EPA endangerment finding endangers USA by Dennis T. Avery

Trump must reverse EPA’s climate change “Endangerment Finding”

Nine years ago, the Obama Environmental Protection Agency issued an “Endangerment Finding.” It claimed that methane leaks from natural gas production and pipelines, and manmade carbon dioxide emissions from burning fossil fuels, cause dangerous global warming that poses an imminent danger to the health and wellbeing of Americans. However, the Finding was based on computerized climate models that couldn’t even successfully hind-cast the weather we’d had over the past century – much less forecast Earth’s climate 100 years into the future. In fact, Earth’s climate has changed frequently, often abruptly.

EPA essentially asserted that the 80% of our energy that comes from coal, oil and natural gas caused all our planet’s recent warming and any more warming is a long-term threat. Obama’s team thus bet in 2009 that Earth’s warming from 1976–98 would continue. But it didn’t. Never mind all those recent NOAA and NASA claims that 2016 was our “hottest year” ever. Satellites are our most honest indicator, and they say our planet’s temperature has risen an insignificant 0.02 degrees C (0.04 degrees F) since 1998.

That 20-year non-warming clearly shows that the models are worthless for prediction. But the Federal Appeals Court in Washington nevertheless recently cited methane emissions to block regulatory approval for a new natural gas pipeline. The ruling will encourage radical greens to keep thinking they can regulate gas and oil production and transport into oblivion. Alarmists across the country are already citing the new precedent in other cases, in effect demanding re-hearings on Trump’s entire energy plan.

If the courts decree that pipelines cause dangerous methane emissions, the U.S. will be forced to generate electricity increasingly via the infamous whimsies of wind and sunshine. But the models’ prediction of dangerously rising temperatures have proven wrong. The disparity between the models’ predictions and the thermometer readings is growing wider by the day. We should not base regulations on them.

In science, if your theory doesn’t take account of all the relevant data, you need a new theory.

Meanwhile, thousands of new coal-fired power plants are being built around the world – even in Europe. (Many Third World power plants are being built with Chinese financing.) The CO₂ from this new coal-fired power will dwarf whatever emissions the judges hope to prevent in America.

The President now risks losing the economic growth and millions of new jobs that abundant, affordable energy could and should create. Without new pipelines, our “miraculous” fracked gas will be trapped in the semideserts and mountains where the gas is found.

What danger can today’s EPA find in earth’s current 20-year non-warming? What ice-melt will that trigger? What sea level rise? World food production has just set a new record, in large part because higher CO₂ levels in the atmosphere act like fertilizer for crop plants (as well as for forests and grasslands).

Justice Neil Gorsuch’s confirmation to the Supreme Court should strongly encourage a Trump Endangerment reversal. Gorsuch stated in a 2016 opinion that the so-called Chevron Precedent is “difficult to square with the Constitution.” Chevron says courts should defer to federal judges on laws that are ambiguous. He believes it shifts too much power from Congress to unelected bureaucrats.

EPA Administrator Scott Pruitt will need to build a strong case for the reversal, however, because the Supreme Court still does not have a reliable 5–4 conservative majority. Pruitt’s current approach of setting up competing red-teams vs. blue teams must help convince Justice Kennedy that the world today looks much different from when the EPA rubberstamped the IPCC and its failed climate models.

The science was not settled in 2009; and, fortunately, the weight of evidence has since shifted importantly toward the skeptics. It starts with the still-continuing 20-year non-warming. The best “answer” the alarmists can find is that “extra” CO₂ heat is hiding in the deep ocean depths. But cold water is heavier than warm water, so the warm water would have warmed the depths on its way down. NASA’s newer and more-accurate data comes from ARGO floats that periodically dive to sample water temperatures 2100 feet below the surface. They find no hidden heat.

Moreover, Earth has been warming, erratically but persistently, since 1715. How much of this warming was due to natural cycles, and how much was man-made? Of any manmade portion, how much was due to CO2, and how much to expanding Urban Heat Islands and cutting down forests? Climate realists say CO₂ added barely one degree C; alarmists claim it will increase temperatures by up to 12 degrees C!

