I noticed you omitted the reply:
Dr Svensmark himself was unimpressed by the findings.
"Terry Sloan has simply failed to understand how cosmic rays work on clouds," he told BBC News.
"He predicts much bigger effects than we would do, as between the equator and the poles, and after solar eruptions; then, because he doesn't see those big effects, he says our story is wrong, when in fact we have plenty of evidence to support it."
I would add a simple point of logic: that the article sets up a false dichotomy between Dr Svensmark's theory and the current climate models, to wit, that if one is shown to be incorrect, the other must be perfectly correct. To be expected from the BBC I suppose, but still utterly false.
Svensmark's theory is not some logical opposite of the greenhouse effect, whose existence he does not try to deny; it is rather the case of two rival groups of scientists trying to figure out the effects of two simultaneous forces, which they both agree exist, on one climate system. Even if Svendmark's theory were found to be false it would not prove the accuracy of the current climate models. It would only remove one potential reason for their inaccuracy, leaving others. |
