Climate change influenced by cosmic rays, not CO2, more studies show

Readers resist the triumph of cosmic rays over CO2

By Lawrence Solomon

Last fall, after public opinion polls showed most of the Western world’s citizens had turned against global-warming alarmism, after governments started to slash their subsidies for renewable energy, and after whining from the alarmists showed that they, too, knew the game was over, I concluded that Al Gore et al. had decisively lost the global-warming debate.

Global temperatures had stopped climbing, hurricanes hadn’t materialized in abnormal numbers, the Arctic ice had largely recovered while the Antarctic ice had steadily grown, polar bear populations were on the increase, and on and on — in effect, every major global-warming scare had been debunked. As important, the alarmists could no longer rhetorically ask, “If humans aren’t changing the climate through CO2, what is?”

There was now an impressive answer: cloud cover, caused by the interaction of cosmic rays and the Sun. To the distress of the alarmists, new research at the Danish Space Research Institute and Geneva-based CERN were affirming this cosmic ray-Sun theory, and other prestigious scientific bodies were giving it credence. Last week, in one of the few columns I’ve written in the last six months on the now-passé issue of global warming, I described the Royal Astronomical Society’s publication of an important new work that continues the ascendancy of this theory.

While most members of the general public by now realize that global-warming was overhyped, two groups lag behind: the large number who don’t follow the issue closely and the small number of true believers who do, but selectively and with outrage. For a sampling of the views of this latter group, see the letters below. They are among the many that responded to my last column about the press’s failure to cover dissenting global-warming views, such as the recent recantation of James Lovelock, the world’s best-known environmentalist. The peculiar object of some letter-writers’ outrage: my one-sentence comment on “ice in both the Arctic and the Antarctic — both are now at or above average levels.”

One of the letter writers cites the National Snow and Ice Data Center in Boulder, Colo., to rebut me on the Arctic. Ironically, NSIDC was my source. On April 25, the date I was referring to, NSDIC shows that the Arctic ice had expanded enough from its lows of 2007 to meet the average level that existed over the last three decades. Another source, the National Energy Research Scientific Computing Center, shows the Arctic ice to have exceeded the three-decade average. The satellite graphic that you see shows the Arctic as a whole that same day — not much water up there for those polar bears to splash around in.

In fact, those polar bears’ ancestors had much more water to play in a little over a half century ago, when the Saint Roch, a boat owned by the Royal Canadian Mounted Police, crossed the Northwest Passage. And a full century ago, when Norwegian explorer Roald Amundsen also did so. Yet in the face of this incontrovertible evidence that today’s Arctic has been experiencing no unprecedented melting, the true-believing alarmists cling to their faith in the culpability of man, searching for data, any data, that might bolster their beliefs.

What of the alarmists’ disbelief in the extensive evidence that shows global temperatures to have stopped climbing, when NASA shows global temperatures continuing to rise? NASA seems like a credible source, until you realize that the scientist who controls the data also massages it — he is none other than uber-climate alarmist James Hansen, Al Gore’s sidekick and the object of a recent unprecedented protest by 50 former NASA astronauts and scientists who asserted that Hansen’s Goddard division at NASA was ruining the organization’s reputation: “With hundreds of well-known climate scientists and tens of thousands of other scientists publicly declaring their disbelief in the catastrophic forecasts, coming particularly from Goddard Institute for Space Studies leadership, it is clear that the science is not settled,” the 50 astronauts and scientists wrote.

The big picture: There is not a scrap of compelling evidence that points to man-made global warming representing a danger for society. The only scary “evidence” that exists, in fact, is based on computer models, none of which have been proven to work and all of which reflect the biases of the people loading in the data.

Lawrence Solomon is executive director of Energy Probe.

To see the Royal Astronomical Society’s publication on the role of cosmic rays in controlling climate on Earth, click here.

Financial Post


  1. Of interest::

    Hansen – The Climate Chiropractor
    Posted on May 13, 2012 by stevengoddard
    Need your climate adjusted? – call Dr. James Hansen at GISS. Below is a chronology of the destruction and politicization of the US and global temperature record.

    The Northern Hemisphere used to have a broken hockey stick problem. According to the national Academy Of Sciences in 1975, the hemisphere had cooled 0.7C since the 1930s, and was colder than it was at the turn of century.

