I am a climate change scientist, and I also am a physicist.

The theory that your student is quoting comes from Henrik Svensmark and various other scientists who discovered that cosmic radiation from supernova can create clouds over the oceans. They do this by interacting with low level gases, mainly from the sea and air.

To back this up they have run an experiment called SKY which so far has shown good results in creating cloud. A new experiment called CLOUD to be run at CERN will confirm the theory.

Everyone seems to want to debunk this theory purely on the basis that it does not accord with the CO2 theory that is very widely held, and particularly the major reason for the existence of the IPCC and every business concern that is involved with climate change.

However, I have reviewed the evidence and I cannot find any serious flaws in it. To call it 'bad astronomy' would not be the case. Even its most ardent opponents have conceded that they could not challenge the methodology.

The theory also helps astronomers know when we pass through the arms of the galaxy, an amazing result, that means that it works 'both' ways. That's the hall mark of a good theory. This theory also uses occams razor at every move, so that one is struck by its integrity at every stage.

Rather than debunking this theory you should be considering examining for yourself, and if you can use it to challenge the current model.

The issue here is which theory is better: CO2 or cosmic ray flux? For many years I have been a follower of CO2 on the basis that despite its numerous flaws (one being that antartica gets cooler than greenland then visa versa across long timescales - this shouldn't happen if its a gas driven causation - and there are lots of others if you check pre-history). However, the cosmic ray theory is much better at explaining the anomalies.

It also explains the paradox of the young faint sun. CO2 gets nowhere here. The work of Nir Shaviv shows how the movement of the earth through the spiral arms of the galaxy influence the Earth's climate over millions of years, proving that CO2 is of a tiny influence compared with cloud cover formation.

So I am afraid if anything is to be debunked, perhaps it is CO2 as a cause of global warming in history. That is of course not to say it isn't responsible for very recent global warming, but it certainly suggests that CO2 is not the only explanation for historical and pre-historical changes in the Earth's climate. And of course CO2 and GHGs particuarly water vapour (again clouds!) are intimately connected to the cosmic ray theory.

When studying the universe, one must consider the whole, and not just the sum of its parts to arrive at the truth. We in the West only break it up into parts, but we fail to put it back together again.

Let's start putting it back together....

It is such a pity that many scientists are going out of their way to debunk this theory, and each time they do it they meet a brick wall of excellent replies based on sound data and experiments.

The CO2 theory by contrast offers nothing in the way of such experiments. It's like school boys concept of the world compared to an explorers!