The Cosmic Ray Theory

Let us discuss the cosmic ray theory. No, we are not talking about an explanation for the brazen accusations that erupted last Friday from the mouth of Sen. Barbara Boxer---accusing us skeptics on global warming of belonging to a Flat Earth Society or something... though I suppose it could be possible her head has been bombarded by cosmic rays. (I have to say this pix looks more like a diagram of one of Nancy Pelosi's eyeballs. But I digress.)

Maybe, though, we can direct some cosmic rays Barbara's way and she can mutate into a sensible person. Doesn't she know Galileo wouldn't have approved of her? (See below.)

As you may have gathered, the subject is the latest report by "experts" on global warming, suggesting with 90% certainty that humans are responsible for changing the earth's climate. Wow! When the Waterloo Record takes it as gospel, you gotta believe and Repent! (Be patient, cosmic rays do come up as you read on.) And our lives would not be complete without an appropriately grande quote from Le President Jacques Chirac, carried in the World Crises section of Reuters:

"Faced with this emergency, now is not the time for half measures. It is the time for a revolution, in the true sense of the term," French President Jacques Chirac said. "We are in truth on the historical doorstep of the irreversible."

In truth, British scientist Philip Stott WSJ:

Unfortunately, the IPCC represents science by supercommittee, as rule 10 of its procedures states: "In taking decisions, and approving, adopting and accepting reports, the Panel, its Working Groups and any Task Forces shall use all best endeavors to reach consensus." I bet Galileo would have had a rough time with that.

In this context, it is vital to remember that science progresses by skepticism and by paradigm shifts: A consensus early last century would have given us eugenics. Moreover, the IPCC does no original research, nor does it monitor climate-related data; its evidence is instead from selected secondary sources. But, above all, this supercommittee is more political than is often recognized, rule three firmly reminding delegates that: "documents should involve both peer review by experts and review by governments."

So. This report sounds like it's totally useless. Not only that, but an alternative theory has emerged to shake the foundations of the global warming wannabe world. (Sorry Al, you might have to kiss that Nobel Peace Prize goodbye, especially as the breakthrough experiment took place in Denmark, you might say in the Nobel neighborhood. Uh, you might have to run for president again:) ....was that an earthquake in Chappaqua? But I digress again.

You see, clouds are very unpredictable, and they have a huge impact on climate change:

Worryingly for the IPCC's "consensus," there is a counterparadigm, relating to the serious uncertainties of water vapor and clouds, now waiting in the wings. In the words of Dr. Henrik Svensmark, director of the Center for Sun-Climate Research at the Danish National Space Center: "The greenhouse effect must play some role. But those who are absolutely certain that the rise in temperatures is due solely to carbon dioxide have no scientific justification. It's pure guesswork." A key piece of research in this emerging new paradigm was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Society A (October 2006): "Do electrons help to make the clouds?"

Using a box of air in a Copenhagen lab, physicists managed to trace the growth of clusters of molecules of the kind that build cloud condensation nuclei. These are specks of sulfuric acid on which cloud droplets form. High-energy particles driven through the laboratory ceiling by exploded stars far away in the galaxy -- cosmic rays -- liberated electrons in the air, which helped the molecular clusters to form much faster than atmospheric scientists have predicted. This process could well explain a long-touted link between cosmic rays, cloudiness and climate change.

So cosmic rays boost cloud formation, and cloud formation reduces the earth's temperature.

Other scientists had earlier found "no correlation between temperature variation and the changing patterns of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere", (the villain of the global warming alarmists). Rather, their work indicated cosmic rays might account for up to 75% of climate change. More support for the theory in this interview with astrophysicist Nir Shariv. Further, apparently climate change is the norm, not the exception, so we'll just have to deal. With change. You know, adapt. Be flexible. Carry an umbrella.

So Jacques, plus que ca change... and old Earth continues to revolve around the sun.

P.S. Al? Maybe Rush will get the Nobel Peace Prize.

P.P.S. NOT flat Earth to Sun Times: Please read this post. Thank you. And in your own newspaper, Mark Steyn on the eco-chondriacs.



Previous post: Waxman's Political "Scientists",Hot Talk and the Skeptics

UPDATE: Blago has jumped on the brainless bandwagon. At Reverse Spin.

UPDATE: George Will with his customary measured opinion, via RCP. Will, a native of Illinois, asks "Was life better when a sheet of ice a mile thick covered Chicago?". Given the highs of zero around here lately, it's no contest.