Global Warming Caused by Cosmic Rays and the Sun - Not Humans

No it isn't.

How could it be any clearer?

Sorry, but your theory of a nice CO2 blanket keeping the planet warm, or too warm, is a joke. The science has moved on a long way since the earliest thoughts about the "greenhouse" effect. The atmosphere serves to regulate the planet's temperature, not keep it warm.
Nice to see the media, who have long since lost interest in the wailings of extremists are waking up to newly discovered findings.

" It turns out the sun’s cosmic rays play a commanding role in atmospheric cloud formation and thus surface temperatures. This is according to research in the Aug. 25 edition of the journal Nature by scientists at the prestigious CERN particle physics laboratory in Geneva, Switzerland. In a CLOUD (Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets) experiment, specialists fired a beam of energy from the lab’s Proton Synchrotron accelerator into a chamber filled with gases that approximated the composition of the Earth’s atmosphere.

The findings are a strong indication that cosmic rays striking the planet have a similar effect on atmospheric chemicals and stimulate the creation of clouds. … For dogmatists who believe humans are heating the earth by allowing so-called “greenhouse gases” to billow into the atmosphere, countervailing evidence indicating the sun plays a primary role in climate change is a faith-shaker. This is akin to saying “God is dead”(Washington Times)"

Have you read the actual article, or are you only reading the reports about it?

I have had an "interest" in this theory for years and have read more than just the occasional article.
As you admitted you haven't read the full study, and I assume you haven't read about the theory and research leading up to this new finding, I suggest you look for some of the available literature and discover for yourself the intricacies of this subject.

Although it has been in the news quite a bit for the past decade, this finding was only recently published. Have you read the whole article? If so, does the article cover the past and current trends for cosmic and solar radiation? Does it have anything in the article aside from the mechanics of cloud formation via radiation interaction with atmospheric gasses? Do you know a source that has more of the article to read besides the abstract?

I don't mean to sound like a dick - I am genuinely interested in hearing more about this and I'd appreciate your input.

This entire theory contains a lot of data and information about historic GCR correlation with global climate events.

One free paper (pdf) (though not directly related to the CERN experiment) which may interest you is one that suggests a link between GCRs and the climate:

"The Maunder Minimum (A.D. 1645–1715) is a useful period to investigate possible sun–climate linkages as sunspots became exceedingly rare and the characteristics of solar cycles were different from those of today. Here, we report annual variations in the oxygen isotopic composition (δ18O) of tree-ring cellulose in central Japan during the Maunder Minimum. We were able to explore possible sun–climate connections through high-temporal resolution solar activity (radiocarbon contents; Δ14C) and climate (δ18O) isotope records derived from annual tree rings. The tree-ring δ18O record in Japan shows distinct negative δ18O spikes (wetter rainy seasons) coinciding with rapid cooling in Greenland and with decreases in Northern Hemisphere mean temperature at around minima of decadal solar cycles. We have determined that the climate signals in all three records strongly correlate with changes in the polarity of solar dipole magnetic field, suggesting a causal link to galactic cosmic rays (GCRs). These findings are further supported by a comparison between the interannual patterns of tree-ring δ18O record and the GCR flux reconstructed by an ice-core 10Be record.

Therefore, the variation of GCR flux associated with the multidecadal cycles of solar magnetic field seem to be causally related to the significant and widespread climate changes at least during the Maunder Minimum."

http://www.pnas.org/content/107/48/20697.full.pdf

I'm sure using Google will enable you, or anyone else, to find a wealth of evidence to counteract this latest research, but I suspect that time will soon reveal more data and information that casts more doubt on CO2s falsely elevated influence on the earth's climate.
Searching for information about CERN and the GCR theory on the Internet will bring up enough articles to keep you interested.

"This is hardly conclusive. You speak as if this is an accepted scientific theory when in fact it is a highly questioned hypothesis."

I know. Don't worry, Joe Romm will soon be along to write a complete debunking of this latest scientific thinking and CO2 will once again be revealed as the driver of our climate ;)

I'm only interested in the science, not the politics or ideals, and this latest research is interesting in its findings. I am more than willing to change my views on CO2 when new evidence and data become available. Up until now, however, that evidence has been lame at best, and downright deceptive at worst.
Science moves on. People need to progress and not be stuck with some worn-out theory that doesn't hold water. You know, it is still possible to believe CO2 is not responsible for climate change and still press for new forms of energy too.

Thanks for the info. I will definitely read up on this a bit more. I always appreciate well informed comments on scientific theory. It's such a refreshing change.

According to the cosmic ray hypothesis, when there is a lot of solar flare activity, far fewer rainclouds form on Earth due to the increased solar winds blocking cosmic rays.
So how does this hypothesis reconcile with the fact that the past year has witnessed enormous solar flares AND record flooding globally???

Because there are a lot more factors involved than most people realise. GCR theory is just one factor, oceanic cycles play a big part and are responsible for the flooding that happened this year. That was predicted. The localised heatwaves are nothing new either.
Don't forget, the records only go back a few years, in many cases much less than the span of your lifetime. And terms like 100 year floods, or droughts are merely media terms, not scientific terms, they're meaningless.

Climate records go back millions of years in ice cores, geological strata, coral reefs and sea sediment.
They go back thousands of years in many parts of Eurasia.
What are you talking about?

Reasonably accurate climate records only go back a couple of hundred years, and in the case of satellite measurements, less than 40 years.
Ice cores, tree rings and other proxies are not 100% accurate or reliable.

I read the 2007 book, The Chilling Stars: A New Theory of Climate Change, by Henrik Svensmark and Nigel Calder, from cover to cover.
What a crock!