Nothing to see here, move on
Could it be that it would just be stupid to speculate about the effects of something for which such scant data exist?
Let's assume for a moment that cosmic rays create clouds. Let's further assume that you've got enough historical data to show that peaks of cosmic radiation have coincided with above-average cloud cover. (Very dubious already - I seriously doubt if this data even exists on any meaningful scale.) Still we haven't even touched on the longevity or albedo of the clouds thus formed.
Or we could, instead, compare cosmic radiation history with global climate history. This is inevitably pretty shaky, given that we're comparing two sets of data for which *only proxy records exist* - there are no actual thermometer readings or cosmic ray counts for the year 1300 - and to assume a causal relationship between them would be not merely to jump the gun, it would be to attach a jetpack and overfly the entire arsenal.
This is an interesting finding, but to draw conclusions about climate change from it would be criminally premature.
And finally, contrary to the article's tone, it's not "unusual" for managers to admonish their underlings against unfounded speculation in political hot-topic areas. It happens on a daily basis. The issue is that, generally, researchers *are* encouraged to speculate about the possible impact of their work, but when this would expose them to the kind of attention that instantly focuses on anything containing the word "climate", the caveats about the "very early stages" and "much more work needed" will be swept away in a tsunami of axe-grinding.
So let's not pretend this is news. This is a director doing his job. Give him a nod of thanks or recognition if you like, then move on.