What if it was the Sun?

Rather than carbon dioxide being the be-all and end-all of global temperature, there exist other possible "drivers", such as variations in the sun's activity. The IPCC shows CO2 as the great bete noire:

The Svensmark hypothesis runs like this: Solar wind deflects galactic cosmic rays to a greater or lesser extent. Variation in the arrival of cosmic rays, which create vapour trails, causes variation in cloud cover. More cloud causes cooler days and warmer nights, but the effect of cooler days is the greater. An active sun therefore results in clear skies and a warmer world; a sleepy sun results in cold decades. Since the turn of the millennium our star seems to be going back to the sleepy ways of two centuries ago when there were cool summers and cold winters. Whether the two events - very low sunspots and global cooling - were commected is an open question.

The following truism deserves repeating several times a day: Correlation is not Causality. Let's say it again: Correlation is not causality! Consider the following graph:

Did the rock music cause the oil production or was it the other way round?

Both sceptics and warmists must avoid declaring causality on the shaky grounds of pattern-matching. Pattern-spotting is human: we all do it. Pattern spotting can lead to a reasonable conjecture: "Maybe this is the explanation of that pattern", one might say. And then the real work starts: confirming or refuting the hypothesis. If confirmed, the new science will lead to firm predictions, repeatability, verifiability by others. If Svensmark is right we'll soon know: it'll get darn cold.
Back in 2001 our star looked like this:

The eleven-year cycle observed for centuries seems to have stalled. Here is today's sun:

A cooling sun? If it's true we may get an early confirmation without waiting for sea ice in the English Channel:  the CERN research centre is due to report later in the year. Their CLOUD project is intended to confirm or refute Svensmark.

The Svensmark hypothesis may turn out to be a crock. But carbon dioxide hypothesis - simpler and dumber - has managed to sway multibillion dollar government decisions. Misrepresented as "settled" science, the CO2 hoax has hijacked the agenda. Svensmark, if right, will blow the CO2 hypothesis out of the water and demolish the political rationale behind cap-and-trade and thousands of windmills.

The onus is on the Warmists to prove their hypothesis. As atmospheric CO2 continues to rise and global temperatures since 1998 refuse to, the Global Warming theory is a busted flush. The lack of integrity of the unprincipled scoundrels peddling this mtyh - and their pernicious hidden agenda - prevents them from conceding defeat. The pseudoscientists of the IPCC will stay on the gravy train until an outraged public drags 'em off it.