back to article CERN 'gags' physicists in cosmic ray climate experiment

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 …


This topic is closed for new posts.
  1. FreeTard

    Plausable but irrelevant

    "Tiny changes in the earth's cloud cover could account for variations in temperature of several degrees...."

    It's not really an argument, because we would still have the major issue of sea water acidification to deal with, and that my friends is caused by carbon emissions.

    1. Anonymous Coward


      The oceans are not acidic, and never have been.

      The oceans are not becoming acidic.

      The pH value appears changes, but nothing like acidification is taking place.

      So, folks, just keep swimming in the ocean, you won't dissolve, and neither will the shellfish

      1. steviesteveo

        Im meeeeeeeeeelting

        re: Posted Monday 18th July 2011 14:23 GMT

        I think that's a misunderstanding of terminology. "Acidification" isn't crazy melting, Wizard of Oz stuff. It's a change in ph.

        Terminator because of the bit at the end of Terminator 2.

    2. Anonymous Coward

      You've earned your name

      Except slightly warmer (2C) air doesn't acidify anything.

      Coral reefs thrive in warmer temperatures:

      Corals rebound from bleaching in a few years:

      Oceans report cobbled together by eco PRs:

      10x CO2 level doesn't harm sea life:

      You can always spot the Moonbat readers, they foam at the mouth telling us the world is ending. Then the facts come out.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        In my marine aquarium, if the pH changes just a couple of points, the coral growth is retarded, if it stays that way for long the corals die.

        1. peter_dtm

          nag nag nag nag - ok here's a title

          the screamed about changes to the sea are somewhat less (by an order of magnitude) then normal aquarium ph indicators can resolve.

          The oceans are alkaline. They will remain alkaline even if we continue burn fuel to make cheap energy.

          And you are aware of course that rain is naturally acidic ?

        2. gostafunke


          When your aquarium water ph changes, it is usually caused by too much nutrients dissolved in it. Massive nutrient and chemical runoff from cities and modern agriculture are the cause of problems for coral reefs, not some cow farting. Blame co2, pay co2 taxes to UN and coral reefs and shelled organisms will still be in trouble. World dominating chemical agrar companies are quit tight with global government. NO plans to stop destroying the oceans and the vital soil on land. The chemical substances put in almost every product consumed or used by humans in any way come from these companies.

          Almost all of this ends up in the oceans along with wasted soil nutrients and human manure. Just have a look at chinas eatern coast. Algeas like other plants thrive on co2, but it is still the runoff nutrients and chemicals that are the real cause behind the excess growth of algea -- the algea then deprive the sea of oxygen, and there you have it = Deadzone in the sea . Just like in your aquarium. A lot of people get cause and consequences mixed up these days. Seems like co2 tax promoting agents are desperate to claim this so called "sea accidification" as a last stand to bring in massive taxations of the human breath.

      2. OziWan

        re: You've earned your name → #

        I can also post links I guess that will tell you Jim Morrison is alive, God created the world in seven days, sex with children is really quite OK and that men never landed on the mood. The list is endless.

        The evidence for the anthropological effect on CO2 level is absolutely insurmountable. CO2 levels can be measured in Antarctic ice over thousands of years, To argue against it and call it an 'hypothesis' like the article writer did is no different than the creationists calling Darwin's work a 'theory' in some hope of debasing it by using terms that most non scientific people do not understand.

        There are other factors. There have been regional warm ups and even cool downs over the time we are able to measure, no one disputes that. Ccosmic rays, sun spots etc. do play their role as well, no one disputes that. The influence that mankind has, is however the one part we can control, should we wish to.

        This is not political correctness, the scientist in question is simply pointing out that some people will be quick to misuse such research so 'be careful'.

        1. rciafardone

          Yes, but thats not the point.

          There is no argument against the increase of CO2 emissions caused by man. But that is one thing and another is to be 100% sure that THAT will cause "climate change". Remember how this started as "global warming"? It started as such because the consensus was that the increased CO2 emissions would cause (and were causing) the average temperature of the planet to increase, or so the models showed. Thing is the models where wrong, avg temp is nor increasing, so now they are spinning it as "well, is not really that we are getting hotter, is just that THE CLIMATE IS CHANGING".

          Earths climate is always changing, the Egyptians new a much more greener land that today just to cite an important local variation in human recorded history, and it will keep changing. we will get another ice age and another very warm age but it is very unlikely that will be in our lifetime or that of the next few generations. The sea level will go up and down, rain will stop in some places and start in others, is inevitable. We should focus our energy (pun bloody intended) in developing the food production techniques that will allow humanity as the global culture that is today to survive.

          1. PatientOne

            Mostly right...

            ..except we should be at the end of the current ice age and moving into a temperate age. That should be happening... well... now. As in this very minute. Or maybe this year. Or next. Or the year after or in the next ten years, or a hundred, or perhaps a thousand. It's not that exact a science.

            Go look it up: There are plenty of text books out there that will give you the details. What's more: We (well, environmental scientists at least) have been predicting this for... well... since the Victorians. It's not new, it's old news, so no one really cares.

        2. Chris007

          pls explain 1000 - 1200 warm period

          Whilst "The evidence for the anthropological effect on CO2 level is absolutely insurmountable" is perhaps true - That this is the holy grail to explain climate change (particularly the warming brigade) is clearly nonsense.

          See title and explain using current IPCC models......

