Baker's (More Than a) Dozen?

Steve Baker MP is a leading light in the UK Parliament's 'Net Zero Scrutiny Group' (NZSG). This 20-strong, self-appointed collective have previously claimed that, whilst not denying the science around climate change, they have concerns about the cost of remediation attempts. It now transpires that Baker has shared a report on his Twitter feed, produced by the 'Global Warming Policy Foundation' (GWPF). Baker is a trustee of the GWPF (https://www.theguardian.com/politics/2022/apr/15/tory-mp-steve-baker-shares-paper-denying-climate-crisis). The GWPF report was largely a reiteration of a 'non-peer reviewed paper' written by Professor Ole Humlum (a retired scientist, formerly of the University of Oslo). Humlum has repeatedly claimed, that all historical and current climate change, can be explained by movements of the sun and moon. Contrary to the vast majority of active climate scientists, Humlum predicts it will get colder, as we approach a new Ice-age. Humlum doesn't admit to any human impact on climate change and makes no reference at all to increasing levels of atmospheric 'greenhouse gases'. The trouble with retired scientists (and I should know!) is that they can continue to crave attention, even when this generated by notoriety. There are also two reasons why a paper can be 'non-peer reviewed'. The first is, there is a medical emergency (like Covid19) and the new data has to be quickly disseminated. The second is, the paper has little/no perceived merit and no respectable journal is willing to put it through their review process. Humlum's ideas have been around for a long time, so there is no urgent need to get his ideas into the scientific community. Baker argues that he shared the GWPF report as the 'last thing we want, is politicians and activists twisting the science to their particular ends'. Really? It's far from clear how sharing the Humlum paper, without any providing any alternative viewpoints, does this! The whole thing actually reeks of confirmation bias (giving undue prominence to data that fits a bias). The NZSG seem to be a bunch of climate change deniers, pretending to be only concerned about impoverishing people.