To the Editor:
Jasper Kirkby, an Oxford-educated physicist, is leading a team of scientists at CERN to experimentally study cloud formation. Since clouds reflect the sun’s energy back out into space, understanding their formation would disclose how much climate change may be caused naturally. Kirkby theorizes that if airborne aerosols lead to cloud formation, we should learn the extent to which these can occur naturally, including by cosmic rays from supernovas in deep space. The sun’s solar wind deflects cosmic rays from the earth.
Any variability in solar wind can then theoretically affect the climate. Moreover, the earth’s magnetic field protects the atmosphere from solar winds, but the field has declined in the past 150 years. Conjecture by some scientists is that the polarity of the earth may be switching as happened before.
But a weakened field allows more solar wind to interfere with cloud formation by cosmic rays, leading to a reduction in energy being reflected by clouds.
With good reason, Kirkby doubts there is sufficient understanding of these phenomenon to have confidence in attributing human activity as the primary cause for climate change.
Kirkby also criticizes carbon dioxide climate “computer models” as fitting poorly with historical temperatures.
Science involves theorizing, forming hypothesis and proof by experimentation. Data correlation without more is mere conjecture. Moreover, consensus is no substitute for experimentation. Albert Einstein mistakenly plugged an added constant into his equations out of concern for a consensus in his day.
No wonder Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore has become a harsh critic of climate alarmism.