How did hurricanes Harvey, Irma and Maria destroy so much property with only 0.02 degrees C of warming? Britain’s wooden-ship logbooks from 1700 to 1850 confirm that there were twice as many major landfalling Caribbean hurricanes per decade during the cold Little Ice Age as during the far warmer years from 1950 to 2000. Nor has the post-1998 weather produced more frequent or intensive storms, longer droughts, or any of the other climate impacts that Obama’s EPA insisted would happen.

The simple truth is that the Pacific Decadal Oscillation has given the world a climate scare every 25 to 30 years since we got thermometers around 1850 (even though the PDO wasn’t even recognized until 1996). In 1845, the ships of Sir John Franklin’s Arctic expedition were crushed by ice. Just 64 years later, in 1909, Roald Amundsen sailed through a relatively warm, ice-free Northwest Passage. In the 1970s, we were warned urgently of a new Ice Age. And then came the “overheated” Al Gore years, 1976–1998.

The huge Pacific Ocean’s 60-year oscillation raises ocean temperatures – and thus the world’s – by 1 to 2 degrees C (1.8 to 3.6 degrees F) for about 30 years, then shifts back again for another 30 years. Every time it shifted in the past, alarmists extended the latest reading in a straight line for five or 20 years and screamed: “ Global Disaster!”  This time, the alarmists claim the non-warming isn’t real!

Today, there’s no doubt the models have predicted more than twice as much warming as we’ve observed. Given the high number of official thermometers that are located in urban areas and near airport tarmac, the models may be overpredicting by three-fold!

Another major new scientific finding also goes against the alarmists. Last year CERN (the multi-billion-dollar Institute for European Nuclear Research) told CERN Courier subscribers that all the climate models must be re-done. CERN reported that its CLOUD experiment had used its huge particle accelerator and a giant cloud chamber to demonstrate that the sun and cosmic rays are the real “mystery factors” in earth’s climate. The research supports the contention that CO₂is only a bit player.

CERN says the sun was weak during the Little Ice Age (indeed, during all the “little ice ages”). This allowed far more cosmic rays to hit our atmosphere. Those extra hits shattered millions more molecules into zillions of tiny “cloud seeds.” Each cloud seed carried an electric charge that attracted other molecules to form clumps – and gave us up to ten times as many low clouds. Earth cooled for centuries under overcast skies, as if under a giant awning. Then the sun became more active, there were fewer cosmic rays, the skies got sunnier, and Earth warmed – for centuries.

History says the Modern Warming is likely to last at least another two centuries. The Medieval Warming (350 years long) was the shortest past warming we can find. But first, CERN says, we will have to go through a 60-year Solar Sunspot Minimum that will drop Earth’s temperatures even lower than today for the next 60 years. The Minimums are another recently-recognized cycle: up to 200 years long.

How will a century of non-warming possibly endanger Americans? Trump should be eager to take on Obama’s outdated and ill-informed Endangerment Finding.

Dennis Avery is a former U.S. State Department senior analyst and co-author with astrophysicist Fred Singer of Unstoppable Global Warming: Every 1,500 Years.

My note:  The claim that CO2 has caused significant warming has not been proven empirically and rests on greatly exaggerating its effects as an infrared-active gas by violating energy conservation and the physics of thermal radiation to create phantom photon streams, minimizing the many effects of water vapor, and ignoring the temperature gradient induced by gravity.  The reason the computer climate models are so wrong is mostly because so much bad physics was input into them.  The failures to input cloud cover changes and sunspot cycles just adds to the the many problems in the computer models.

Water, Not CO2, Controls Earth IR Emissions

The catastrophic man-made global warming alarmists have produced the temperature record shown below and claimed that the reason for the temperature increase since the mid-1970s is an increased concentration of CO2 in the atmosphere due to man's use of fossil fuels. 

