually. Together, these developments question the foundational assumptions driving global efforts to regulate carbon emissions and suggest a need to re-evaluate priorities toward adaptation and ecological resilience.
A solar-centric climate view
Astrophysicist Dr. Willie Soon, in a recent interview, presented a starkly different narrative on climate drivers. Based on decades of solar and stellar physics research, Soon asserts that the sun provides 99.99% of the energy powering Earth’s weather and climate. He contends that temperature patterns over the last 150 years align more closely with fluctuations in solar activity than with rising CO2 levels, which he claims have an undetectably small signal as a primary climate driver. Soon points to historical periods like the Maunder Minimum—a time of low solar activity coinciding with the Little Ice Age—as evidence of this solar-climate link. His conclusion is succinct: “You can’t make laws against the sun.”
The politics of carbon and a contested consensus
Soon attributes the overwhelming political and scientific focus on CO2 to what he terms an “Iron Triangle Effect.” In this dynamic, he argues, political agendas fund research, compliant science delivers supportive findings, and media amplifies an alarmist consensus, thereby marginalizing dissenting voices. This environment, he warns, replaces objective inquiry with ideological and economic goals. While critics have questioned Soon’s funding sources, he maintains his work is supported by voluntary donations and emphasizes that the quality of the science, not its funding, should be the primary focus. He cites a shift in focus by some figures toward climate adaptation as a positive, pragmatic development.
Re-evaluating nature’s carbon sink
Concurrent with this philosophical debate, a major study led by Cornell University and supported by the Department of Energy’s Oak Ridge National Laboratory has delivered a concrete finding that reshapes understanding of the carbon cycle. Published in the journal Nature, the research concludes that terrestrial plants absorb approximately 31% more carbon dioxide through photosynthesis than previously estimated. The revised calculation raises the annual global rate, known as Gross Primary Production (GPP), from 120 to 157 petagrams of carbon. One petagram equals one billion metric tons. The team achieved this new estimate by using carbonyl sulfide (OCS) as a proxy to track CO2 uptake. Unlike direct CO2 measurement, OCS follows a similar path into plant cells but is easier to trace, providing a more accurate large-scale picture of photosynthetic activity. A key advancement was better modeling of “mesophyll conductance”—the process by which gases diffuse into the chloroplasts where photosynthesis occurs. This work particularly highlighted tropical rainforests as a far more significant carbon sink than satellite-based models had indicated, a finding corroborated by ground measurements.
Historical context and future implications
The new photosynthesis data exposes a substantial error that has persisted in climate models for over four decades. Since these models inform international climate agreements and mitigation strategies, the underestimation of plant CO2 uptake has likely skewed predictions of atmospheric carbon concentration and its effects. Historically, climate narratives have shifted from global cooling fears in the 1970s to warming alarms, now consolidated under the “climate change” umbrella. Critics argue this flexibility allows a range of phenomena, including excess mortality, to be attributed to climate change, potentially diverting investigation from other proximate causes. Meanwhile, policy initiatives like the UN’s Sustainable Development Goals explicitly aim to use climate action to intentionally transform the economic model that has existed since the Industrial Revolution. Skeptics view this as a move toward greater centralized control, exemplified by concepts like programmable central bank digital currencies that could restrict individual economic activity based on carbon credit scores.
Toward realism and resilience
The combined insights from Soon’s solar hypothesis and the revised carbon sink data advocate for a recalibration of climate response. Soon recommends that policy prioritize “realism and resilience”—adapting infrastructure, strengthening flood protections and investing in technology while exercising humility before nature’s complexity. Similarly, the ORNL research underscores the critical importance of accurately representing fundamental biological processes, like photosynthesis, in Earth-system models to reduce uncertainty in future climate projections. The central question emerging is whether global policy should continue its primary focus on regulating a gas essential to plant life and previously underestimated in its consumption by ecosystems, or pivot toward enhancing societal and environmental resilience against climatic variability, whatever its primary cause. The debate underscores a deepening rift between a carbon-centric regulatory approach and a perspective that emphasizes natural cycles, adaptation and the limitations of human control over planetary systems.
Sources for this article include:
Please contact us for more information.