The Great Sun Spot swindle.
So Pluto has an atmosphere, oh and just how far from the sun is Pluto again? Wow those Senators know their astro physics, and blow me down if Jupiter being a GAS giant composed mainly of hydrogen is a prime candidate of global warming effects of Sun Spots.
And Mars, well I shall let you read up on the what real experts on Martian climate have to say about how we can learn from its possible history.
Oh and Sun spot cycle is no longer observed to be the reliable time piece that matches ice ages that non astronomers seem to still believe.
(Below cut and pasted to save you the effort of reading actual scientific papers, are synopsis of why C4 programme was in itself a swindle).
The film’s main contention is that the current increase in global temperatures is caused not by rising greenhouse gases, but by changes in the activity of the Sun. It is built around the discovery in 1991 by the Danish atmospheric physicist Dr Eigil Friis-Christensen that recent temperature variations on earth are in “strikingly good agreement” with the length of the cycle of sunspots.
Unfortunately, he found nothing of the kind. A paper published in the journal Eos in 2004 reveals that the “agreement” was the result of “incorrect handling of the physical data”. The real data for recent years show the opposite: that the length of the sunspot cycle has in fact declined, while temperatures have risen. When this error was exposed, Friis-Christensen and his co-author published a new paper, purporting to produce similar results. But this too turned out to be an artefact of mistakes they had made – in this case in their arithmetic.
So Friis-Christensen and another author developed yet another means of demonstrating that the Sun is responsible, claiming to have discovered a remarkable agreement between cosmic radiation influenced by the Sun and global cloud cover. This is the mechanism the film proposes for global warming. But, yet again, the method was exposed as faulty. They had been using satellite data which did not in fact measure global cloud cover. A paper in the Journal of Atmospheric and Solar-Terrestrial Physics shows that when the right data are used, a correlation is not found.
So the hypothesis changed again. Without acknowledging that his previous paper was wrong, Friis-Christensen’s co-author, Henrik Svensmark, declared that there was in fact a correlation – not with total cloud cover but with “low cloud cover”. This too turned out to be incorrect. Then, last year, Svensmark published a paper purporting to show that cosmic rays could form tiny particles in the atmosphere. Accompanying it was a press release which went way beyond the findings reported in the paper, claiming it showed that both past and current climate events are the result of cosmic rays.
As Dr Gavin Schmidt of NASA has shown on www.realclimate.org, five missing steps would have to be taken to justify the wild claims in the press release. “We’ve often criticised press releases that we felt gave misleading impressions of the underlying work”, Schmidt says, “but this example is by far the most blatant extrapolation-beyond-reasonableness that we’ve seen.” None of this seems to have troubled the programme makers, who report the cosmic ray theory as if it trounces all competing explanations.