Of course, we also know that the short-wave solar radiation reaching the Earth's surface over the period of 1983 to 2001 was increasing due to an active sunspot period.  This solar radiation plot is given below:

Despite the increase in solar irradiance during these years of increased global temperatures, it is commonly claimed by the CO2 greenhouse gas advocates to be too small an effect to account for the claimed observed temperature rise. They claim the major contributor to the warming is increased CO2, which decreases the cooling of the Earth by decreasing the amount of energy radiated out into space as outgoing long-wave IR radiation.  Here is a plot of the outgoing IR long-wave radiation from 1948 to 2009:

Ordinarily, one expects the outgoing long-wave IR radiation to be proportional to the incoming solar short-wave radiation.  From about 1979 to 2009, the outgoing long-wave radiation was increasing, as was the incoming solar radiation.  But from 1948 to 1975, the average temperature was flat according to the first graph above.  This suggests that the incoming solar short-wave radiation was not greatly increasing in that time-frame.  Contrary to that, the period from 1948 to the mid-1970s shows a big increase in the outgoing long-wave IR radiation, especially between 1950 and 1966.  No big increase in incoming solar radiation and increasing CO2 concentrations in the atmosphere should preclude such a large increase in outgoing long-wave radiation if the standard CO2-induced catastrophic warming hypothesis were correct.  The increasing CO2 concentrations should be causing the outgoing long-wave radiation to decrease as CO2 molecules re-emit half of the long-wave radiation they absorbed back toward the Earth's surface.  Increased concentrations of CO2 in the upper atmosphere, where radiative cooling dominates over convective processes, should allow the very energetically excited CO2 molecule which has absorbed incoming short wave radiation from the sun to efficiently re-emit that short-wave energy back into space.  Still more mysterious in terms of this CO2 hypothesis is the sudden jump in outgoing long-wave radiation from 1976 to 1981!  Basically, the overall strong increase in outgoing long-wave IR radiation from 1950 to 2009 should correspond to a major decrease in the amount of CO2 in the atmosphere.  There was no such decrease, but was instead a steady increase in CO2 concentrations, at least according to the data popularly presented by the advocates of catastrophic CO2-induced warming.

So, the low concentrations of CO2 in the atmosphere do not account for the temperature record constructed by the advocates of a strong CO2 warming effect.  What phenomena are then causing both the increased outgoing long-wave IR radiation and the broadly rising temperature?  For one thing, during the same period from 1983 to 2009 that the incoming solar radiation was increasing as shown above, the global cloud cover was decreasing.  This is consistent with the theory of Henrik Svensmark that when the Sun has an increase in solar activity, the sun projects its electromagnetic field further and that protects the Earth more from cosmic rays.  The decreased flux of cosmic rays is said to allow for the nucleation of fewer clouds, consistent with the decreased cloud cover in the plot below as the Earth warmed in its last warming cycle.

But, it turns out that this is not the only effect affecting global temperatures.  The following graphs show the atmospheric humidity at various pressures, which drop as the altitude increases.  I will also give an altitude, which is that of the U.S. Standard Atmosphere of 1976, for which the sea level temperature was 288.15 K or 15 C.  The time history of the humidity at 1000 mbar (1 bar) pressure or sea level is:

As the temperature has increased since the mid-1970s, the sea level humidity has increased.  This is expected.  Increased temperature causes increased water evaporation from the oceans and land.  This also causes a counterbalancing cooling effect since it takes a huge amount of energy to cause water to warm up and still more to cause the phase change into a gas as water vapor.

