What many solar scientist are now considering is something which supersedes a smaller cycle. It is a cycle outside a cycle. There are very few who are holding on to the idea of something called "cycle 23" as being "typical". It was both humorous and sad for many of us watching the "old school" professors try and fit what we have been witnessing unfold into their old out-dated formula's. Simply put, it just didn't fit. Like all change, it is very hard to let go of old ideas. It can be rather threatening. When we stake our reputations on a particular belief or 'formula', it turns our world upside down. Our natural reaction is to fight like hell to save our paradigm. It is the foundation of what we have based our whole life. This is no small matter.

This can, and will, happen in every area of our lives. It is not restricted to science. I have seen this unfold in our schools. Teachers and administrators who have been teaching a certain way or methodology their whole lives, have come up against new technology, and more importantly, new thought of 'method' or "paradigm". The definition of 'paradigm' is as follows.
Paradigm (websters) = A set of assumptions, concepts, values, and practices that constitutes a way of viewing reality for the community that shares them, especially in an intellectual discipline.

With this understanding, you can better realize the depth at which our current scientific colleagues have been affected. So I can tell you first hand, when you go up against such an ingrained belief system, you had better expect to be in for a scathing reaction. You can read more about this in my upcoming "non-fiction" book (working title) "Solar Rain" by Mitch Battros. This will be in the chapter titled "NASA, NOAA and a Thing Called Peer Review".

During my research into the Sun-Earth connection (see equation), I came head to head with 'old school' vs 'new school'.
I interviewed several top scientist in the field of astronomy, climatology, astrophysics, geology, meteorology, and ancient text historians. One quick point of irony. It was in my interviews with ancient text historians, which favored the 'new school'. Hmm, makes one wonder if we are in a time when "new is really old". But I digress.

I have witnessed first hand what it is like to be thrust upon something called "Peer Review". Man, these people are vicious. To put it in a congenial fashioned way, I was humbled by my experience. To put it in street language, I was torn to shreds and humiliated at every turn. It reminded me of some old adolescent dreams when while in the dream, I suddenly realized I was standing in front of the classroom...in my underwear! I learned very quickly, when you introduce new ideas, you better be ready to experience the consequences. What I had failed to do, was develop a team which could nurture my wounds and remind me I was on the right path, and perhaps most importantly, "follow my truth, not that of others". Hmm, maybe this is why I make this statement so often! Yes, I do believe this is exactly the reason I remind us all of such a powerful affirmation.

Folks, let me tell you, being 'black balled' is alive and well in our society today. But it has taking on a new appearance. It would be a/political to be so overt as to 'black ball', and often illegal. So we have a new way of doing same. It is by 'shaming someone into submission'. If you have any unresolved  issues from childhood, like being picked last for the baseball team, you could be prone to suffering a horrific emotional hurricane. In my particular case, I was right about in the middle. Not so strong as to simply deflect every hurtful blow, but not too weak as to fall apart and wonder why I was born. In my case, it took several weeks to recover. I know of many, in which it would have been the end of their vision.

But wait, there really is a good and important role "peer review" undertakes. It is of utmost importantance we have a system which can 'filter' and shake out reasonable theory vs total garbage. In other words, it is important that those who do come forward can reasonable prove their point. They have to back up what they say with tangible and reasonable evidence. Otherwise, we would have the fruitcakes like Zeta and Nesara spouting off as if there was anything to their non-sense. Sorry folks, but "channeling" just won't cut it, and for good, and hopefully, obvious reasons.

Another area we can see 'peer review' working as it should, is in the area of "alternative energy". I had at least five popular personalities come on the show. Boy what a great and elaborate delivery each one would present. But when it came down to "show me", everyone of them ran like hell. And as they were running, they were cussing me for asking direct questions and requiring them to prove their embellishments. Another thing I noticed in this particular field, everyone of them would tell me how they were doing God's work. And how dare I question them because Jesus told them to do it. Just a personal observation.

Now back to Nasa, Noaa and "cycle 23". When I had begun to notice Nasa's prediction of "cycle 23" was far beyond their spec.'s, graphs, and theorized outcomes I began to ask questions. First I went straight to the 'horses mouth' as they say. Gee, would someone look up how the idiom "horses mouth" originated? Just curious. Anyway, I went directly to Nasa and asked "why is there continued high sunspot counts this far beyond your predicted "apex" or maximum?" There first response "who are you?". My name is Mitch Battros, I have a small television show named Earth Changes TV. I monitor weather patterns such as earthquakes, volcanoes, hurricanes, and stuff". Nasa: "Oh, I think I understand". No, I did not say a word. You have to be very careful how you speak to these guys. I wanted the information and not be written off as "those people".

I did go just a bit further and told them I did come up with an interesting "equation" which connects solar activity with Earth's weather patterns. To my surprise, the answer came back..Nasa: "Yeah, I heard about you guys. We have a whole division who are conducting studies on this stuff. I'll put you in touch with them". And he did. But at this time, I brought the questions back to why the apparent disparity between Nasa's prediction of "cycle 23" showing its "apex" to be January of 2001 and at a maximum sunspot count of 150. This was measured against sunspot counts of 300 to 450, and this came in April of 2002. Now here is the place I came head to head with "old school vs new school". Again, I have to chuckle at their answer, but at the same time, I do realize the internal chaos which directly threatens their ingrained formulas. I witnessed this very same dilemma with NOAA when I confronted their theory of El Nino and La Nina. You can read about this in "Solar Rain" in the chapter titled "El Nino, La Nina, and "La Cucaracha". But back to Nasa.