Hence, the CERN CLOUD project, which tested it and found that it has a very strong correlation. Just in the last 2 years.
Saying it was 'long debunked' before it was tested is a very interesting claim. How can you debunk something before you test it? And after it is tested, then... you should accept the results.
The results are astoundingly clear, and disagree with your position.
______________________
Ah, Cook. I mean skeptical science. Now, that report that lied about 97% of papers when they truth was .3%? - That is Cook. He organized it and had 6 reviewers.
Lets just say this straight out:
He lies on scientific papers to try and fake a position that is not real.
But lets look at this from your link to Cook:
See, classic Cook. All have not been thrown aside, the CLOUD experiment is a prime example.
And then, there is this Gem, gonna quote it twice:
He showed that the long wave radiation should present lower values - and he skips the big caveat:
'The Theory' uses water as a 3X feedback. This is really important. If you remove that feedback, there is no exponential growth, like the models show. There is nothing to be worried about. He kinda skips that. Because of Lindzen.
So, that brings us to the Lindzen Choi 2011 paper (in response to claims against Lindzen Choi 2009)
http://www-eaps.mit.edu/faculty/lind...-Choi-2011.pdf
Which is an actual paper written on the longwave emission readings from Earth. This is the actual Empirical evidence.
https://wattsupwiththat.files.wordpr...pg?w=905&h=641
It turns out that there is a NET NEGATIVE feedback.
Not a positive feedback.
'The Theory', expecting a positive feedback, is Falsified by the fact there is a Negative Feedback when actually looking at the evidence.