At the atmospheric pressure of 925 mbar, or about 750 meters altitude, the history of water vapor is shown in the following graph:

The humidity at this altitude may be said to have fallen from the 1950s a bit, then held steady from the mid-1960s to the mid-1990s.  After the mid-1990s, the concentration of water vapor increased.  The increase at this altitude lagged that at sea level by about two decades.  At this altitude, cooling of the Earth's near surface is dominated by convection processes and molecular collisions.  The historical trend is very different when we examine the humidity record at 600 mbar (4170 meters) as shown below:

Basically, the humidity fell from 1948 to the mid-1960s at this higher altitude and then has remained pretty steady ever since.  Energy transfer at this altitude is dominated by IR radiation.  The story at the pressure of 400 mbar or about 7200 meters altitude shows a steady decline from 1948 to 2009:

Thus, we see that at the higher altitudes, where radiative cooling dominates, water vapor has become rather less common in the upper atmosphere.  As I have previously discussed, the effect of either CO2 or water vapor on temperatures at the Earth's surface depends both on their absorption of incoming short-wave radiation and on outgoing long-wave radiation.  Increased IR-absorbing gases, often called greenhouse gases, cause the absorption of more of the sun's incoming radiation well above sea level.  This has a cooling effect upon the Earth's surface.  An increase in water vapor, the primary IR-absorbing gas, in the higher altitudes of the last two graphs would have a considerable cooling effect on the Earth at sea level.  The IR radiation absorbed by water vapor molecules would be very quickly and effectively radiated back into space. Conversely, the observed decrease in water vapor in these higher altitudes means more solar radiation reaches the ground or that part of the atmosphere where convection dominates as the mechanism for transferring energy.  Because convection moves energy into the upper atmosphere where it can be effectively radiated out into space rather slowly, increased solar energy absorbed in the lower atmosphere or at the ground level lingers longer. 

We see that the history of lower water vapor in the upper atmosphere is consistent with global warming, while increased CO2 is not.  This lowered humidity of the upper altitudes combines with the increased incoming solar radiation and the decreased cloud cover to cause an increase in the amount of solar energy reaching the ground and sea level.  The result is warming of the Earth's surface.  Furthermore, the absorption of more solar radiation at sea level results in more long-wave IR radiation into space since the added energy delivered to the surface is partitioned among many molecules very quickly due to the very short mean free path length in the dense atmosphere near the ground and the many molecular collisions to divide that energy among many gas molecules, especially the most prevalent nitrogen and oxygen molecules. The smaller energy per molecule means they emit at longer wavelength, so outgoing long-wave IR radiation increases.  Back in 1950, with higher humidity at higher altitudes, water molecules absorbed large amounts of energy and simply re-emitted that shorter wavelength radiation since at those altitudes the time between collisions is greater.  The so-called greenhouse effect of CO2 is clearly not a major factor, being inconsistent with the data discussed above.  This is consistent with many other arguments made on this blog that the catastrophic man-made CO2 emissions hypothesis is a failed hypothesis.

Given that socialists and Progressives have strongly advocated this hypothesis for many years and seen to it that climate change research was focused on the effects of increased atmospheric CO2 for many years with tens of billions of dollars of funding, it is incredible that so many fatal problems with this hypothesis have been documented.  It is a wonder to behold that so much contradictory data has not long since caused this hypothesis to be abandoned in failure.  It has become impossible to believe that the explanation for the continued backing for this hypothesis and the many claims that it is accepted science has any basis but a religious adherence to its usefulness to socialist elitists, radical environmentalists, and some crony businesses.

The data used was borrowed from a talk by Dr. Ir. Noor van Andel, the former head of research at Akzo Nobel, to the Dutch Meteorological Institute KNMI.  The arguments I have used differ somewhat from his and they are simpler.  Compared to his talk, this presentation is nearly free of climate jargon. 

Another Cosmic Ray Effect on the Climate

I have previously discussed the variability of cosmic radiation incident upon the Earth and its effect upon climate through the formation of sunlight-reflecting clouds here, here, here, here, and here.  Now there is a theory that the interaction of cosmic rays with chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) and their effect upon the ozone layer have completely controlled the climate in the Arctic and Antarctic atmospheres since 1950.  Qing-Bin Lu, professor of physics and astronomy at the University of Waterloo in Waterloo, Ontario, Canada, was studying the depletion of the Earth's ozone layer, which was known to be a result of CFCs and of cosmic ray radiation.  He has discovered that CO2 concentrations have no effect upon the Arctic and Antarctic surface temperatures.  He says the concentration of CFCs, which are greenhouse gases, decreased in about 2000 and global temperatures have fallen since then.

