I was reading the press about, as well as, the new study itself by Sloan and Wolfendale regarding the theory of cosmic rays and cloud formation in regards to global warming. Apparently their research shows no link between cosmic rays and clouds. This theory was advanced in the book by Svenmark called "The Chilling Stars" and is a theory that has been repeatedly attacked by the AGW and cited by the "deniers". The main point of this paper is summed up in the abstract..
"A decrease in the globally averaged low level cloud cover, deduced from the ISCCP infrared data, as the cosmic ray intensity decreased during the solar cycle 22 was observed by two groups. The groups went on to hypothesize that the decrease in ionization due to cosmic rays causes the decrease in cloud cover, thereby explaining a large part of the currently observed global warming. We have examined this hypothesis to look for evidence to corroborate it. None has been found and so our conclusions are to doubt it."
While this report is presented as science it does not seems to be very scientific in tone or in content, when you start out with a goal to discredit a theory, not by offering an alternative, but by simply looking at a narrow range of the entire well documented hypothesis focusing in on correlation variations it seems to me to be really just a good old fashioned smear piece. The real issue though is the double standard that alternative theories to the one of AGW, or any small part of the it, have been subject to in recent times.
Correlation
There is an interesting term used in science called correlation, it means that there is a observable relationship between two measurable phenomenon that tend to vary with each other. It seems though in recent years that it has two meanings in global warming research, correlation is the cornerstone of the AGE and the temperature response to increased concentrations of GHG. As the concentration of these gases increases the theory states so does temperature, a correlation exists between the two. It is also widely accepted that there is a lot of natural variability, the other factors that can affect the temperature, in the climate system so you will get anomalies from the correlation so the relationship is not quantifiably static. Yet this same principal is not applied to the the paper's findings regarding the Svensmark theory on the influence of cosmic rays on cloud formation, the simply looked at some data sets , and determined there was no correlation after 1994 because of variations. So up until 1994 there was a strong correlation, after that when measurements became more accurate there was some variability in the climate system, who knew?
Double Standards
What we have here is one theory being discredited, not by another theory, but by a deliberate attempt to demean the results of the actual physical experiments and research done by another scientist. Not by conducting any experimentation, not by finding any errors in the physics, but by simply using a variation in correlation data, they dismiss the science and claim that the theory is flawed. So using this as a basis for legitimate analysis and refutation then one could simply disregard the entire theory of AGW. There are many deviations from the correlation between GHG concentrations and observed temperatures in the record, so using the "scientific" methods of Sloan and Wolfendale we can simply toss out the AGW and AGE theories with the Svensmark cosmic ray one.
My point is not to say we should never attempt to prove or disprove scientific theory, that is what science is supposed to be all about, but I think we are judging research using two very different yardsticks. The concerted effort to "debunk" or discredit any research that may supply additional information regarding the variability in the climate system should be welcomed and discussed in the scientific community, instead real solid research is routinely treated in this manner. This is not science, this is the stifling of any alternate theories using questionable methodology and motivations. This is politics and a reflects just how bad things have become in regards to climate research, there is no new expanded answers regarding the climate from the AGW consensus scientists, they seem to only spend their time attempting to discredit the work of others. Has science, in the arena of global warming, stopped being real science and is now just a chess piece in the AGW debate?