        3. Anonymous Coward

          re: OziWan

          "The evidence for the anthropological effect on CO2 level is absolutely insurmountable. "

          If that was true, there wouldn't be a problem. CO2 and temperatures are now out of phase and the climate sensitivity is hugely contentious.

          Banding insults like "creationists" about doesn't really help your cause.

      3. Geoffrey Swenson

        Wrong ...

        The acidification isn't caused by the warming, but by dissolved CO2. Anything sea organism that makes calcium carbonate shells or skeletal structures exposed to the seawater is vulnerable to the excess acidity as it leaches calcium from their shells.

  2. jake Silver badge

    During the meanwhile ...

    As we enter a Maunder Minimum, shall I book tickets for a Frost Fair on the Thames in 2030ish? Or is the concept so politically adrift as to be ... well, "ignored" would be a good word ;-)

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: During the meanwhile ...

      If you're so confident of cooling, as a few people seem to be, why not get into various futures that would appreciate if cooling were to occur? Put your money where your mouth is!

      1. Tom 13

        Because the warmists would pull the same sorts of political strings

        to bust those investments that the SEC pulled when they deemed silver to have exceeded it's "proper" trading range vis-a-vie gold.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          Re: Because the warmists would pull the same sorts of political strings

          "to bust those investments that the SEC pulled when they deemed silver to have exceeded it's "proper" trading range vis-a-vie gold."

          Absolute nonsense! You're saying that the SEC and "warmists" would kick out instruments across the breadth of the financial spectrum. Just pick some kind of commodity future that would benefit from a warmer planet, or just go into insurance and take bets on catastrophic weather events caused by climate change that you won't think will become more frequent or more severe (but where you'll probably be able to increase the cost of coverage because everybody is anticipating that they will be both of those things). No-one is going to gut either of these things because it would undermine the financial sector completely.

          All this "warmist" conspiracy stuff is nonsense, especially when measured up against the established financial practices that supposedly regulate the economy and that have had fierce scrutiny in recent times and yet withstood such scrutiny. You could argue that policy-makers and regulators are showing a soft touch, but this only makes the "SEC and warmists seized my assets" outcome even more remote.

    2. Dave 142


      We are not entering a Maunder Minimum. Lewis Page says so, but the scientists he refers to do not say that. It's wild speculation.

      1. Antony Riley


        Whist the original person predicting the solar minimum which may or may not be happening at the moment was an astrologer, and probably doesn't qualify as a 'boffin' by the registers stringent policies, at least his theories cover more of "observable, repeatable, testable, falsifiable, reproducible" than modern climate science.

        1. Michael H.F. Wilkinson Silver badge


          as an amateur astronomer, with a long log of sunspot counts, I am seeing a very quiet sun in the last few years. The last minimum was very deep, and much too long, the current maximum is occasionally throwing up fireworks, but I have also seen some very quiet periods, unlike anything I got in the late 1970s, early 1980s when I started observing.

          The current low activity may be a glitch, but it seems to be part of a trend. We may well be in for a prolonged period of low activity, which could be similar to the Maunder minimum.

          Pity for those who invest heavily in a hydrogen alpha filter for their scope if it is true, because the fireworks they will get to see with this expensive kit may be less than hoped for.

  3. Devon_Custard
    Thumb Up

    Erm, Hockey Stick.......

    Does "Hockey Stick" indicate a new Reg measurement value? Temperature over time in hockey sticks?

    Are CERN taking on any others? Sheep in a vaccum perhaps?

  4. DJ 2

    Here's one Graph

    And here is another,

    They look similar but you shouldn't draw any conclusions. Because politically, it's inadvisable to say that they are similar and I'm certainly telling the press that you can't say ANYTHING about the two similar graphs stacked one on top of the other..

  5. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    their money is politically sourced, entering into such a politically controversial arena would certainly be a but stupid, if not suicidal.

    After all, it is not as if their research has much to sell is it ?

  6. RobE

    Could be good not to draw conclusions

    Can we really afford to be wrong on this? the risks of assuming one factor is outweighs other factors at this stage are too high in my opinion. better safe than sorry

    1. Captain Save-a-ho

      But more importantly

      there's two other reasons why not to draw conclusions:

      1. Staying away from the political fracus should prevent the desire for CERN funding reviews by those holding the purse strings.

      2. Scientists still don't have nearly enough information to draw any significant conclusion on the causality of climate change, which seems like if they don't want to "jump the gun" on the current results fearing a) that the current situation with human influence has been overstated; b) that additional research may come along to contradict or further shift the current climate change theories.

      Setting aside any argument for or against human climate impact, I think the latter is just as scary from a scientific standpoint. The whole debate seems to be more like research performed using a Magic 8-ball, where every time they look into the situation then they get a different result. Certainly makes things seem less scientific, though the general populous doesn't see all the details (nor would most of us want to).

    2. Greg J Preece

      You've got that wrong

      It's not that they want people to consider this evidence over all other evidence - it's that they want people to consider it at all. The IPCC sure don't!

      1. Tim Parker

        @Greg J Preece

        "It's not that they want people to consider this evidence over all other evidence - it's that they want people to consider it at all."

        With respect to 'evidence' - you do understand that there is no question of suppression of data at all here, don't you ?

    3. strum

      Can we really afford to be wrong on this?

      Yeah. It would awful if we made the world a better place, for no reason at all.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        @ strum

        Your idea of "a better place" isn't one shared by most normal people.