Lu claims that the warming from 1950 to 2000 became cooling in 2002 and the cooling trend will continue for the next 50 years.  He says from 1850 to 1950, global temperatures were nearly constant or rose by only 0.1C.

In previously published work, Lu demonstrated that an observed cyclic hole in the ozone layer provided proof of a new ozone depletion theory involving cosmic rays, which was developed by Lu and his former co-workers at Rutgers University and the Université de Sherbrooke. In the past, it was generally accepted for more than two decades that the Earth's ozone layer is depleted due to the sun's ultraviolet light-induced destruction of CFCs in the atmosphere.
The depletion theory says cosmic rays, rather than the sun's UV light, play the dominant role in breaking down ozone-depleting molecules and then ozone. In his study, published in Physical Review Letters, Lu analyzed reliable cosmic ray and ozone data in the period of 1980-2007, which cover two full 11-year solar cycles.

In his latest paper, Lu further proves the cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion theory by showing a large number of data from laboratory and satellite observations. One reviewer wrote: "These are very strong facts and it appears that they have largely been ignored in the past when modelling the Antarctic ozone loss."

New observations of the effects of CFCs and cosmic rays on ozone loss and global warming/cooling could be important to the Earth and humans in the 21st century. "It certainly deserves close attention," Lu wrote in his paper, entitled Cosmic-Ray-Driven Electron-Induced Reactions of Halogenated Molecules Adsorbed on Ice Surfaces: Implications for Atmospheric Ozone Depletion and Global Climate Change.

The paper, published Dec. 3 in Physics Reports, is available online at: dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.physrep.2009.12.002.

My expectation is that Lu effect may be significant and may be particularly important in the Arctic and Antarctic regions, but the effect of cosmic rays on cloud nucleation and formation in the mid-latitudes and tropics is also important.  In both cases, the flux of cosmic rays on Earth is largely controlled by the solar wind and therefore by the solar cycle.  Of course the direct solar irradiance, which also changes with the solar cycle, is also important, as is the most important greenhouse gas, water vapor.  These are the dominant factors affecting the net energy input to the Earth, with ocean cycles playing an important role in the transfer of long-stored energy to or from the atmosphere as well.  Volcanoes, hot springs in the oceans, the interaction of the Sun's electromagnetic field with the Earth's, and the solar wind as a flux of incident particles itself, all play roles in the climate and its variations as well.  The magnitude of each of these factors on the climate is as yet not well enough understood.  One thing that is clear is that the effect of CO2 at present atmospheric concentrations or at those concentrations which are higher than at present, is a relatively unimportant effect upon climate change.

Solar Wind Flux Is Weakest Since Accurate Measurements Started

The Sun's solar wind provides a protective shield around the Sun from the solar wind of other stars.  This million mile-per-hour solar wind is at a minimum compared to all other measurements since accurate measurements have been performed, starting with the Space Age.  This plasma of charged particles cannot sweep other charged particles in the solar winds of other stars away once it comes into equilibrium with them in the heliopause.  The boundary of the heliopause should be shrinking as the solar wind diminishes, as measured by the satellite Ulysses in its polar orbit about the Sun in 2007.  This means that cosmic rays will no longer be shielded from Earth as effectively as they have been in the recent past.

The solar wind pressure and the magnetic field embedded in the solar wind were measured to have decreased by 20%.  The field strength at the spacecraft had decreased by 36%.  These are much bigger changes than the Sun's common irradiance changes of about 0.11% in amplitude or twice that from highest to lowest intensity.  Those who like to claim that the Sun is not the big actor in climate change, seem to believe that the only source of energy deposited by the Sun on the Earth is the direct irradiance.  It has been noted recently that cosmic rays nucleate cloud formation very effectively and clouds commonly provide net cooling of the Earth.  If the solar wind has dropped by 20%, then the shielding of cosmic rays may have dropped greatly and there may be much more cooling cloud formation on Earth.  In addition, there should be some deposition of energy in the Earth's atmosphere due to the interaction of the solar wind magnetic field with the Earth's magnetic field and due to the flux of charged particles themselves.  So, the 20% drop in the solar wind may have a large impact on the Earth's climate.

