The way some of the media report on climate change can be simply stunning. For example, an opinion piece in The Financial Post has the headline "New, convincing evidence indicates global warming is caused by cosmic rays and the sun — not humans".
There’s only one problem: that’s completely wrong. In reality the study shows nothing of the sort. The evidence, as far as the limitations of the experiment go (that’s important, see below), do not show any effect of cosmic rays on global warming, and say nothing at all about the effect humans are having on the environment.
What did you do, Ray?
OK, first things first: why should we even think cosmic rays might affect climate? There are several steps to this, but it’s not too hard to explain.
We know that clouds form by water molecules accumulating on seed particles, called condensation nuclei. The physical processes are complex, but these particles (also called aerosols) are suspended in the air and water droplets form around them. The more of them available, the better water can condense and form clouds (although of course this also depends on a lot of ...




Keith's 24 Aug note: According to a 



Keith's note: We are very pleased today to release the first issue of Space Quarterly Magazine with both the U.S. and Canadian editions 
Keith's 31 Aug note: On 14 August I sent several requests to NASA GSFC PAO asking for information on this meeting including media access. A representative replied "The detailed agenda is still being worked out but it is our intent to invite reporters to the event. The only factor I know of that might prevent reporters from attending the full meeting would be if some part of the presentation or discussion involves information that is of a sensitive/proprietary nature. I expect a media advisory will be issued sometime around the end of this month with full details of the agenda and how media can register."

Keith's note: "Not yet available". More NASA PAO deflection and answer dodging because no one at the agency wants to take a stance - about anything. This is getting to be pathetic. NASA cannot say what it means - or mean what it says anymore. By the way, has anyone heard Charlie Bolden say anything about this topic - or anything else for that matter - for several months - other than a bland statement in Huntsville the other night (which NASA has yet to 


Keith's note: One Russian news service (Interfax) quotes Davydov from Roscomos as saying that there may be a shift from manned to unmanned programs while Panichkin from Central Research Institute of Machine-Building talks about sending humans to Mars. Then RIA Novosti, another Russian news service quotes Davydov as saying that their space program may be shifted to a new agency. And people think U.S. space policy is confusing ...
Orbital Receives FAA Commercial Space Transportation License For Taurus II COTS Demonstration Mission