Not that I can actually comment on her science. That math is way out of my league.
But the reason I'm applauding her, is that she has been forced out symposia and run into roadblocks to publishing, simply because she persuasively argues a paradigm for global temperature fluctuation which is in no way connected to runaway fertility in Manhattan or Madagascar, Northern Hemisphere air conditioning in August, or ruminant flatulence.
But she keeps churning out the meticulous solar data. You go, girl.
YOURS is the only post I have understood so far :)
One of the YouTube comments put it this way that explains the complexity:
The grand cycle is not a solar cycle, it is an orbital cycle superimposed on the the solar cycle. Complicated business.
This article was published in Nature, a well-respected peer-reviewed journal. If other competent scientists review it, hopefully it will begin a change in the way climate change is presented, first in the scientific community and then in lay society. But "warmist" thinking is set in concrete, especially in education, and the political left who see it as a way to gaining power. And in the university system, change is very much opposed as it threatens those whose lifetime of research and publishing is of man-made climate change.