Perhaps contrary to the catastrophic AGW alarmists, it is not the case that man's emissions of CO2 have caused the temperature increases of the late 20th Century, because they claim they do not see natural forces capable of providing the necessary degree of climate change.  Perhaps there are natural forces they do not yet understand very well at all.

Clouds, Aerosols, and Cosmic Rays

I am reading the fascinating book Heaven and Earth global warming the missing science by Ian Plimer. Here are a few fascinating statements, minus the many footnotes:

Clouds reflect 60% of the Sun's radiation. A change of just 1% in cloudiness of planet Earth could account for all of the 20th Century warming. However, IPCC computers don't do clouds. Fine particles in the atmosphere are the nuclei for condensation of water vapour into the water droplets that form low-level clouds.

It is the low-level clouds that have the greatest cooling effect.

Sulphuric acid aerosols formed from dimethyl sulphide released from micro-organisms in the oceans affect low-level cloud formation over a very large area because the oceans cover 70% of the Earth's surface. Dimethyl sulphide reacts with water and sunlight to produce sulphuric acid droplets. This reaction is accelerated by lightning in a process called ion seeding. Sea spray provides very small grains of sodium chloride from storm waves, especially in winter at latitudes 40 - 60 [degrees]. Sporadic volcanic eruptions, hot gas vents and hot springs release large amounts of sulphurous gases into the atmosphere. Various sulphur gases in the atmosphere combine with water and form sulphuric acid droplets. These droplets are also the nuclei for low-level cloud formation.

Apparently, man is not the primary source of sulfuric acid in the atmosphere! Who would have thought, given all the environmentalist noise on this subject over the years? There are good reasons for man to clean up the sulfur emissions from smokestacks and we have done a good job of that in the developed countries, by and large. But it is good to know that much of the sulfuric acid in the atmosphere has natural origins.

Not long ago, James Hanson complained on several occasions that the "one thing" that they did not really know about global warming was the effect of aerosols. This one thing is a huge thing. It seems likely to me that as the oceans warm, the micro-organisms that create dimethyl sulfide [being American, I conserve my letters and favor brevity in spelling] will fluorish and produce more of it. So, if we were to suppose that man's CO2 emissions caused warming then the warmed oceans would produce more micro-organisms and these would produce more dimethyl sulfide, resulting in more sulfuric acid droplets, and then more cloud cover. In other words, the earth's response to increased CO2 would be a negative feedback in which CO2 warming would be offset by more cloud cover. Recent studies have at least shown a negative feedback, though I do not know that it is due to the effect I am hypothesizing. The UN IPCC computer models not only do not do clouds, but they almost always assume a positive feedback to warming caused by CO2 emissions, which exaggerate the degree of warming.

The other elephant in the room that the IPCC computer models ignore is the effects of solar radiation variations and activity, which also change the flux of cosmic rays reaching the Earth's atmosphere. These cosmic rays cause ions to form which nucleate clouds. Ian Plimer notes:

The correlation between the Earth's magnetic field and rainfall in the tropics can only be explained if cosmic rays have an influence on the formation of clouds.

The observed variation of 3 - 4% of global cloud cover during Solar Cycle 22 was strongly correlated with the cosmic ray flux. This, in turn, is related to solar activity and the Earth's magnetic field. The weaker the solar activity, the more cosmic rays strike the Earth and the more abundant is cloud cover in the lower atmosphere. The effect is greater at high latitudes because of the shielding effect on the Earth's magnetic field on high-energy charged particles. We must also be mindful of the fact that the Earth's magnetic field constantly changes.

