I read the paper (post 30). I don't see how the authors can be serious when looking at figure 4d showing the 10Be going down. That means less cosmic ray flux, fewer clouds, more warming. The authors argument seems to be that since there is no warming/cooling corresponding to the 11 year cycle, there must be no correlation at all. But clearly figure 4 shows there is a longer term correlation, whether it causal or not.
Also most serious AGW scientists say there is no change in cosmic ray flux, see here http://www.realclimate.org/index.php?p=42 for example.
Maybe I am missing something obvious in the paper cog?
Maybe I am missing something obvious in the paper cog?I tried a short read, but didn't comprehend it well. Give me a couple more days and I'll try to respond. (Not that I can guarantee any remarkable insights, but I'll offer my interpretation.)