        We prefer to be richer, not poorer. We prefer a modern scientific civilisation, not a medieval superstitious one. We prefer a consumer driven society, in spite of all the crap it produces. We prefer freedom to pointless regulation and carbon controls.

        Now be a good lad, strum, and go and rub two sticks together: there's a fire needs a'lightin' !

  7. Inachu
    IT Angle

    On the far side of things.

    In other words this could be part of the Project Blue beam effiort.

    Basically what this is about if true is the beams in this article is to create clouds so that a 3D image of religious picture or image can be generated along side with ELF waves enter the persons mind thus making him/her think they are hearing voices. Project Blue Beam per the nut house jobbers say this is going to be done to start off the new world order and all nation boundaries will be destroyed and the only country allowed to live will be Israel.

    1. Robin 1


      I googled Project Blue Beam and now I'm stuck spending the next two hours reading the 'educate yourself' website. I'll probably spend the next two days laughing incessantly, randomly throughout the day, freaking out my co-workers and finally spending months purging the useless data from my brain.

      Thanks for nothing. For the love of God, next time, post a warning! :)

    2. Steven Roper

      Having read

      that educate-yourself website (thankfully I can speed-read so I didn't have to waste too much of my life), there are a few things I'd like to add:

      1) That site is THE archetypal epitome of "tinfoil-hat-wearing-nutjob". Seriously. Actually, not seriously, go and read it for some real belly laughs.

      2) It states that one of the first goals of the "antichrist" and the NWO is to eliminate Christian and Islamic belief systems. All I can say to that is, if only the NWO *was* real and they really did have anti-religion mechanisms to wipe out or deprogram all the religious nutjobs - speed the fucking day!

      3) The site goes on and on about mind-control rays and telepathic devices (where's your tinfoil hats guys?) being from technology that existed back in the 70s and 80s, that has now been refined to such a level that it's available to the mind-controlling NWO shits right now. OK then - if the technology exists now, and has for a while, why all the need for "preparation?"

      Why haven't the Evil Illuminati Overlords(tm) just switched the fucking thing on and zombified the entire planet already, no muss, no fuss? Could that be because (shocker!) it DOESN'T ACTUALLY EXIST?!?

      Thanks for pointing me to that Blue Beam stuff. I haven't had a good belly laugh for quite some time. For those who have some time to waste and want to have a good giggle, you can find it here:

  8. jake Silver badge

    @AC 12:33

    Actually, I work both sides ... A large portion of my portfolio is in GSHP technology ;-)

    But I honestly think that human-caused global warming is a mass-media induced hysteria at best, and mass hubris at worst. I could be wrong. It's been known to happen. I'm only human.

  9. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    re: Consensus science

    When I go to hospital I want my treatment to be based on consensus science.

    It's not an insult, or a bad thing, quite the reverse actually.

    1. GrumpyOldBloke

      re: Consensus science

      Lets hope you have nothing caused by miasma, witchcraft, demonic possession or something that requires you be pumped full of mercury to cure. While consensus can often be readily arrived at, being right can take a little more work and is often not nearly as popular. 1000 fools do not a wise man make.

    2. The Mole

      I prefer expert science myself

      When I go to the hospital I want my treatment to be based upon the opinion of the best specialist expert I can get.

      I don't care if said expert disagrees with my GP (general doctor), hospital junior doctors, nurses, registrars etc.

      The consultant specialising in the condition I have is far more likely to be correct even if their diagnoses is different to the other less specialized doctors.

    3. fatchap


      Like bleeding you with leeches? That was the consensus for many things around 200 years ago.

      1. Robin 1

        Ya never know....

        Strangely, the leeches thing turned out to have a few useful actual applications... ;)

      2. Oninoshiko

        Leaches are still used in medicine

        They are used when reattaching limbs to restore blood-flow.

        But no, that is an archaic treatment... much better to sell more prostetics.

      3. Tom 13

        I hear leeches are making a comeback for certain kinds of illnesses.

        And no, I don't mean the two-legged variety that inhabit Whitehall or DC.

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward


          Ok, you're in hospital with, say, cancer - do you believe the Oncologists - Doctors specialising in cancer treatment - or some self appointed guy from the internet who maybe has a vaguely medical PHd?

          Your wife is giving birth and there are complications do you get a gynecologist or geriatrician?

          Of course, you go with the specialist and the specialists are working from consensus.

          You can mock and talk about leeches all you want, but that was actually the best knowledge at the time, the alternatives were just as bad, if not worse. The consensus changes as new knowledge is obtained and understood - this is the scientific process - at any point in time the consensus is the best option you have.

      4. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        re: leeches

        You do realize that they are still used today, because they're so very good at what they do. The only changes in the last 200 years relate to when, where and why they're used.

    4. Naughtyhorse

      I prescribe a course of....

      leeches :-)

      and if that dont work, then trepanning will fix it

      1. Robert Baker


        I need that like a hole in the head...

        ...erm, wait a minute...

    5. ck+


      the only thing that is still worth about science is disagreement. now, currently, this has become almost a vanishing phenomenon especially with political-scientific-industrial complex "stratagem" abounding. as politics encroaches on science, the number of people like you, who post wrong analogies, will grow.

