Gary here is something I wrote earlier. One of the links contains a link to the peer reviewed paper.
GLOBAL WARMING ? BUT IS IT CO2 ?
There has been a week of panic by schoolgirls literaly hysterical about CO2 induced global warming. The claim is made that the science is irrafutable. Many well known scientists in the weather field are not so convinced and are banned from access to once respected web sites.

The earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from space. The cosmic rays react with water vapour tThe Svenmark affect, by the scientist Mark Svenmark.
While all this has been going on, the ground under them has shifted. A not so unknown theory has been given a boost by scientists at a Finish University and at a Japanese university the presentation of papers on the effect of the sun, sunspots, cosmic rays and clouds. Their work does not deny that the earth has warmed, but they deny the part attributed to CO2.

The sun has a cycle of variation of radiation levels. The sunspot activity follows an eleven year cycle and the intensity of the plasma expelled towards the earth varies over a longer cycle of maximum and minium. These particals & plasma intensify the earths magnetic fields so that over the years the strength of these fields follows a long cycle of about 600 years.
Cont

continued;
The earth is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from space. The cosmic rays react with water vapour to form low clouds. However if the earths magnetic field is strong enough the cosmic rays are diverted away from forming clouds. When low clouds form the earth is shaded and heat is reflected from the top of the clouds back into space.

It is the variation in the magnetic field over the complex cycle that causes the variation in cosmic rays and as a result the cloud cover that causes the earth to warm and cool. The result of these variations is a natural cycle of the earth warming and cooling over a cycle of 600 years.

Why is CO2 not a major factor in the warming ? The IPCC models did not take into account the effect of cloud cover or lack of cloud cover. At times of low cloud cover the resulting warming was assumed to be caused the greenhouse effect..

A 1986 analysis of Alpine glaciers concluded that the period AD 100-400 period was significantly warmer than the periods that immediately preceded and followed. Artifacts recovered from the retreating Schnidejoch glacier have been taken as evidence for the Bronze Age, Roman and Medieval Warm Periods.
Cont

Continued;
During these periods the cloud cover would be comparitavly light and the earth was warmer.
In the medievil period around 900 1000 ad the earth was warm and the Vikings settled in Greenland and lived there successfully for some hundreds of years. Then as the earth cooled the living became harder until finally the people left Greenland.

In the 18th century which was a cool time the Thames froze every year and the winter festival was held on the ice. Today 300 years later wine grapes are again being grown in the UK and
the Thames never freezes.

The scientists who developed this hypothisis believe that the highest temperature is now around 1990. Perhaps it is +- 50 years. If this hypothesis is correct the next minimum will arrive in in about 300 years time.

Want to know more ? Here are some links to the authors articles and information on
Hendrik Svenmark who was the originator of the whole idea in 2012.
http://tinyurl.com/yya8pzm5
http://tinyurl.com/y5lee6uv
http://tinyurl.com/y4w8nzzu
http://tinyurl.com/y5huzsz5

I must resize this. Yes, I am a waffler !

Wait....

Climate change is now being blamed for refugees fleeing their homes?

Let's all play a game. It's called pair one truth with one lie. If you know it's a game then it's fun. If you don't know it's a game them it's a con job.

Now think of the game that climate change is said to be influencing. Taking known issues and causes and then saying, "oh by the way that's climite change too."

True causes people might consider supporting.

-reducing pollution: air pollution, water pollution, landfills. (Because taking care of the world is important, not because it's the end of the world coming)
-rising sea levels?
-protecting forests, fighting deforestation. (For the trees, or for the animals in the forests. Or maybe realize that it's hypocritical to tell poorer countries to not use their land and their resources, when richer countries have protected little or none of their own. Either way not global warming).
-animal rights, the farm industry, and having better conditions for the animals, (not about methane gas or Global warming)
-refugees fleeing their homes DO TO WAR, INSTABILITY, AND LACK OF FOOD (not global warming)

These are all said to contribute to global warming. Or with refugees apparently a direct result of global warming. (O_o). Seriously how many lies and frauds have to be pointed out before climate change is tossed in the garbage bin? Take every cause you want to support and put your time and money into that. But first you need to take it out of the climite change scams.

Thanks for the links, Bazz:

I had looked up and had tried to read the Helsinki-Kobe papers when you first mentioned them. I am not a scientist, and much of what is contained in those papers is beyond me. I get the overall picture of fewer clouds resulting in the planet heating up and Svensmark’s ‘íncreased ionisation...’ breakthrough etc. I’m not so clear as to what the Kobe team are saying … it seems that they are associating galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) with a past reversal/weakening of the earth’s magnetic fields and that they are noting a cooling of the climate occurring at the same time, the evidence for this last bit seems to be in the record of dust deposits in the Chinese Loess Plateau. I think it is suggested that the accumulated dust is evidence of increased cloud at that time.

I’ve got a bit of a wry smile as I type this. There was fellow commenter, Alison Jane and her “Dear poor garry in Liffey...” admonishing me as if I didn’t distinguish between correlation and causation. She called me a ‘denier’ and a ‘deluded true believer’. Maybe she was being kind, just taking it easy on me. You see, Bazz, my ‘wry smile’ point is that the Kobe part of the equation seems based on correlation, and off the back of that, the Kobe team seem to imply a causal connection. And isn’t this much the same with Svensmark’s thesis?

I’m not trying to support my own human-caused-climate-change belief by attacking differing views. No, I am interested in the relationship between cloud and climate, just as I am interested in that between carbon dioxide and climate change. I’ve viewed the five links you’ve supplied – they weren’t the journal papers that I wanted, however, within them there were links to the originating papers. I read those (as much of them as I could understand). I did not find among your links any papers presenting rebuttals of the Helsinki-Kobe hypotheses. I wondered whether that was because there were simply none?
/…

.../
I did note however, in the first blog article for which you provided a link, that Anthony Watts (the author) did briefly present a counter view. He quoted ‘prominent solar physicist’ Dr. Leif Svalgaard who had this to say about Svensmark’s paper:

“Think about this: TSI over a solar cycle causes a variation of 0.05-0.10 degrees C. If GCRs as per Svensmark has 5-7 times the effect of TSI, that would translate to a temperature variation of 0.35-0.50 C over a cycle, which is simply not observed, hence the paper can be dismissed out of hand.”

GCR: Galactic Cosmic Rays
TSI: Total Solar Irradiance

Incidentally, I see in the abstract of the ‘Kobe’paper, the initial statement that

“The strength of Earth’s magnetic dipole field controls galactic cosmic ray (GCR) flux [...]”

I struggle to understand the meaning of the abstract’s opening sentence. Is it suggested that the incoming flow of GCRs to the earth’s atmosphere is controlled/limited by the strength of the Earth’s magnetic field? And if so, what controls/influences changes to our magnetic field? I’ve wandered into Wiki (‘Earth’s Magnetic Field’) to find an answer and found something else … the strength of our magnetic field has decayed by 10% over the last 150 years since Gauss first measured it. But in writing this, I see another paper ‘Gyre-driven decay of the Earth’s magnetic dipole’ which seems to suggest that it is the ‘bipolar’ form of the magnetic field which is weakening.
/...