I wonder what Al Gore would think about this.

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.”

The unusual “gagging order” could have been issued because the results of CLOUD are really, really boring, muses Calder. Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.

  1. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    OK–so how did they get the measurements of cosmic bombardment from 1000 years ago?

    To the side issue, I don’t think scientists should be censored in any way. The market place of ideas should work that out over time. It makes the underlying political issues just all that more political.

    Bad move.

  2. dusanmal says:

    @bobbo : My field of Science. Same as we measure temperature data from properties of ice laid down thousands (tens of thousands, hundreds of thousands) years ago, we measure concentration of Be11 and Be10 in similar layers of known age. Those isotopes concentrations directly trace amount of energy delivered by cosmic high energy particles [Be10] (and in Be11 case of particles Sun can produce!). I won’t bother you with details but it is well accepted theory supported by decades of experimenting and no known flaws.
    Be11 concentration vs. ice core temperature data is well known “anti-AGW” theory. Be10 data from CERN just underlines what skeptic scientists have known quite well for quite a while and ads to it additional layer (it is apparently not only Sun but more powerful cosmic rays that matter).

  3. Cgp says:

    Here is another one. Dr Hanibal Hansen has forever stated that the Antarctic will melt and cause 75m sea level rise.

    Just go and google Antarctic and check the seasonal temperatures.

    So where are all the scientists pointing out that BS????

  4. Phydeau says:

    “Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets” is CLOD. Just sayin’.

  5. Glenn E. says:

    This isn’t news to me at all. There was this documentary, that managed to get uploaded to YouTube for a while, called “The Great Global Warming Swindle”.


    And in it some UK climate scientist says the very same thing about Cosmic Rays. That he was successful at winning bets on the weather, by observing the concentration of CR each week. And betting whether it would rain or shine, by that record. And the documentary goes on to explain the mechanism. The Solar Winds from the Sun, increased or decreased by sun spot activity, blocks or fails to block, cosmic rays coming to earth from some far off source, like a pulsar. And the rays act to leave ionized trails thru water vapor. Just as they do in cloud chambers in physics labs. In fact this effect has been demonstrated a hundred years. It was discovered by Charles Thomson Rees Wilson in 1894, while he was at the Ben Nevis weather station. And he developed a successful cloud chamber in 1911. So the weather and cosmic rays connection has been well known to physicists for a very long time. They just needed every i dotted and every t crossed, before they’ll admit to it. But they’ve shown very little restrain in jumping to conclusions, when it was all in support of the Climate Change / Global Warming bandwagon.

    There’s just no money in telling us that there’s nothing that can be done about the weather, the sun is strictly in charge of it. Holding up false ecological hopes, as solutions to world catastrophe, gets them grants and book deals. Some “pure” science. Pure BS is what it has been. And this gag order proves they know it. They afraid any little evidence to the contrary will cause their pet theory to crumble, before they can figure out how to explain it away. And believe it, they will. There’s always enough subjective wiggle room in science to baffle the laymen with incomprehensible explanations. And no proof that any of it is factual.

  6. roastedpeanuts says:

    No true scientist can “prohibit” others from drawing conclusions from their work. This goes against the very foundations of modern science. Whatever “conclusion” a scientist makes needs to be supported by further studies and peer evaluations.

    “Or, it could be that the experiment invites a politically unacceptable hypothesis on climate.” -Explain this to those that were killed in arguments over whether the sun revolved around the earth or whether the earth revolved around the sun. If you repeat the same experiment over and over again and come to the same conclusion it does not matter how “politically unacceptable” the conclusion is.


  7. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    Fascinating thread.

    Dusanmal: I respect your expertise—within your area of expertise. How come you don’t exercise your scientific demand for things to be measurable and reproducible/testable when it comes to your political assessments? Seems like you should be more agnostic on almost all issues. But you choose the conservative camp and even spout their unprovable (actually disproved in most cases) dogma.

    Seems inconsistent.

    Any way to predict Cosmic particle input to the atmosphere?

  8. sargasso_c says:

    Cosmic showers, which cause rain. We definitely don’t want to know anything about that.

  9. ArianeB says:

    Until the results are fully analyzed no conclusions can be made, that is just good science.

    Cosmic rays have little to no impact on global temperature, so concludes the latest scientific paper on the subject.


