The science is getting settled, but no celebration yet.

Russ Steele

Lawrence Solomon writing and the Financial Post has some insight into how Dr Kirkby has been co-opted into cooperating with those who cannot accept the idea that global warming is a natural process aided by interstellar cosmic rays.  Solomon could just as well have entitled his column follow the money, because in the end the control mechanism used on Kirkby by the warmers was money and his future as a funded scientist.

I have written about the CLOUD experiment elsewhere on this blog, now lets look at the aftermath following the findings that cosmic rays, which are not generated by humans, but rain down in us from intergalactic space are responsible for some of the cloud formation on the earth. Those extra cloud influence the earth’s climate. A natural process.

Lawrence Solomon:

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 theory’s 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 Earth’s 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 Earth’s 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.

Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years – this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it – because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkbys study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph – only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.

CERN, and the Danes, have in all likelihood found the path to the Holy Grail of climate science. But the religion of climate science won’t yet permit a celebration of the find.

It is up to everyone who reads about the CLOUD results to spread the word, to ask question, especially of our political leaders.  Are they aware of the results, and if they are not, why not?  If most of the warming is coming from the stars, why are we paying billions to modify our life styles to reduce CO2 emissions. Warming and cooling is a natural process that is not controlled by humans!

7 thoughts on “The science is getting settled, but no celebration yet.

  1. bob August 30, 2011 / 8:29 pm

    This experiment look like a large Wilson’s chamber used back in the time of Marie Curie to visualise the trajectory of particules in atomic physic. The principle was that ionizing ions was creating droplet on their way thru the chamber… It’s quite obvious that the same phenomenon occure in our atmosphere and contribute to creation of cloud… (Mr wilson created this chamber for studying fog and cloud if my memory is right.)

  2. bob August 30, 2011 / 8:33 pm

    “If most of the warming is coming from the stars, why are we paying billions to modify our life styles to reduce CO2 emissions. ”
    The only explaination I can see is peak oil (gaz & coal), a subterfuge to reduce oil consumption to avoid societal collapse with a shrinking energy supply. You know they can not tell peoples the truth it’s too simple and the paranoid fear of panic forbid it…

  3. papertiger September 1, 2011 / 3:54 am

    Oil is a renewable resource anyhow.

    This is a good dig Russ. The crew has been hard on poor Jasper Kirkby for the “sin” of not mentioning Svensmark’s priority. Now we know why.

  4. papertiger September 1, 2011 / 4:32 am

    Bob, there have been people predicting peak oil since guess when?

    At least 1885.

    In 1885, the state geologist of Pennsylvania declared that “the amazing exhibition of oil” for the past quarter century had been only “a temporary and vanishing phenomenon—one which young men will live to see come to its natural end.” Some executives at Standard even suggested, of all things, that Standard Oil exit the oil business.

    That state geologist probably had a stake in the first wind turbine manufacture.

    • bob September 1, 2011 / 5:05 am

      «Some executives at Standard even suggested, of all things, that Standard Oil exit the oil business.»
      My point, now we have political leaders who beleave that oil is “a temporary and vanishing phenomenon—one which young men will live to see come to its natural end”. We don’t need it to occure in real life, we only need those political leaders to beleave it. (The same thing can apply to CO2 hysteria, btw.) Political leaders are usualy patented ignorant, even basic principles of physics.

  5. gjrebane September 1, 2011 / 11:13 am

    Russ, I believe that an important contribution of your new publishing effort here is to devise an ‘AGW political sentiment’ metric that you can periodically update and post. It would graphically indicate the progress/regress of how members of Congress incline toward or against more restrictive laws/regs designed to save humanity from AGW.

    Without such a method of keeping score, all we see is an interminable stream of pro/con AGW arguments founded on everything from independent science to pure emotion. And seeing these, we have no means of knowing whether any of these efforts are having an effect where it counts.

    • Russ September 1, 2011 / 8:16 pm


      Great idea. I will start with the political candidate and then expand to the Congress.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s