From the Register and Nigel Calder’s blog via bunches of people who submitted in Tips and Notes, hints of a new project, the RCC (Real Climate Collider) /sarc.
CERN ‘gags’ physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment
What do these results mean? Not allowed to tell you
The chief of the world’s leading physics lab at CERN in Geneva has prohibited scientists from drawing conclusions from a major experiment. The CLOUD (“Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets”) experiment examines the role that energetic particles from deep space play in cloud formation. CLOUD uses CERN’s proton synchrotron to examine nucleation.
CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Welt Online that the scientists should refrain from drawing conclusions from the latest experiment.
“I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them,” reports veteran science editor Nigel Calder on his blog. Why?
Because, Heuer says, “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.”
Full story here: http://www.theregister.co.uk/2011/07/18/cern_cosmic_ray_gag/
===========================================================
Calder writes on his blog:
Four quick inferences:
1) The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them.
2) CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation.
3) 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.
4) The resulting publication may be rather boring.
The interview with Welt Online (in German) is here:
http://www.welt.de/wissenschaft/article13488331/Wie-Illuminati-den-Cern-Forschern-geholfen-hat.html
http://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/07/17/%E2%80%9Cno-you-mustnt-say-what-it-means%E2%80%9D/
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Excellent, what a wonderful way, albeit inadvertently, to ensure maximum publicity to the data release.
Buy popcorn!
“Don’t think of a pink elephant! Or else!”
Heh.
It is of no import. There are many competant folk champing at the bit. The truth will out.
Someone, somewhere will surely ‘explain it’ or is too much funding at stake?
Their mission statement that directs them to disCERN between fact and fancy is out the window? Apparently so.
The money train is slowly derailing.
This is unbelievable. It’s completely anti-science.
N. Calder says, “1) The results must be favourable for Svensmark or there would be no such anxiety about them.”
Rolf-Dieter Heuer says, “The results will be published shortly. 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.”
– – – – – – – –
I do not see Calder’s conclusion follow from Heuer’s statement unless we invoke a deep cynicism; a cynicis that is likely to be counterproductive on healthy skepticism. We could just wait for the CERN results to be published shortly.
That said, Nigel Calder’s statement could force a more clear statement from Heuer about his full meaning. That would be helpful.
John
Just like all the other elite non-science organizations, they are licking their chops for the money they can milk through their mantra that mankind is the root of all climate “events.” Another group of folks who make me puke. Pardon the graphic reaction.
It seems to me, as an outsider of these groups, it would be easy eliminate such organized corruption by supporting them. Who needs them? Where do they get their platform to spouse such junk? Why are they so visible in the media? If 33,000 other scientists sign a petition against the premise of man made global disaster causing CO2, why are any scholars providing support to organizations such as CERM? Almost rhymes with germ.
Do stand out from the clutter of online viewing, is there a notable and noble publication or organization that stands a chance at getting non-political science out to the public?
The obvious conclusions…should they be obvious…will be posted to blogs like this one for all to see. Whether the physicists can talk about it or not.
Marvin Gellar (noted AGW commentator and professor at my institution – Stony Brook University) – published a review paper with a number of colleagues on solar climate variability as we knew it back in 2009. He didn’t cover any cumulative impacts of solar variability, but he did show rather convincingly that sunspot cycles appeared to be linked to cloud cover amongst other things. A quick Google Scholar search will find that paper if you are curious what it actually contained.
I think at this point it’s pretty clear that solar climate variability is significant to cyclical patterns of warming and cooling on decadal time scales. Hopefully the CLOUD project will help us make that better accepted.
For more on this story, please see:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galileo_affair
Just swap a few of the names around… Galileo, Svensmark, etc… Oh, and instead of the Catholic church, just use the church of AGW and Gaia.
Those who fail to learn from the mistakes of history are doomed to repeat them.
“That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate.”
What?! So there IS a climate change debate after all?? But hey, Al said there isn’t! And just recently, after a long and courageous denial of a pause in global temperature rise, they are now explaining WHY there is this (non existent) pause in the temperature rise. Anthropogenic global pause of anthropogenic global warming… As soon as Wallis the hitman of Outside Organisation is arrested they can’t stay on message any more.
Oh dear dear, who and what am I now to beleive?
Never, ever let the scientific facts get in the way of your personal career.
