[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
Status: Not Logged In; Sign In
LEFT WING LOONS Title: Sun Causes Climate Change Shock [AGW and "Climate Change Theories are DOA] If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of global warming. Its the sun, stupid. More specifically as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated its the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichtons brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents stand to gain from the Man Made Climate Change industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc
Except of course in the real world the second part wouldnt happen. No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research. Thats because the MSM and the scientific community would find it perfectly easy to suppress the story anyway, without recourse to severed brake cables or ricin-impregnated hand-washes or staged suicides. This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here: The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers wont be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun not human activities as the dominant controller of climate on Earth. The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the worlds largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earths atmosphere. In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earths atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the suns magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earths atmosphere (the stronger the suns magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth. So if its so great, why arent we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Heres how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online: I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters. Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes: CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. Its OK to enter the highly political arena of the climate change debate provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmarks heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. and The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results Lubos Motl, too, detects some double standards here: One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly gagged and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting and indeed, overinterpreting and misinterpreting their results that are often less serious, less reliable, and less rigorous, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research. Moreover, this sentence by Heuer One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesnt have the moral right to predetermine in advance what one has to make clear about these a priori unknown scientific results. But then, as Lawrence Solomon reminds us, this was never an experiment the scientific establishment wanted to happen in the first place. The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible. He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory cre dence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials. The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theorys importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber he called it CLOUD, for Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets. But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community. The theory will probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earths temperature that we have seen in the last century, Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earths temperature. The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes groundbreaking theory. Still, as youd expect, the BBC remains dutifully on-message. Read this report by its science correspondent Pallab Ghosh and youll be left in little doubt that a) the latest results are dull beyond measure and b) that if they do mean anything at all, its that global warming is still very much man-made. Heres their tame expert, Reading Universitys Dr Mike Lockwood, on hand to provide them the perfect pull-quote: Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? No
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
#2. To: Capitalist Eric (#0)
Skip the editorials and read the actual research, the study's author, in response to climate change deniers twisting the results, restated: More:
From the article: Your arguments are over. Your hypotheses have been disproven. It's game OVER for your agenda.
There are no replies to Comment # 4. End Trace Mode for Comment # 4.
Top Page Up Full Thread Page Down Bottom/Latest |
[Home] [Headlines] [Latest Articles] [Latest Comments] [Post] [Mail] [Sign-in] [Setup] [Help] [Register]
|