  2. “GISS is one of the most manipulated databases on the planet. I wouldn’t give you a dime for its data”

    And we still CAN’T Understand why GISS and other socalled Temp databases have to keep re-adjusting/mal-adjusting historic temps downwards whenever a new data set is produced while pushing modern temps upwards. Sheer work of seriously manipulated fraud. Maybe hide the decline is their motto!

    GISS has been proven to be corrupt. Only have to look at their over faked manipulated 1200km extrapolated temp red warm hot spots they paint on their maps. When you get actual ‘real’official temp data for some of those socalled hot, hot red warm spots you find the temperature was actually not so hot, hot, hot afterall. James Hansen’s a fraudster. it was good he managed to overly heat up a town in Greenland around 7C above the actual recorded temperature data on one of his recent temperature trickery fakery acts!

  3. GISS is one of the most manipulated databases on the planet. I wouldn’t give you a dime for its data

  4. Of course the Arctic sea ice appeared to be back on April 25; the annual minimum occurs in September, and that is the benchmark that everybody who actualyl understands the science is referring to. Furthermore, while the sea ice extent may appear to have recovered in April (as it does every winter), the multi-year ice now makes up about 20% of the total, while the annual (new) sea ice makes up about 80%. Three decades ago, it was just the opposite. I know because I actually worked on the sea ice in April back then. But if you don’t want to believe the scientists, would you be willing to believe the US Navy? Or, are the admirals also part of this warming alarmist plot?

    This was from the GISTEMP data records. This is incredibly easy to use. Just plug in the end dates that you are interested in. A clear trend of warming is shown by the temperature data records. If you wish to argue cooling, but that is only from selected short term data.
    2011 to 2012
    Trend: 4.15 ±52.21 °C/century (2σ)
    2010 to 2012
    Trend: -11.42 ±22.32 °C/century (2σ)
    2009 to 2012
    Trend: -2.57 ±12.59 °C/century (2σ)
    2008 to 2012
    Trend: 3.08 ±9.84 °C/century (2σ)
    2007 to 2012
    Trend: 0.44 ±7.24 °C/century (2σ)
    2006 to 2012
    Trend: 0.23 ±5.29 °C/century (2σ)
    2005 to 2012
    Trend: -0.59 ±4.03 °C/century (2σ)
    2004 to 2012
    Trend: 0.19 ±3.44 °C/century (2σ)
    2003 to 2012
    Trend: 0.10 ±2.80 °C/century (2σ)
    2002 to 2012
    Trend: -0.03 ±2.41 °C/century (2σ)
    2001 to 2012
    Trend: 0.31 ±2.05 °C/century (2σ)
    2000 to 2012
    Trend: 0.97 ±1.92 °C/century (2σ)
    1999 to 2012
    Trend: 1.42 ±1.73 °C/century (2σ)
    1998 to 2012
    Trend: 0.95 ±1.61 °C/century (2σ)
    1997 to 2012
    Trend: 1.05 ±1.44 °C/century (2σ)
    1996 to 2012
    Trend: 1.34 ±1.32 °C/century (2σ)
    1995 to 2012
    Trend: 1.33 ±1.21 °C/century (2σ)
    1994 to 2012
    Trend: 1.58 ±1.13 °C/century (2σ)
    1993 to 2012
    Trend: 1.88 ±1.07 °C/century (2σ)
    1992 to 2012
    Trend: 2.08 ±1.03 °C/century (2σ)
    1991 to 2012
    Trend: 1.92 ±0.96 °C/century (2σ)
    1990 to 2012
    Trend: 1.76 ±0.90 °C/century (2σ)
    1989 to 2012
    Trend: 1.79 ±0.83 °C/century (2σ)
    1988 to 2012
    Trend: 1.66 ±0.79 °C/century (2σ)
    1987 to 2012
    Trend: 1.61 ±0.74 °C/century (2σ)
    1986 to 2012
    Trend: 1.67 ±0.69 °C/century (2σ)
    1985 to 2012
    Trend: 1.77 ±0.65 °C/century (2σ)
    1984 to 2012
    Trend: 1.81 ±0.62 °C/century (2σ)
    1983 to 2012
    Trend: 1.71 ±0.59 °C/century (2σ)
    1982 to 2012
    Trend: 1.75 ±0.56 °C/century (2σ)

Comments are closed.