Both papers awful and should be rejected. They clearly don't know the climate literature - and like many seem not to want to accept that the climate is changing because of our emissions of greenhouse gases. Solar variability/climate relationships (use to be called solar/weather relationships) have generally been awful articles for decades. I'm not sure why Barrie Pittock decided to write the paper I referred to in 1983 (and the earlier one in 1978), but I'm glad he did. I have referred to this paper a few times in articles I've written, but I've referred to it much more in rejecting articles of this type. There is really only one paper where a solar influence on climate on decadal and longer timescales that has been shown to be possible (i.e. it passes Pittock's criteria).
AMA reports EPA saving so many lives–not
25 minutes ago