    6. Scott 19

      @AC - Consensus science

      Try for some learning :-

    7. peter_dtm

      no you don't unless

      consensus science is bad science if the consensus shuts down investigation and innovation.

      consensus science in the 50s said organ transplants were impossible. Hell; consensus 'science' in some parts of the world said transplants between different races were impossible (and where was the first successful heart transplant done ? oh yes; where the consensus science said that it could not work.)

      Look up Lysenko science for a modern day example of politics driving consensus science.

      However if the people in the consensus do not shut down questions and research that would break the consensus then it is probably a good thing.

      There in lies the rub. To be valid science; consensus science demands skeptics.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        Consensus science doesn't demand skeptics

        It demands innovation. You might have skepticism which leads you to your final destination, but more likely (if you look back through the annals), it's not pure skepticism that has driven scientists to discover that consensus was wrong, but new ideas drawn from observation. The problem here is that most people who disagree with the consensus on this topic have made their minds up. I recently asked a creationist which parts of the evidence for evolution they found compelling. The mark of a bigot is that they find all the evidence a joke, or easily refuted. They can spend five minutes online, grab something and paste it. Usually something that appears very obvious, and that scientists shouldn't have missed, and then the only next step available is to suggest that the scientists did see it but suppressed it for some reason. A bigot doesn't find any of his beliefs even slightly questioned by evidence, a skeptic has a specific problem with some of the evidence which leads on to the formulation of new ideas to describe the rest of it. So I guess there are two real questions - which of the evidence for AGW do you find compelling? And what published hypotheses have the scientific skeptics put forward to explain the evidence given for AGW?

      2. Steve Martins

        Those who shout loudest

        Who on earth actually downvoted this?! Its been well established that in a large group concensus typically follows those who are the most dominant, influential or loudest. In fact so strong is the social desire of conformity that in many cases individuals will act against what they know to be true in order to conform. A so called skeptic can, and often is, someone who both knows better and has the confidence and independence to speak out against the majority knowing full well they will be shouted down.

        Some people should learn more about human nature then perhaps take the time to re evaluate the ideas they align themselves with. Believe me, coming to your OWN conclusions takes a hell of a lot more work than people believe.

      3. strum

        Bad science, indeed

        >consensus science is bad science if the consensus shuts down investigation and innovation.

        Which is what the denialists have been doing for the last ten years; shutting down NASA's data-gathering efforts, shutting down EPA's investigation of pollutants, forcing politicians to adhere to the ignoramus's consensus.

        The denialists are the modern Lysenkos - hammering home dodgy 'science', because it fits better with the favoured ideology.

    8. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      RE: Consensus science

      The main difference, between say, medicine and climate change is that we have lots and lots of evidence to back up the consensus regarding medical treatment and no [real] evidence to back up the consensus regarding the effects of climate change.

      If you break your leg you know that the consensus (setting, immobilising the break, physiotherapy etc) has been arrived at through a great deal of trial and error - we don't blood-let any more because we can see it won't make the bone mend any quicker and we don't sacrifice a chicken to ward off infection.

      But with climate change, we don't have enough evidence to say X will definitely happen unless we do Y and stop doing Z - because the things we are talking about (I'm talking about warmaggedon here, not just a few hot summers or a bit more snow in January than expected) have not happened.

      Put it this way, if you had a condition completely new to medical science, with no historic precedent how eager would you be to let them amputate both your arms on the basis that a consensus of doctors agreed it was probably best for you to lose your arms? Personally I would want to keep my arms until they had a better idea of what was going on.

      1. strum


        >we have lots and lots of evidence to back up the consensus regarding medical treatment

        Actually, no we haven't. 'Evidence-based medicine' is a relatively recent phenomenon. A large chunk of our regular medical practice relies on habit/instinct, and has not been tested scientifically.

        On the other hand, climate science has produced acres of evidence.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          "On the other hand, climate science has produced acres of evidence."

          "On the other hand, climate science has produced acres of anecdotes."

          There. I fixed it for you.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            Expert, Anecdotes, Fixed.

            "On the other hand, journalists have produced acres of anecdotes."

            There. I fixed it for you.

            El Reg journalists are NOT scientific experts. Are we clear on that? Do we understand why debating climate science here (when such debate is allowed) is about as unscientific as your average church coffee morning?

    9. Bob. Hitchen

      Understanding the process

      What has consensus science got to do with it? If I get cured I don't care if it's a witch-doctor - go figure. Most surgery is born of past experimentation not science

  10. Nick Galloway

    The politics of science!

    Just when we all thought the Church was backward when they 'suppressed' the observations of Copernicus and Galileo. It seems the IPCC is the new Religion and continues in the excellent tradition of those who would challenge their version of the Truth.

    Pollution of the planet is wrong, agreed.

    Climate changes, and always will.

    Carbon dioxide is essential to life on the planet.

    The IPCC have assisted in the creation of a new commodity and the world is now trading quite literally in thin air. Chicken little must be laughing his little socks off!!!

    No one expects the Spanish inquisition, least of all in the scientific community in this day and age. So much for progress!?

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Re: The politics of science!

      "Just when we all thought the Church was backward when they 'suppressed' the observations of Copernicus and Galileo. It seems the IPCC is the new Religion and continues in the excellent tradition of those who would challenge their version of the Truth."

      Oh yeah, that Dan Brown was right on the money, the Vatican and their antimatter bomb and everything. Oh, and CERN having that spaceplane? The DG must have hushed that up as well.


      "Carbon dioxide is essential to life on the planet."

