Love to see scientists come up with yet another theory of what causes global temperature changes. I especially grok the way so many scientists use "may" when they're talking about theories that have been used to enforce idiotic governmental regulations that cost business billions of dollars and millions of jobs:
Veizer remains concerned about the possible "use and abuse" of his latest work in the bitter international debate over the Kyoto accord. As he did in 2000, he emphasized that unprecedented CO2 emissions in modern times may eventually "overtake" cosmic rays as a chief factor in climate change and perhaps even justify "pre-emptive" measures to protect the environment.
I also wonder why he finds it necessary to insert the weasel word "potentially" in this statement:
More specifically, the authors assert that the long-term "warming effect of CO2" is "potentially lower" than generally thought. They say the carbon dioxide factor would appear to have a maximum impact of 1.9 C on sea temperatures rather than the 5.5 projected in certain worst-case scenarios.
Makes you wonder what the margin of error is in these findings, why it wasn't stated and whether the variability was within it. But, as Ayn Rand says, "blank out". At least he comes out with this fairly straightforward statement:
"Atmospheric levels of CO2 are commonly assumed to be a main driver of global climate," the authors state. "Independent empirical evidence suggests that the galactic cosmic ray flux (CRF) is linked to climate variability. We find that at least 66 per cent of the variance in the paleotemperature trend could be attributed to CRF variations likely due to solar system passages through the spiral arms of the galaxy."
Another oddity: these articles on "dissident" statements about climate theory both come from far-flung outposts of the Anglosphere: New Zealand and Saskatchewan. Where's Scientific American when news is breaking? Hugging its cherished lies?