/Sarc
This is a perfect example of why some scientists are every day looking more and more like shylock attorneys. Herein it’s not about the truth. It’s never been about the truth to some. It’s all about keeping your job.
S/B It seems to me, as an outsider of these groups, it would be easy eliminate such organized corruption by NOT supporting them.
… and
TO stand out from the clutter….
Too much coffee in the arteries…. 🙂
Aah those pesky clouds, bete noir of the Gaia models.
Here is the comment I just sent to “the reference frame” —
Perhaps Boss Heuer’s intentions are to prevent CERN from becoming involved in the kerfuffle of global warming, climate disruption, climate change, or bi-polar climate syndrome. Several organization in the USA have lost respect because they have made their interpretations of unsettled science support a “green” agenda. There is no good reason for CERN to become involved. Asking the researchers to present their findings without delving into the politically charged issue of rearranging the developed nation’s economies seems prudent.
Compare, for instance, the USA’s census activities that show increasing numbers of “Hispanic” folks in the country. The researchers of the Census Bureau can report the numbers without involving themselves in the establishment of policies for the border of Arizona and Mexico. After every census there is criticism of under-counting because Congress, in its collective wisdom, has directed dollars to follow the numbers. Sometimes a few thousand more folks in a census area means a few hundred thousand more dollars (per year) flowing into the local budget. The census statisticians generally stay out of this mess.
There will be much more going on at CERN that I haven’t a clue about but if the boss is just trying to keep the scientists above the fray, so to speak, I don’t think that is a problem. He hasn’t asked that they not report their findings – has he?
What debate, Dr. Heuer? The science is settled, isn’t it? Nothing new here.
/sarc* (*just in case)
The truth has been the least important aspect of AGW over the years. Nobody will listen.
move along, nothing to see here.
In the Warmists world, “we will publish shortly” means quite the opposite. It means that data will be “homogenized” until it conforms to the desired result.
What they studied was:
Cosmic rays influence cloud formation through forming cloud nuclei.
So, they will obviously talk about cosmic rays and clouds and how they are a significant climate driver.
And they should stay away from talk about exactly how significant of a driver they are, since that is outside of this study.
That is just good science.
They are, apparently, hinting that they will release the underlying data without interpretation.
That seems better than the standard practice of releasing interpretations while hiding the data.
The CERN Director-General isn’t otherwise shy of dubious publicity or dubious science:
Welt Online: Doch nur weil Antimaterie von einer Aura des Geheimnisvollen umgeben ist, wurden im Cern Szenen für den Film “Illuminati“ nach dem gleichnamigen Roman von Dan Brown gedreht. Freuen Sie sich über die zusätzliche Aufmerksamkeit, die auf diese Weise dem Cern zuteil wird?
Heuer: Durchaus. Ich finde solche Dinge gut, solange die Grenze zwischen Wirklichkeit und Fiktion einigermaßen erkennbar bleibt. Dieser Film hat dem Cern mit Sicherheit nicht geschadet, sondern die Aufmerksamkeit für die Erforschung von Antimaterie gesteigert. Und wir haben es damit geschafft, in den Zeitungen außer auf die Wissenschaftsseiten auch ins Feuilleton zu kommen. Das gilt natürlich ebenso für das Thema LHC
Translation:
Welt Online: Antimatter is surrounded by an aura of mystery, though, with scenes for the movie “Illuminati” , based on the novel of the same name by Dan Brown, being filmed at Cern. Are you happy with the additional attention brought to Cern by this means?
Heuer: Totally. I find this sort of thing good, as long as the line dividing reality from fiction is reasonably clear. That movie has definitely done Cern no harm, and has in fact boosted attention on research into antimatter. And it has enabled us to move from the science pages of newspapers into the feature sections. That of course applies just as much to the subject of the LHC.
The CLOUD experiment was allowed to go forward for the expressed political purpose of putting an end to Svensmark’s theory of droplet formation. Now that the results have been tabulated, there is mild panic that the outcome is the exact opposite of what was anticipated. One can only conclude that the moratorium on interpretation is necessary to provide some breathing room while the powers that be formulate their political response to purely scientific results.
To use an American football metaphor, my take is that Heuer has merely asked his colleagues working on the CLOUD team to refrain from spiking the ball in the endzone and doing a little victory dance to rub it in.