      I believe the oil companies were saying this quite a bit before they realised that there's an army of gullible people quite happy to say it for them. Nobody's advocating removing all carbon from the planet.


      1. Feralmonkey

        UM no

        studies have shown that CO2 has been a great deal higher (in some cases as much as 3 times current levels) in the past when life (mammalian and reptilian and aquatic) was very abundant so limiting it at a time when geologically speaking the earth is starved for CO2 is ill advised at best.

      2. peter_dtm


        have you seen just how mucj money bp & shell give to greenpeace; wwf; CRU ?

        CO2 is plant food - basic O level biology. Climate has always changed. Climate is a chaotic system. And; if you build a model assuming CO2 is the most important variable (even though you have no idea what variables there are; how they interact over what time period) it should not surprise you when all the model results show CO2 as the most impotent variable.

        Meanwhile real world data continues to falsify the CAGW hypothesis.

        And how much CO2 are they advocating removing ? Any that is beneficial to man for starters. They have this strange idea that a snapshot value of the dynamic climate is the 'right' mix - dispite the fact that CO2 has been over 1000 ppm in the past and at less than 140 ppm plants stop working.

    2. RTNavy

      The Spanish Inquisition????

      No one expects the SPANISH INQUISITION! Wink Wink Nudge Nudge, know what I mean?

    3. Chemist

      "Carbon dioxide is essential to life on the planet."

      Low level are necessary but high levels are lethal - the argument is about the middle ground.and it's possible consequences.

      It's rather like saying iron is a good thing full stop but not mentioning that swords, guns and tanks are built from it

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Or, in other words

        Carbon dioxide IS essential to life on this planet, but 'more' does not not necessarily mean 'better'.

        1. peter_dtm

          hate to break this to you but

          yes it does !

          More CO2 is inordinately beneficial to plants (more crops for less water just for starters). Humans are comfortable all the way up to (and beyond) 1000ppm. Plants thrive best at 5000ppm (but by then humans and most animals are in serious trouble). SO more does mean better - lots more may; however; be too much of a good thing.

          So at a mere 350ppm we are starving the plants and we can comfortably increase CO2 for quite a long time.

          And if CO2 does warm the climate - consider this little problem :

          Does man thrive where it is warm or where it is cold ? Ask yourself why the Viking colony on Greenland managed to get established; and then what killed it off.

          1. PatientOne

            More importantly...

            ...why did the Norse settlers call Greenland 'Green'?

            Could it be that it was once a green and verdant land? And then it got covered in snow...

            1. strum

              Less importantly

              >why did the Norse settlers call Greenland 'Green'?

              As propaganda, selling a godforsaken outpost to gullible settlers.

              Even at the 'peak' of the so-called Medieval Warm Period, Greenland was only marginally less miserable than it is now.

              It didn't end because the climate cooled again. It ended because Inuits drove the settlers out, by hunting the same food.

              This is a classic example of denialists trotting out the same old garbage, no matter how often their lies are debunked.

    4. Chris 3

      Please stop trotting out this nonsense.

      I was happily reading through the comments, staying on a even keel until this old chestnut was wheeled out:

      "Carbon dioxide is essential to life on the planet."

      So what? How is that relevant to *anything*? did you sit there in front of the Japanese tsunami footage smugly opining: "Ah yes, well water is essential to life on the planet".?

      Whether something is essential to life is irrelevant.

      It's nearly up there with:

      "Climate changes, and always will." Yes, and as we know large climate changes have historically caused mass extinctions. So...?

  11. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward


    Couldn't the message just be read as 'publish the results in as accessible way as possible, the interpretation will come later'?

    1. Anonymous Coward


      Actually, one of the original papers on the matter was rejected for publication for unknown reasons.

      CLOUD came afterwards, and will validate that and other research, hopefully resulting in real science. You can expect the CLOUD experimental results to be published - I can hardly wait!

      1. Anonymous Coward

        Home of CLOUD

        For the interested reader, the background is covered here in the CLOUD proposal.

  12. Dragon Dave

    They're not climatologists.

    As the article states, this is only a single input into climate modelling. Particle physicists weighing in directly on Global Warming would be inappropriate, since they wouldn't understand the details of the various climate models this data will go into.

    Hopefully in the coming weeks and months we'll see how this affects our view of the climate.

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Wouldn't understand?

      That's rich. You think that particle physicists would have a problem "understanding" climate models???

      You obviously don't know any particle physicists (I do) and are completely deluded.

      The reason the particle physicists are getting into this is because they can, they have the funding and availability of very expensive, very sophisticated experimental facilities and because there is some very interesting real science to be discovered.

      Stay tuned, the real scientists are about to weigh-in on the matter, and unlike the "climatologists" they will produce falsifiable science upon which we will be able to make quantifiable predictions.

      1. Dave 142

        Manufactured Outrage

        Of course particle physicists aren't too stupid to understand climate models. However, they won't have the full appreciation of all the details as that takes time and effort, time and effort they'd rather spend on particle physics.

        1. Philip Lewis

          Hey Dave, why don't you read this

          Go to the CERN website for the CLOUD experiment.

          Locate the link for the proposal for the CLOUD experiment from 2000 (over 11 years ago!!)

          Read at least the first two chapters.

          Having done so, you will immediately recognise why you statement is bullshit, and how exposed your ignorance is.

          I encourage others to extend their grasp of the importance of CLOUD by reading the proposal.


