Bezza,

Appreciate you laying that all out - but the theory you're referencing isn’t new, nor is it ignored because it's dangerous to “The Conversation.” It’s been examined, critiqued, and largely dismissed by the scientific community for two key reasons:

1. It doesn’t hold up against observed data.
Cosmic ray/cloud cover hypotheses have been explored - including by the CLOUD experiment at CERN. While some minor correlations were found under controlled conditions, they don’t scale to explain observed global warming. More importantly, cloud changes don’t match the pattern of warming we’ve seen - particularly at night, in the troposphere, and over oceans - where greenhouse gases have clear, measurable effects.

2. CO2’s effect is well-established and nowhere near 0.01 degree.

That figure is completely fabricated. The actual radiative forcing of CO2 is calculable from first principles, and its effect has been measured from space. Current warming patterns match the expected signature of greenhouse gas forcing - not solar cycles, not magnetic field fluctuations, and certainly not imaginary “blocked cosmic rays.”

As for your “clouds aren’t in the models” claim - that’s incorrect. Clouds are included, and always have been. They’re one of the largest sources of uncertainty, yes, but not omission. Pretending models just ignore them entirely is misinformation - or more likely, someone misread a technical paper and Watts Up With That ran with it.

Finally, this isn’t about silencing dissent. It’s about standards of evidence. If a claim can’t make it through peer review, explain the data better, or survive replication - it doesn’t get elevated. That’s not suppression. That’s science doing its job.

You're welcome to follow emerging theories - but if you’re relying on blogs that misrepresent basic atmospheric physics, it’s no surprise you're being misled.

I originally posted that there were any number of papers showing that temperatures were higher in the recent past than now and that I posted links to dozens of those papers on OLO over the years.

JD pompously then asserts..."Your “dozens of papers” claim sounds impressive - but curiously, never survives scrutiny. Most of those papers (when checked)..."

"When checked".

Except JD never had checked. He had no way of knowing if they "survived scrutiny" because, as he admitted a couple of days later, he had no idea which paper I'd linked to. So his original claim was mere assertion that he hoped I wouldn't challenge.

And JD thinks he should be taken seriously.

Then hilariously he asserts (assertion is pretty much all JD has) that..." The current rate of warming - particularly since the 1970s - is faster than anything seen in the last 11,000 years, according to recent peer-reviewed reconstructions". One of those papers he says is Marcott13. But bad news for poor old JD. I'm very familiarly with Marcott13 (it was one of those dozens of papers) and knew that JD's assertions were straight up wrong. So I quote from Marcott himself saying that reconstructions can't show that warming is faster now in the past.

JD's response...quick change the subject.

And JD thinks he should be taken seriously.

Bezza.

I think what you're referring to here is the "Cosmic Ray" theory of cloud cover as first proposed by Henrik Svensmark. The theory goes like this...

* The solar system is constantly bombarded by cosmic rays from our galaxy and beyond.

*These rays are instrumental in the creation of aerosols which in turn cause clouds. More cosmic rays mean more clouds and vis a versa.

* Clouds are instrumental in the earth's temperature since they either hold temperatures in or reflect sunlight away before it has a chance to warm the planet. More clouds means less warming and vis a versa.

*Over the short-term the level of cosmic rays coming into the solar system is relatively constant. But cosmic rays can and are turned away by solar winds, the level of which varies over solar cycles. More solar winds means less cosmic rays hitting earth which means less clouds which means more warming...and vis a versa.

So Svensmark theory is that the level of solar winds which correlates to the level of sunspots determines the level cloud cover and therefore is a major factor in the changes in earth's temperature.

Experiments continue to try to determine the validity of Svensmark's theories. Needless to say the we're-all-gunna-die crowd are doing all they can to discredit the theory because that's what they call science in the climate world.

Others have extended the theory into the deep past. We know that as the solar system travels around the galactic centre it passes through areas of higher cosmic ray activity. There is some suggestion that these periods might coincide with Ice Ages. But very early days in that theory.

Mhaze,

Cloud formation is an interesting subject in itself, with some clouds warming and others cooling. I suspect that the volatile sulphur compounds released by living organisms probably have a much larger influence on cloud formation than cosmic rays. I'd like to see ocean fertilisation tested as a means of generating rainfall via this mechanism, but I suspect that even the suggestion would send the climate catastrophists into a psychotic frenzy, foaming mouths and all.

That's is quite the rewrite, mhaze.

You originally claimed you’d posted “dozens of papers” showing past warming was higher than today. But when challenged to reshare them, you didn’t. You invoked memory, not evidence - and still haven’t linked a single one. If those papers were so decisive, why the hesitation?

I said those claims “never survive scrutiny” because they never do. Not just from you - in general. Many of these papers (when actually checked) are:

- Regional reconstructions presented as global
- Outdated or based on low-resolution proxies
- Misrepresented by blogs before being read
- Or outright contradicted by broader multi-proxy syntheses

And yes - I cited Marcott et al. as part of that broader picture, along with Neukom et al. (2019), which you still haven’t addressed.

Marcott’s team was clear: their reconstruction smooths short-term rates due to proxy resolution - meaning their study alone can’t capture rapid decadal change. That’s not a “gotcha.” That’s why we don’t rely on one paper. It’s why I cited another - which you’ve now dodged across multiple replies.

As for "changing the subject": quoting a different study on the same point is not deflection - it’s reinforcement. It’s called evidence.

If you want to be taken seriously, start producing some. Because right now, the only thing you've posted more reliably than assertions… is your opinion of me.

And so JD's mere assertions continue....