http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/46953

Let the mud slinging begin!

http://blogs.telegraph.co.uk/news/jamesd......e-shock/

How true . . .

I first read that as "areolas."

That's what happens when you try to read and !@#$%^&*()_+ at the same time.

Lol.

Curiously, even the global warming SKEPTICS find flaws in Henrik Svensmark's theory:

http://www.skepticalscience.com/cosmic-r......nced.htm

Curiously all seems to be from before the CERN study.

Too much of this is too politicized.

The CERN study is great. I'm talking more about Henrik Svensmark's "GCR" theory (which is really what James Delingpole is talking about), which was around long before the CERN study. And the criticisms of the GCR theory remain valid.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/f......504.html

http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/arc......resting/

[T]he first justification for the CLOUD experiment was that: “The basic purpose of the CLOUD detector … is to confirm, or otherwise, a direct link between cosmic rays and cloud formation by measuring droplet formation in a controlled test-beam environment”. It is eminently predictable that the published results will be wildly misconstrued by the contrarian blogosphere as actually proving this link. However, that would be quite wrong.

We were clear in the 2006 post that establishing a significant GCR/cloud/climate link would require the following steps (given that we have known that ionisation plays a role in nucleation for decades). One would need to demonstrate:

… that increased nucleation gives rise to increased numbers of (much larger) cloud condensation nuclei (CCN)
… and that even in the presence of other CCN, ionisation changes can make a noticeable difference to total CCN
… and even if there were more CCN, you would need to show that this actually changed cloud properties significantly,
… and that given that change in cloud properties, you would need to show that it had a significant effect on radiative forcing.

Of course, to show that cosmic rays were actually responsible for some part of the recent warming, you would need to show that there was actually a decreasing trend in cosmic rays over recent decades – which is tricky, because there hasn’t been any ...

The CLOUD results are not in any position to address any of these points, and anybody jumping to the conclusions that they have all been settled will be going way out on a limb. Indeed, there is a lot of evidence that (particularly) point 2 will not be satisfied (see for instance, Pierce and Adams (2009), and a new paper by Snow-Kropla et al).

Oh no it is all about science my friend. It is all about the science! Politicized you say? Naw, only the side that one disagrees with is politicized. Don't you know that? This is what passes for science today. Figure out where you can get the most money and then push that theory and anyone who disagrees with you is paid off by big oil, or disgruntled or just not a scientist. Welcome to the 21st century. The time at which the ever expanding grant was invented.

That's too common, but far from universal.