      2. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward

        @AC 1432

        Particle physicists don't automatically know everything about all science. I heard Brian Cox the other day saying that a cold can be cured by an antibiotic - he was rather swiftly pounced on by Ben Goldacre...

        The point is that there is far more than just one area of knowledge involved in climate science, off the top of my head there are:

        Environmental Physics

        Environmental Chemistry

        Electronics (obtaining data)

        Engineering (design of data gathering equipment)

        Quantum Physics

        Cybernetics (Feedback system)

        Maths / Statistics

        Computer Science


        No one person can understand, which is why you should be suspicious of any one person who thinks they can. This is exactly the reason that CERN tell their scientists to toe the company line and not speak out of tern. They do the same with LHC output as well.

        1. JadedIdealist


          you forgot geology and paleontology - the major strands of evidence that the baseline temperature is controlled by CO2 levels which other effects (Milancovich cycles etc dance around).

    2. h4rm0ny

      Re: They're not climatologiststs...

      Ah yes, those noted core elements of science: Physics, Chemistry, Biology, Climatology. Wait, what? Climatology is only recently a booming field and is actually populated by scientists from all disciplines? So why declare that particle phycists explicitly doing climate research, with the goal of learning more about how the climate works, are not "climatologists" just because they happen to come from a Physics background.

      Do you think, would you prefer, that climate science was somehow its own branch of science distinct from Physics, et al? That's not going to work.

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        I think you misunderstand, it's not that Particle physicists aren't needed in climate science, they are needed and they are involved. The point is that they aren't the be all and end all, they don't have the requisite experience in all of the fields, no-one can, it's too complicated. Particle physicists involved in climate science are however, certainly going to be a better people to ask about climate science that those who aren't. Hence CERN telling their guys not to make public judgments on subjects that they don't have experience in.

        There is a lot of people working in their specialist areas and then discussing their work and its implications with people in other areas. They then come to a consensus (oh, noes!) as to what they think is actually happening.

        1. Mark 65


          Although they may not be a master of all fields I would happily wager that most physicists at CERN have a greater grasp of mathematics, statistics, modelling, time-series analysis etc than most of the climate science monkeys out there whose experiments and modelling outputs cannot be reproduced. Mainly because that reproducibility is at the core of what they do.

          1. Anonymous Coward
            Anonymous Coward

            @Mark 65

            Why would you wager that?

            Ok Physists are a subset of climate scientists, so it's highly unlikely that they would understand it better but even if Physicists did understand, say, modeling better than other climate scientists they still aren't going to understand the inputs of the outputs without the other scientists.

            Just look at the discovery of DNA - Crick and Watson were rubbish at x-ray christalogrophy, they could interpret the images to a certain degree, but they couldn't make them they had someone else (whose name iludes me) to do that for them. DNA is far simpler than climate science.

  13. envmod

    knew it

    i just knew it.

  14. Qwelak

    Shouldn't that be

    Cosmics Leaving Outdoor Droplets - CLODs

    seems more appropriate for the politcally correct bias

    Just saying....

  15. George Kapotto
    Black Helicopters

    Any credible scientist...

    ...will acknowledge that correlation does not equate to causation. If there is something here, it should be validated before anyone jumps to conclusions.

    Besides, it is all actually a covert strategy of the pro-AGW camp. For years now, the anti-AGW crowd has been contesting the accuracy of historical temperature records. To accept cosmic rays as a temperature driver, Anti-AGW-ers will need to endorse the proxy temperature records and them 'Bam!', cosmic rays will be discredited .

    The Anti-AGW group will be forced to acknowledge the temperature record or look foolish, jumping back and forth between arguments of convenience to defend their position.

    Don't get sucked in. Demand verification of cosmic ray causation before jumping on the bandwagon.

    1. Daren Nestor

      Any credible scientist

      will acknowledge that causation implies correlation and therefore correlation is a good place to start investiagations.

      1. John 211

        I agree with your sentiment...but

        The flying spaghetti monster web site has a lovely correlation chart between 'bad shit happening' and 'the reduciton in the number of pirates'. Would a 'credible scientist' therefore start investigating the reduction in pirates?

        Correlation != causation, you must find the mechanism instead

        Having said that, I'm actually on your side in this :-)

        And I can;t wait until they un-gag the real scientists.

        1. Sir Runcible Spoon



          That's a really bad example mate, if the pirates were indeed the ones causing all the 'bad shit happening' then this would be a credible line of investigation. If it turned out to be true you would never know, because you've discounted it as bad science.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      nice idea, but..

      "To accept cosmic rays as a temperature driver, Anti-AGW-ers will need to endorse the proxy temperature records and them 'Bam!', cosmic rays will be discredited ."

      Nope. Sensible sceptics accept the value of some proxies like the isotope ones used to create the graphs shown. Other proxies, like ones using wooden thermometers made from bristecones or sediments used upside down and where they can't be calibrated are already pretty discredited. CLOUD may just add aditional verification to previous CCN experiments and provide a mechanism that may explain part of climate change.

      CERN's position is pretty reasonable given all they should be doing is publishing the results and data from their experiment. Climate related conclusions would then be up to other scientists to figure out.

    3. Philip Lewis

      No, actually

      Go read the CLOUD proposal, where the science is discussed in detail, and your ignorance will be cured.

  16. Tom 13

    While we could do with a bit more reticence on the predictions,

    the gag order is definitely politics intruding into science. But then that isn't anything new in the AGW arena.

