It is called clickbait.....eveyr news agency and website needs clicks to get advertising revenue up...
A headline that says "Sunspot activity changing" will get nary a click.
From CNN to FOX and Facebook to Advertising on all these sites...headlines are meant to get you to click.
The article cites one fucking astronomer... it is like asking one doctor about the effects of Orange juice on people and then creating a click bait headline that "OJ will kill you!"
If facts matter than simply look up info from science sites, not media sites.
The click bait that "Climate Change is going to kill all of us" has been dominate for many years. Nothing else comes close.
Except scientists are saying global warming is a big deal, & scientists are saying sun spots aren't a big deal.
See, this story is just con click bait because it's confirmation bias against global warming
These are pretty much the same people who are giving us all the Covid projections. You don't believe this nonsense but buy everything they tell us about the virus and what to do about it? Just sayin.
lots of fringe sites peddling this one.
View attachment 228233
https://heavy.com/news/2020/05/sun-lockdown-solar-minimum/
Here’s What A Solar Minimum Is And Why NASA Says It’s Nothing To Worry About
According to NASA, even if a prolonged grand solar minimum were to take place — which would occur over a decade — the warming from greenhouse gas emissions is six times greater than any cooling the minimum could produce. As a result, the globe would continue to warm.
Except scientists are saying global warming is a big deal, & scientists are saying sun spots aren't a big deal.
See, this story is just con click bait because it's confirmation bias against global warming
Intial projections are very often wrong, many times they are completely wrong. The knee jerk extraordinary measures which are suggested as a remedy then need to be adjusted accordingly. That is where things breakdown. The adjustments never happen, they just keep being repeated as if the intial projections were right on the money, and it seems to me that this only happens when there's a political end game in mind.Are they pretty much the same people?
Initial projections are done on what will happen without extraordinary remediation. Is that really so hard to understand?