Again, I am commenting. The Earth's magnetic field lines deflect cosmic rays better where they more nearly parallel the Earth's surface. Where they descend to intersect the Earth's surface, cosmic rays can more readily follow magnetic flux lines to enter the atmosphere. This is why higher latitudes both North and South, are more irradiated by the cosmic rays. The changes in the Earth's magnetic field will also change the boundary of those latitudes most affected by the cosmic rays.

I strongly suspect that little is known about the effect of the Earth's changing magnetic field interacting with the Sun's changing magnetic field to create major flows of energy in the Earth's core. There must be great variations in the temperatures of molten materials and the heat flow from them to the Earth's crust. Those same heat vents in the ocean floors that yield sulfur also provide some heating of the oceans. When a strong Earth magnetic field interacts with a strong Sun magnetic field, one would expect that a greater stirring of the Earth's molten core will result. This in turn should mean hotter materials coming into contact with the Earth's crust and added heat being dumped into it. Because the crust is thinnest in the oceans, the heating effect will more immediate and greatest there. Such effects may also have impact on plate tectonics and contribute to the frictional energy generated as plates grind against one another. Frankly, I would not be surprised if such unknown effects are as important as the effect of likely further additions of CO2 to the atmosphere.

In light of the known temperature history of the world, the hypothesis that man-made emissions of CO2 were causing a catastrophic rise of temperatures should have had a very high burden of proof imposed on it. When it came to be understood that the past increases in CO2 atmospheric concentrations followed the temperature rise of the oceans, that hypothesis should have been seen to be in great trouble. When it was further observed that the temperature profile with altitude in the atmosphere was terribly wrong in the IPCC computer models, the hypothesis should have been kaput. But worst of all, the critical nature of cloud cover is apparent to any Earthling. How on Earth could the UN IPCC make such a big deal of their CO2 concentration computer models and future climate scenarios, when they could not begin to understand cloud cover?

The answer is that they had an agenda more important than science. Their agenda was always to do whatever it took to gain world power as the primary world government.

Computer Model Fails to See Cosmic Ray Climate Effect

Jeffrey Pierce and Peter Adams of Carnegie Mellon University published a paper on a computer model they constructed which failed to show a cosmic ray effect strong enough to effectively produce the low altitude clouds required by the 1997 theory of physicists Henrik Svensmark and Eigel Friis-Christensen of the Technical University of Denmark as a cloud nucleation response caused by cosmic ray flux. Svensmark and Friis-Christensen showed data offering an excellent correlation of this low cloud cover and the cosmic ray flux. This has come under scrutiny because it is a contender as an alternative theory to man-made CO2 in the atmosphere causing global warming. A review in Science called "Study Challenges Cosmic Ray - Climate Link" of the Pierce and Adams paper is being used to cast doubts on the cosmic ray effect on cloud cover and hence on the climate. Doug Hoffman at http://theresilientearth.com puts the computer model paper and the review in Science in context here.

A paper by Vieira and da Silva in 2006 showed that there was a similar high correlation of southern hemisphere cosmic ray flux with cloud cover.

Hoffman's comments on the SKY Experiment and the upcoming CLOUD Project to test and measure the effect of cosmic rays on cloud formation using aerosol and cloud chambers are most interesting. These experiments are real attempts by physicists in CERN projects to actually study the relation of cosmic rays to cloud nucleation effects. The SKY Experiment has produced preliminary verification of the effect and the bigger CLOUD Project is now underway with widespread backing and involvement. Meanwhile, Pierce and Adams have fed numbers into a computer program where the physics is not yet known and concluded that there is no relation between low altitude clouds and cosmic rays! When the physics is understood, it will make sense to construct and use computer models to try to see what the effects on climate will be. But, how can you do this and expect meaningful results before the physics is known? Apparently in the church of radical environmentalism this can be done.

This failure to understand that getting the physics right is essential to getting meaningful computer modeling results, should cause the rational reader to hold these climate models in low esteem.