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/
This is why we had a ‘cold war’ for about 50 years. Bad translations and misinterpretations of them.
As I see it, the general meaning was: tell the results in plain language without any additional comments that could be misleading and/or forcing a scientific/political war.
That’s it!
Why are the scientists ever allowed to interpret results of their studies? Aren’t they the most biased when it comes to their own results? Researchers should only submit their methods and results, leaving it to their peers in the filed to interpret and to debate.
http://www.bibliotecapleyades.net/tesla/esp_tesla_7a.htm
The Nunn report, in addition to outlining Aum’s large international membership and massive finances of over US$1 billion, also revealed the cult’s fascination for Tesla weapons.
The Senate report describes Aum’s visits to the New York based International Tesla Society (ITS), where they sought to obtain a number of his books, patents and papers. However, they must have been at least a little disappointed in what they were allowed to access, as we shall see.
A representative of the ITS told Senate investigators that Aum’s interest focused on Tesla’s experiments with “resonating frequencies,” in connection with artificially “creating earthquakes.” Significantly, the report also states that Tesla claimed “…with his technology he could ’split the world’ in two.”
This astonishing assertion closely parallels remarks made by Soviet Premier Krushchev to the Presidium in 1960, where he referred to “…the advent of a new class of Soviet Superweapon, so powerful it could wipe out all life on earth if unrestrainedly used.” 4 The comment, made at the height of the cold war, clearly did not refer to nuclear weapons – already an integral component of the feared Soviet arsenal.
Not least, the Senate report mentions Tesla’s development of a “ray gun in the 1930’s, which was actually a particle beam accelerator,” and which was said to be able to “shoot down an airplane at 200 miles.” 5 Following Tesla’s death in 1943, the US government seized his papers and research notes, placing them under national security lock and key.
An undoubted genius during his life, Tesla’s papers curiously remain highly classified today – 53 years later.
In addition to visiting New York’s ITS, Aum personnel also traveled to the Tesla Museum in Belgrade. Their studies here included researching the so called “Tesla Coil” (below image) – a device used for alternating currents.
Do see “The Cloud Mystery” 1/5 – http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z4XYxL66O_s
Note that Dr. Heuer said this in an interview to be carried by the international press. If he merely wished to communicate these views to the the scientists writing the paper(s) on the CLOUD experiment results, he could have done so privately via email. That would have bothered me a lot!
His message was clearly designed for public consumption. To whom was it directed? I can only speculate, but it seems plausible that this statement was directed to the politicians that lead the countries that fund CERN – politicians who are mostly publicly heavily invested in AGW. I think that Dr. Heuer was telling them that CERN will avoid becoming involved in the AGW morass, other than as a provider of basic physics data on cloud nucleation. In other words, ‘Please don’t shoot the messenger – CERN is not a combatant.’ I can’t say that I blame him for his caution.
As Lord Acton said, “Power tends to corrupt, and absolute power corrupts absolutely.” The more that science is funded by governments with agendas that go beyond the pursuit of truth (often par for the course), the more science will tend to be corrupted.
No matter. Does this lab chief believe his own physicists are the only ones capable of interpreting these results? If not, then he has just surrendered the lab’s ownership of what may be one of the most paradigm-shattering discoveries of the decade, one that ends or significantly contributes to a globally important policy debate. He should not be in charge of a lab if he routinely engages in such professionally stifling activity that is the very opposite of being in the interests of the lab and its reputation.
I saw that William provided some pointers to work by Isreali Astrophysicist, Nir J. Shaviv. Here is another article of his, which seems directly applicable to the topic:
http://sciencebits.com/CosmicRaysClimate
Chris Shaker
Take a look – paper published: http://www.nature.com/news/2011/110824/full/news.2011.504.html