Have you worked out a more mathematical treatment of your theory? It's
easy to construct paradoxces with any language but much more difficult
with math. If so it would be relatively easy to come up with a predictive test....

Some questions

"Each molecule containing atoms of more than one element are polar molecules. In other words they have a positive and negative pole and a permanent electric dipole moment."

What about Carbon Dioxide? o=c=o It's symmetric and shouldnt have any electric dipole moment.

"This means, also, that these molecules motions are now able to be influenced by strong polar energy movements and themselves have a much stronger molecular attraction and cohesiveness."

Please explicitly define "polar energy movement".

"The molecules which are formed first in space and then receive a polar charge will be "pushed" in opposition to a similar charge and "pulled" to the opposing charge."

Where and how are they formed in space?

"So imagine a "cosmic wind" if you will which comprises the space in an area where a galaxy is forming. This cosmic wind is made up of countless waveforms or radiation."

What causes the "cosmic wind" and what technically is it?

"So the cosmic wind passes through these clouds and more and more radiation is scattered and polarized."

I agree with you in the case of the Earth's atmosphere, any one with
polarized glasses can verify this by facing away from the sun and tilting
you head side to side. But even this doesn't remove all the light, there are still photons coming from that direction dur to multiple scatterings
of the primarily blue photons. Scattering isn't a convergent phenomena
even for a quasi-single source, the sun.

"So the interaction between the cosmic wind and the polar molecules will start to speed up the motion of these molecules and they will bind tighter and tighter together, drawing nearby molecules."

A polar molecule like water for instance is electrically neutral. A photon of the proper frequency will shake it up a bit but it's not going to gain any net acceleration. A microwave does this to water molecules and produces heat, not a beam of charged particles.

These are all just words, not really useful at proving or disproving
anything.

"Well...some scientists 'think' while other folks are busy with 'critiques' "

Oh, come on now. Are you saying that people who critique your theory arent using their brain? Maybe you're not properly making your case.

I'll keep an open mind but you need more than words.