re: #186 Cineaste

Nonetheless, the statement was made that the cosmic ray hypothesis had been made by someone who wasn’t a climate scientist. I assume that observation is there for a reason, and that the reason is to somehow denigrate the hypothesis on those merits. If that’s a reason to reject the hypothesis, then the filmmaker’s lack of credentials is also just as valid a reason for rejecting whatever message it is he’s trying to convey.

I’m not sure why the reference to solar activity is relevant; the cosmic ray hypothesis has looked at extra-solar cosmic rays, which are of much higher energy than their solar counterparts, as the cause. Even if that were not the cause, a negative correlation does not eliminate an effect. In fact, it’s very unlikely that cosmic rays are solely responsible, or even largely responsible for climactic effect. What’s put forward is that their effect is not insignificant, and that is what has physicists interested in the first place.