[the_Watchman]

One can easily detect the bias of an article by noting whether the phenomenon is being considered to affect “global warming” or “climate change”. The former assumes global warming and shows that the writer is primarily concerned with shoring up their failing theory.

[Old Professer]

This is their “core sample,”

[By focusing on pristine Southern Hemisphere ocean regions, the researchers examined areas where a cosmic ray signal should be easier to detect than elsewhere.]

[Robert A Cook PE]

“Kristjansson and his collegaues have used observations from so-called Forbush decrease events: Sudden outbreaks of intense solar activity that lead to a strong reduction of cosmic rays, lasting for a couple of days. The researchers have identified 22 such events between 2000 and 2005.”

Hmmmn.

So, the research DID SHOW that higher levels of solar activity (22 times in those few years) measurably changed the cosmic ray flux.

Now, they claim found no change in cloud cover (in the southern hemisphere ocean regions at least).

But, these guys DID find changes in cosmic ray flux from a change in solar energy - NOT a change in solar “illumination - which what Hansen and his ilk keep repeating.