Wayne Stollings wrote:
Yes, no uncertainty concerning the current theory as there is sufficient uncertainty with your preferred hypothesis to disregard it as being significant.
If there is uncertainty with the GCR hypothesis, naturally there will be uncertainty with the CO2 hypothesis, since there would be an unknown amount of warming that GCRs have caused over the last 100 years.
Not necessarily, as until there is some evidence of an effect there is no connection to add uncertainty.
So using your logic, we can discount the CO2 theory is not being significant, since there are uncertainties that surround it as well.
No, the uncertainties in your preferred hypothesis start with the lack of evidence for a mechanism, which is not the case with GHG.
It is possible evidence, but to refute a theory you need real evidence.
To even suggest a theory, there needs to be some evidence, but this is not present with the CO2 theory.
Actually, there is. The rise in CO2 levels in the atmosphere coupled with the evidence of how GHGs work gives a theory supported by measurements .... unlike the cosmic ray mechanisms.
they may have an effect, but based on current evidence, not a significant effect.
Jusitifcation for this claim?
The results of the CERN experiments which showed an insufficient level of nucliation for observed climate impact even with the multiplication factors included.