@Dr Herbie & @cbae: I agree with you both on a certain level; that this is not conclusive proof one way or another, but I'm trying to emphasize the point of the research: To determine how clouds are formed, and whether the sun has an influence on it, and whether cosmic rays have an influence on it. The conclusion is that cosmic rays do indeed create the seeds needed for cloud formation. Kirkby says it doesn't prove that this has an effect on climate. Ok, it doesn't prove that cloud formation has anything to do with climate, that's true. It also doesn't prove that other factors are or are not involved.
However, who really believes that cloud formation isn't a factor in climate, and likely the biggest factor, aside from the direct effect of sunlight in terms of temperature? Saying that cosmic rays create seeds for cloud formation at such a high rate, but yet saying it doesn't prove that there's any effect on the climate is pushing the boundaries of reason.
As for the director's reported warning to the scientists, it's all political - "sensitive topic" and "politically correct" are basically the same thing. No, I don't have the actual wording Herbie, so I can drop that as an argument.
Actual physical experiments using the most advanced model we have to simulate cloud formation in controlled conditions has proven that cosmic rays create the nuclear seeds required to form water and ice droplets at significantly high rates. Pure physics and chemistry. We now know for a fact that cosmic rays actually create clouds in a lab. The idea that they don't do it in nature is denying the fundamental principle that physics is the same everywhere. The fact that the magnetic field of the sun protects us from cosmic rays is not disputed - AFAIK. The fact that the magnetic field varys with solar activity, such as sunspots and CMEs is not disputed - AFAIK. Data shows that variance in the magnetic field of the sun aligns with the formation of clouds, increasing when the magnetic field is weaker, and decreasing when it decreases. The data mapping is in question, however, and requires more research and testable predictions.
Now can we actually have more research, to answer the remaining questions? That would be great, and to be able to do it without being called an idiot, liberal, conservative, denier, or scammer woulld be even better.