Anthony Watts gets cosmic rays back to front - and worse
I've just written about another article at WUWT, in which Anthony Watts wrote some stuff that suggests he:
- doesn't understand the cosmic ray hypothesis
- doesn't know that the weaker sun would mean more cloud cover, not less
- doesn't "believe in" the greenhouse effect.
He's promoted an article by greenhouse effect denier and arch mathturbator, Dan Pangburn (who visited HotWhopper once
, promoting his tortuous hypothesis).
What he was writing about was a new cosmic ray paper. He should have spent some time learning what the hypothesis is, and what it means when there's less energy coming from the sun.
Here's the link to the HW blog article: Anthony Watts, cosmic rays, Hockey Schtick and Dan Pangburn