  17. 100113.1537

    So that's OK then...

    - pro-IPCC results are to be (over-)interpreted, but if they question the concensus then you should just cut out the conclusion section from the paper.

  18. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Perhaps its time to do it properly...

    Maybe a few top-notch particle physicists can move into the climatology area and sort out a new model based on correct data and ignoring the assumptions put out by the AGW and non-AGW crowds. After all, its got to be easier than the unified theory...

    1. Ken Hagan Gold badge

      Re: After all, its got to be easier than the unified theory...

      I'm not sure about that. To a particle physicist, climate science probably looks like a many-body problem.

      "Many" in this context means "larger than two" and such problems are "Hard" in the sense of "starts with being fundamentally insoluble and goes exponentially downhill from there". I rather suspect that such people would inject a much-needed dose of rigour and caution into the whole debate, so I'd welcome their input, but I wouldn't expect them to come up with better theories.

      1. Tom 13


        while particle physics may be arcane and a true lair of the boffin, the underlying equations are converging equations, not the divergent ones of chaos theory.

        1. Ken Hagan Gold badge


          "the underlying equations are converging equations, not the divergent ones of chaos theory."

          Nit-pick, they're only converging once you've renormalised away all the pesky infinities.

      2. John Smith 19 Gold badge

        @Ken Hagan

        In Jon Bentley's "Programming Pearls2 there is an example of a many body problem studying the formation of galaxies. The researcher involved knocked the run time from 1 year on a big PDP down to 1 day (same PDP + numeric processor)

        The trick is to *prove* that the approximation you used to get the problem small enough and fast enough *preserve* the validity of the simulation afterward.

        I would expect physicists to use fewer fudge factors, document their work a hell of a lot better and quantify their error bands a lot better. I'd also expect them to be a lot more pro-active in finding ways to *eliminate* the fudge factors and quantify them in terms of stuff you can actually *measure*.

      3. Bob. Hitchen

        The kind old Sun would know.?

        The main reason I think AGW is junk science is because they have downplayed the Sun's PREDOMINANT role in anything climate. Let me remind you that the Sun is one massive entity - slight changes there have enormous effects elsewhere. It really is simple the Earth hardly retains any heat without cloud cover. Oh and the clouds are not CO2.which is a pitiful fraction of the Earth's atmosphere.

  19. Anonymous Coward


    "clouds" (aka water vapour) are the predominate greenhouse gas (>95% of the combined effect)

    The CLOUD experiment (and the less precise predecessor experiments) suggest very, very strongly that cosmic radiation influences, very directly, and in a scientifically measurable and verifiable way, the creation of clouds.

    When the physicists get done extracting the real science, we will have the basis for measuring something where a sound theoretical prediction can be made - and seeing if the measurements support the science.

    There is a very real chance that CLOUD will find the CO2 AGW "concensus" wanting, and wanting rather badly.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward

      "clouds" (aka water vapour) are the predominate greenhouse gas

      water vapour is I think, but clouds are not water vapour they're water droplets (hence the need to nucleate)

      1. envmod


        clouds are made of condensed water vapour

        1. craigj


          "clouds are made of condensed water vapour"

          I thought clouds were made of servers in data centres... wait, am I on the right website?

  20. F111F

    Circumspection vs Obeisance?

    It's one thing to expect your scientists to have some circumspection when it comes to offering their opinion on what the results of one experiment/study has on climate change. It's quite another to order their silence. And scientists wonder why the average non-scientist thinks there are shenannigans going on behind the scenes...

    I'll get my coat, but the IPCC has forbiden me from wearing it in public and I don't want to jeopardize my funding stream, so I'll just fold it over my arm and proclaim that the coat was available to the public for their viewing pleasure.

  21. Beachrider

    As long as the data gets out...

    Any analysis can be labeled 'slanted'. The most important thing is for the data to get out to the scientific community. Short term advantage could fall to politically-connected action groups, but proper data always stands the test of time.

    Over time, short term agendas usually get priority-sorted.

  22. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    I've wondered: where was it before?

    I've often wondered - If all oil/coal/gas is "fossilized carbon", where was that carbon before it was fossilized? Out in the biosphere, perhaps?

    And if releasing all that fossilized carbon into the biosphere will doom the Earth to become as hot as Venus, as some people assert, then why did that not happen back pre-fossilization?

    Of course, I say "build breeder reactors, turn the CO2 into nanotubes, and get busy building my Beanstalk!"

    1. envmod

      mainly plants

      All the carbon was locked away in organic matter (which was once alive and on the surface of the planet) - mostly plant life, but also animals. Over millions of years, pressure and heat transformed the organic matter into oil,coal and gas. It's only when you burn the oil, coal and gas that you releasr the carbon - burn a plant and you also release carbon, it's just that the plant won't be very good as a fuel source compared to it's aged and highly compressed ancestors.

    2. itzman

      a good point

      "if releasing all that fossilized carbon into the biosphere will doom the Earth to become as hot as Venus, as some people assert, then why did that not happen back pre-fossilization?"

      That's what bothers me too. If it were that easy to flip the climate with inbuilt positive feedback it should have happened man times in the past when levels were higher than they are now.

      Yes, it has happened, but not associated with CO2.

      Personally I think water circulation is the key to everything. More energy means higher hotter cloud tops means more energy radiated away to space.

