What Does Ben Davidson Claim?

I often see people discussing the 4 big claims I made in 2012, which were made to be the foundation of the Suspicious0bservers (Space Weather News) YouTube channel, my 7 subsequent books on the science, and my two peer-reviewed scientific papers. They usually get it wrong. Here are the facts, to clear this up once and for all (in case you can’t be bothered to go back and watch the videos from 2011-2014):

Here are the 2012 claims, where we are now, and IF anything has changed.

CLAIM #1: They are never going to find weakly-interacting-massive-particles (WIMPs) and their second choice for dark matter, axions, is equally imaginary.

It was the world’s best scientists and ~$58 BILLION in funding, all seeing us as the crazy ones. They gave up on WIMPs in 2022, and axions (and every other type of dark matter) remains elusive. Underlying Claim: Plasma cosmology (Alfven, Birkeland, Peratt) much-better describes the action of galaxies and stars over time than lambda CDM.
*So Far: Search is ongoing, but Ben is currently winning in a shutout.

CLAIM #2: Electromagnetic precursors of earthquakes can be seen in the atmospheric electricity and local magnetic fields, and they can be triggered by solar activity as well.

This one actually goes back to 2011, when we began having what we called “the electroquake” discussion. The USGS was ardently against all of it. Now, there are textbooks on electromagnetic precursor to earthquakes, with ~900 peer-reviewed studies. There are also more than 100 studies confirming that the sun triggers earthquakes, including my two peer-reviewed studies, on the solar polar fields.
*So Far: Electroquake reality has been conceded. Solar forcing of seismicity remains technically an open field of investigation, but the last decade has seen nearly 100% pro-correlation analyses.

CLAIM #3: The sun and cosmic rays have far more to do with weather and climate than they are given credit for, and the mainstream global warming narrative is too narrowly focused, contains too-high of uncertainty, and purports an unreasonably exaggerated risk.

We’ve been “5 years from an ice-free arctic” since 1992. It’s not going to happen. Not only is modern atmospheric change completely normal in paleoclimate history, but life on this planet benefits from having warmer temperature and CO2. Furthermore, and more importantly, more than 2000 studies have come out since then confirming the solar-connection to everything from short-term temperature, precipitation, cloudiness and storm activity, to major oscillations, jet streams, Hadley cells… everything. They have figured out the importance of solar particles (they used to only use irradiance) for ozone, global electric circuit, and joule energy injection.
*So Far: While a political machine still thumps its drum, the peer-reviewed science is telling a broader story, one with more pieces of the puzzle, and one that is far less terrifying.

CLAIM #4: Earth is about to have a cyclical geomagnetic excursion and that is a very bad thing for humans.

They happen regularly, about every 6000 years, on a cycle. We are due in time, and the magnetic poles have begun to shift while the magnetic field of earth begins to weaken. In 2014, the leader of the ESA SWARM mission said we had jumped “from losing 5% per century to 5% per decade” in terms of magnetic field protection. That’s math you can do on a piece of paper, and evidence suggests the accelerations will continue. There isn’t so much direct opposition to this idea as there is a general pattern of ignoring the reality of what is happening to earth.
*So Far: Every paper that has come out confirms that these events can have a major impact on life via climate, radiation, and navigational difficulty. Several papers have also discussed how current trends appear to mirror those expected when the field is about to undergo such a major event as an excursion.

This is four different fields of science… Observers vs the “best in the world and all their funding”. It has been a slaughter.

What about your other claims?

Those four are our foundation. I have MANY best-guess hypothesis about other things, and specific details within some of the preceding items. For example, I think ALL the evidence is there to seriously discuss solar micronova events and the earth turning-over. But the excursion event and its severity do not require them. I believe most scientists hunting dark matter know they are on a goose chase but cant stop the grant-funding train and don’t even know how to get off of it – but that’s more of a conspiracy theory. The four above were +99% certainty in my head then, and nothing has changed. My confidence on other specific details in climate forcing (like whether solar protons or geomagnetic storms are more relevant to climate change) or whether it will be a solar super-flare or a micronova in the main event of the catastrophe, ranges between 55% and 80%. They are indeed my “best guesses” but not “What Ben Davidson officially claims.”

Sincerely,
Ben Davidson (S0)
Space Weather News
Observer Ranch