Cosmic Rays and Global Warming

Global warming is just that. There has been a minimal change in temperature over the last 50 years, about .6 degrees Celsius. Various places on the earth have warmed up. Various places have cooled down. The data has to be smoothed quite a bit to see the effect at all. There has been an effort by climate change experts to generate an explanation for this miniscule warming which would have gone unnoticed except for an effort by Al Gore, the same man who invented the Internet, to satisfy his innate desire to save the world. This is a laudable goal, but Mr. Gore has no qualifications to do it in the area he has chosen. He is an overachiever in politics and his book and movie "An Inconvenient Truth" have managed to muddle the waters enough, with some extreme scare tactics thrown in, to generate a grass roots campaign to exterminate the enemy, carbon dioxide.
First of all, let's consider the problem of verifying the relation between manmade carbon dioxide emissions and the increase in temperature. Historically, the calculations have been unreliable in the extreme. It is a hard version of weather forecasting. How much trust do you have in the detailed weather report? In order to get any approximation to agreement with measured data, the specific forecast has to be simplified to a few simple numbers like the average temperature increase over the entire earth. The number of programs to predict climate are numerous with no agreement in detail. The Internation Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) which is trying to force some sort of discipline on the field has to average the predictions over 30 or so different attempts. The extreme political scrutiny due to Mr. Gore, among others, has brought some progress, typically to reduce the extreme predictions used by Mr. Gore in his presidential campaign, like the famous "hockey stick" graph, which is now totally discredited due to simple errors in statistical analysis.
But the campaign is in such full swing that respectable media outlets are hosting panel discussions between new organizations of full time employees discussing the ins and outs of carbon trading. At the same time they tell you that eliminating carbon dioxide completely won't cost anything. It makes for better business. Well, you and I are going to be paying their salaries, paying more at the pump, or to the local energy producer to reduce carbon dioxide, the mother's milk of plants and indirectly the source of the oxygen we breathe. I heard one guy say, "We shouldn't stop at the Kyoto reductions of CO2, we should eliminate all sources of CO2." Well, all I can say is don't breathe out, you might be violating the law pretty soon.
I have a review of an alternative explanation for the minimal temperature increase which would predict a future reduction in temperature which I will post soon. I am new at this. Anything you want to add would be greatly appreciated. I will be approaching the problem from a scientific point of view due to my years of experience in high energy physics.