    Recently, the cosmic-ray-driven electron-induced reaction mechanism (CRE) was introduced to explain polar ozone depletion and surface temperature change. It was proposed that the dissociation of chlorofluorocarbons (CFCs) on ice surfaces of polar stratospheric clouds plays the dominant role in forming the ozone hole. Efforts have been made to predict polar ozone loss in future years. It was further proposed that CFCs and cosmic-ray-driven ozone depletion may control global surface temperatures. These assertions challenge the fundamental understanding of Antarctic stratospheric ozone loss and global warming. Here we show that these arguments based on the CRE mechanism are inconclusive. First, correlations of satellite data of CFC-12, N2O and CH4 from ACE-FTS show no evidence of significant loss of CFC-12 as predicted by the CRE mechanism. Second, conclusions drawn about a possible CRE impact on the atmosphere, based on correlations of different observed atmospheric parameters, do not have a physical basis. Finally, predictions on the future development of the atmosphere based on these correlations are not reliable for either the ozone hole or global surface temperatures.


    AGW denialists release press releases, while scientist search for the actual truth.

  10. Glenn E. says:

    “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain” was the line from the movie The Wizard of Oz. This may be the most infamous gag order of evidential inquiry? But less popular was Rome telling Galileo to cool it, on the whole sun-centric solar system idea. Again, the politics of the day, demanded that the church remained the premier authority on all matters concerning God’s creation. So they couldn’t allow some clown like Galileo to cast dispersions on what they claimed to know. The sun revolved around the earth. Just as Aristotle said it did. And the heavily bodies had no imperfections. Even though the craters of the Moon were perfectly visible. God made it a mess, just to test our faith. Or some such explanation. So now it the scientists’ turn to play the cover up game, to protect their assumed mantel of authority. Telling others to “shut the F up”, until they can figure out how to explain it and save their own hides.

  11. The0ne says:

    hahaha, this is quite funny for me. I’m sure some of you remember my sarcasm with the poloar bear and global warming a while back hahaha That and having dark matter, dark energy, cosmic rays, the still unknown gravitanional pull/effect, and other sillier things as the reasons why global was happening.

    Well well, Cosmic you say 🙂 What next Dark Matter energy or the 4th dimensional math properties of the universe having an affect? God forbid it to be so 😀

  12. Glenn E. says:

    “I wonder what Al Gore would think about this.”

    Last I heard, old Al thought the center of the earth was a million degrees hot! Probably because he misunderstood that the center of the Sun wasn’t as hot as its photosphere. And may be about as hot as the center of there earth is. But that doesn’t translate into the earth’s core being as hot as the max temp of the Sun. So NO, Al Gore. You can’t tap the earth, just a few miles down, for unlimited energy. It probably no more than a hundred degrees hotter, for many miles down, in most locations. Not enough to run a power plant. You have to drill near a volcanic fissure. To get enough heat to power turbines. And those places are few and far between. But still. It’s not a bad idea to try it, in more places. It just can’t be done in every town and city. Sorry Al.

  13. Buzz Mega says:

    When God coughs, we get showered in cosmic rays. This whole thing is his damn fault!

  14. msbpodcast says:

    What does this mean?

    We’re all gonna die!!!!

    No seriously…

    Nobody gets out of here alive.

    That doesn’t give us any right to turn the entire planet into a repository for filth, belched from factories and smoke stacks, for oil oozed from a million holes we put onto the planet.

    It doesn’t matter if it directly affects the climate, or causes global warming. Its a stupid thing to do.

  15. Hmm Electric Clouds who woulda thought 😉


    We should all pray to Liam Neeson and Cate Blanchett for mercy!! or not Dvorak? pun you!

  16. Dormeus Jessup says:

    @ Glenn – The Great Global Warming Swindle is still available on Google Video:-


  17. What? says:

    dusanmal said a lot of good things, thank you for your post.

  18. Ed Terry says:

    See Michael Crichton’s take on the “science” of global warming.


  19. MikeN says:

    And I’m sure if the results had shown no effect from cosmic rays, the director would have been equally stern in his command to draw no conclusions…

    Let’s put this in the backdrop of the global warming science. People who were claiming the sun is a major factor were told they were wrong because one factor of the sun, total solar irradiance, had shown very small changes, and the scientists could not come up with a mechanism by which this would affect the planet’s temperature. Really that is how they operate. If they can’t think of an alternative theory, it means your argument should be discounted entirely.

    Now the galactic cosmic rays theory suggests that cosmic rays have a cooling effect on the climate because they are producing clouds which reflect sunlight. A warmer sun will block out these cosmic rays.

  20. Skeptic says:

    There is a ray of hope after all.

