I wonder if this will be in Scientific American? I'm watching a documentary on the Science Channel about the research of Henrik Svensmark that suggests that the source of global warming is, surprise, the sun. It turns out that there is a close correlation between the solar wind and cloud cover on earth, due to the amount of cosmic rays that make it to the earth. More solar wind means fewer cosmic rays and more cloud cover.

Predictably, advocates of blaming g.w. on humans are hostile to this explanation. It seems that scientists are no more openminded to new information than the rest of us. Seeing the reaction from a British meteorologist reminded me of the reaction Galileo got from the Church. He didn't see any need for more research into this theory, since he already knew it was baloney.

The mechanism seems to be that cosmic rays hitting the atmosphere break up atoms and creat aerosols which seed low clouds, which, in turn, cool the surface of the earth. When sunspots are scarce, the solar wind thins out and more cosmic radiation makes it into the atmosphere.

I've always been skeptical of the human-caused global warming explanation because it seemed tailor made for environmentalists who want to turn back the industrial revolution. Never mind that their ideology would cripple the economies of developed nations and place economic development forever beyond the reach of the third world. We must stop production of greenhouse gases NOW! It is usually a tipoff when those who support a theory become angry and start shouting when anyone dares to ask for more proof.