Russian Scientists: Greenhouse Gas Theory Dead, Global Cooling Coming
The above headline I have taken from here. I think it is misleading. The academic paper concerned ("Cosmic Rays, Solar Activity, and Changes in the Earth’s Climate" by Y. I. Stozhkov et al.) is fairly short and I have read it all several times. It does NOT mention CO2 and does NOT say that the Greenhouse Gas Theory is Dead.
What the paper shows is a close correlation between cloud cover and the temperature of the near-surface atmosphere. Clouds cool us down, unsurprisingly. It then goes on to study what causes variations in cloud cover and comes up with a version of Svensmark's theory of cosmic ray influence.
More interesting however is that the authors develop a theory which quantifies the causes of cloud cover variations. And using that theory they are able to show a correlation of .62 between their predictions and experimental data. A correlation of .62 is undoubtedly high and exciting but it still only explains 38% of the variance, leaving ample room for influences outside their theory -- such as CO2.
So the paper is a definite leap forward. It puts the poor predictive power of the anthropogenic global warming theory well and truly into the shade and looks like a new start for global climate studies. Real climate scientists would immediately lose interest in anthropogenic global warming and take up the lead given by this paper. But there are so few real scientists in climatology that that will not happen. If the constant failures of their predictions are not enough to cause Warmists to desert their theory, nothing will.
An amusing aside: One of the most basic premises in the new theory is that cloud cover has a cooling effect. And since their theory predicts increased cloud cover, they predict global cooling. But note: Warmists also predict increased cloud cover. Only they say that increased cloud cover will WARM us. It is an essential part of their catastrophizing. I know of no research that shows a warming effect of clouds but who cares when you have got a planet to save!
So the claims in my borrowed headline above are reasonable inferences but they are not directly stated in the paper concerned -- JR.