  21. dcphill says:

    I remain skeptical. I believe that man (and other life) are but a speck on the chicken’s ass (Earth) and have no meaningful effect on how the earth functions.Our mass is infinitesamal compared to the mass of the earth.

  22. Drive By Poster says:

    Most of the news media was all to happy to mention that that initial study that found that the global temperature increases exceeded what was explained by increases in solar activity. (As “proof” about the effects of greenhouse gasses like carbon dioxide “causing” global warming.) This initial study was the foundational study originally used to push the idea of man caused global warming.

    What those same news media outlets always neglected to mention was that same study also showed that the global temperature DECREASED MORE THAT WHAT SOLAR ACTIVITY DECREASES WOULD ACCOUNT FOR. Which completely squashed the greenhouse gas explanation, which is why they don’t mention that part of the study.

    The science of this article is basically that “solar wind” has the effect of partially blocking cosmic rays. The stronger the “wind”, the fewer cosmic rays reach Earth. As the amount of cosmic rays directly affect cloud formation over low dust areas such as open ocean, the level of cosmic rays directly impacts how much solar radiation reaches the Earth’s surface. Fluffy white clouds bounce solar radiation back into space, as I recall.

    So, low solar wind means “high” cosmic ray levels which means lots of oceanic cloud formation which blocks more sunlight from reaching the Earth’ surface – causing lower global temperatures. And a strong solar wind indirectly causes low cloud formation by the same method, causing the planet to warm.

    So, yes, Virginia, Mr Sun does call the shots not only on weather, but by extension Global Climate, which is just weather over a long period of time.

    The only real reason that this guy is telling other scientists not to draw conclusions is because he knows that the evidence draws attention to the bullcrap logic behind green house gasses and global warming, and desperately wants both policy makers and the public ignorant of the lies regarding greenhouse gas such as carbon dioxide.

    We are in an “interglacial period”. That means that the Earth, by and large will heat up until the beginning of the next Ice Age. Genuine Science has no grounds to presume the global warming is caused by human activity – contribute perhaps, but certainly not the cause.

    By the way, every last global warming computer model is utterly worthless. None of them can “predict” the known past, so there’s neither sane nor rational reason to believe they can successfully predict the unknown future.

  23. Phydeau says:

    People who understand the scientific method don’t “believe in” AGW, nor do they “disbelieve in” it. Science is about constructing theories that most closely fit the physical evidence. As further physical evidence is gathered, the theories are altered. Human politics will always be a part of it but eventually the truth comes out, most of the time.

    Glenn E. said “There’s just no money in telling us that there’s nothing that can be done about the weather, the sun is strictly in charge of it.”

    That’s not true. If AGW is a fact then big energy companies will be pressured to spend lots of money reducing their pollution. If it’s not a fact, if humans have no significant effect on the environment, then they won’t have to. LOTS of money involved. You’re either naive or willfully ignorant.

  24. Skeptic says:

    Re: “You’re either naive or willfully ignorant.”

    I would say that about 80% of earth’s human population is willfully ignorant (through casual observation of worshipers of supernatural beings).

  25. Uncle Patso says:

    If the galactic cosmic rays (GCRs) are supposed to lead to cloud formation, lowering the temperature, why does the GCR chart seem to correlate to _higher_ temperatures on the temperature chart?

    So far this only seems to be adding to the noise in the debate.

  26. bobbo, are we Men of Science, or Devo? says:

    #20–Lyin’ Mike pulls one of his biggest: “People who were claiming the sun is a major factor were told they were wrong ….”//// Really?

    Keep your pants off the ground stumpy.

  27. MikeN says:

    Uncle Patso, The graph has a higher GCR with a down arrow.

  28. dadeo says:

    Hmm, not to haarp, but I wonder if these cloud formation influencing cosmic rays can be stimulated on this end to cause storms, droughts and such?

    Note to self: work the word, “nucleation” into more daily conversations.

  29. So what says:

    #13 As long as its just a cough I can live with it.

  30. BigBoyBC says:

    So CLOUD basically demonstrates that climate change is not just the result of man, but that there are natural reasons for the change… Thus, it contradicts the highly political and potentially lucrative “Global Climate Change” agenda.

    I can understand the gag order, they don’t want their research to be labeled false, politically motivated, and paid for by big energy. They don’t want their scientist to be accused of being “deniers” and having their careers destroyed like so many other who didn’t tow the climate change agenda.


Bad Behavior has blocked 7088 access attempts in the last 7 days.