      Ocean currents stabilise things as well. cold fresh water sinks and droves latitudinal convectors, cooling the tropics and warming the poles.

      I suspect continental drift makes more difference than CO2...

      The IPCC models do not seem to have these things wholly in them.

      Its one thing to peer review a calculation its another to really validate the data, and a third to come up with a model that contains all the possible feedback systems, especially when we are very very unclear on the details of the convectors and how clouds behave.

      I.e. deductive logic can be checked easily. Primary data can be checked, but its harder, inductive propositions - which the model is , can ONLY be validated by experiment.

      So far the temp rises do not seem to fit the model...

      1. NomNomNom


        No-one asserts Earth will become like Venus, at least no-one relevant.

        "If it were that easy to flip the climate with inbuilt positive feedback it should have happened man times in the past when levels were higher than they are now."

        Positive feedback means the climate changes a great deal. And it has. Past climate is exaftly the kind of thing you'd expect if climate changes were amplified. If they were being dapended by negative feedbacks the Earth's temperature should have hardly change over time.

        "Personally I think water circulation is the key to everything. More energy means higher hotter cloud tops means more energy radiated away to space.

        Ocean currents stabilise things as well. cold fresh water sinks and droves latitudinal convectors, cooling the tropics and warming the poles."

        Which begs the question - why wasn't any of that enough to stop the Earth getting much warmer in the past?

    3. DavCrav

      Early Earth wasn't that nice

      "I've often wondered - If all oil/coal/gas is "fossilized carbon", where was that carbon before it was fossilized? Out in the biosphere, perhaps?

      And if releasing all that fossilized carbon into the biosphere will doom the Earth to become as hot as Venus, as some people assert, then why did that not happen back pre-fossilization?"

      Just should point out that if you are worrying about prehistoric Earth, I should point out that Earth for a while (a few hundred million years or so) was mostly water.

      While I'm not anti- or pro-AGW with this post, can we all shut up about how life was "fine" back then, if only Everest was above sea level? Whether or not AGW is responsible for anything, if we decide that warming is happening, we need to tackle it, whether or not it is man made. If it isn't man made, we might need to alter the methods by which we tackle it, but if half the world floods I don't really care whether it's man made or solar aciivity.

      1. Mark 65


        "Whether or not AGW is responsible for anything, if we decide that warming is happening, we need to tackle it, whether or not it is man made."

        Horseshit, with all due respect. Try to fight Mother Nature and you are doomed to failure. A bloody expensive one involving massive wealth transfer from the poor at that. This really comes back to mankind thinking they are the be all and end all. Self-preservation is always key, but if you're doomed as a species then you're doomed.

        We certainly do not have to tackle that which we cannot change. What are you going to do if it turns out volcanic eruptions are the problem? Fill all fault-lines with ready-mix?

    4. PT

      Never mind about the oil and coal...

      What about the trillions of tons of chalk, limestone, gypsum and other carbonate sedimentary rocks? The amount of carbon in fossil fuels is insignificant by comparison.

  23. Alex C

    It's all Lewis Page's fault

    CERN are quite right to prevent their white-coated chaps talking out of school. Have a look at articles turned up with CERN as a search term over the last few months (notably ones by Lewis Page) and you'll see very clear reasons why they don't want their musings on as yet incomplete research being misinterpreted.

  24. John Savard

    False and Misleading

    If the politically incorrect conclusions about climate change that the results invite are still false and misleading conclusions, and making it clear that cosmic radiation is simply one small factor in climate is important to prevent people from being confused, then I see nothing wrong here.

    There are two scenarios. One is that carbon dioxide emissions aren't contributing much to climate change, and radiation from space or something like that is the main cause of what warming is being observed. The other is that human carbon dioxide emissions are the major cause, and these other factors, while present, are just side issues.

    If the first scenario is true, then trying to keep the truth from coming out is bad.

    If the second scenario is true, as I believe it is, what's bad about making an effort to ensure people won't be bamboozled by con artists - some of whom used to work for the tobacco industry, or tried to deny the ozone hole?

    1. itzman

      Hasn't the ozone hole returned anyway?


      1. NomNomNom


        the ozone hole returns every year. But it's now stopped getting larger and larger and soon will get smaller and smaller and return back to 1950s levels.

        1. Dave Lawton


          That's great to hear, can you quote some links please.

          So the incidence of sunbathing induced skin cancer et al, should start to drop off.

          The problem with all the fuss over climate change, is that it has drawn attention away from issues, which do need, and can be, tackled, like pollution from our 'highly technological society'.

          And no, I don't have answers, but would suggest a read of the 'Seafort' series, starting at the beginning (it's SF), for a possible scenario, if we don't tackle it.

    2. Jellied Eel Silver badge

      2nd scenarion is bad and is happening

      "If the second scenario is true, as I believe it is, what's bad about making an effort to ensure people won't be bamboozled by con artists - some of whom used to work for the tobacco industry, or tried to deny the ozone hole?"

      Nancy Oreskes wrote the book on this. Called 'The Merchants of Doubt', she compared tactics used in the war on tobacco with those used in the global warming PR industry and identified some parallels. What she overlooked is people who worked on anti-tobacco PR have now switched to anti-CO2 PR. So we get bamboozled by PR people trying to convince us that CO2 is bad, often using some pretty dubious science and often not showing their data. CLOUD is going to show their working and their data, even if other climate scientists refuse to do so.

      That'll help us inderstand your two scenarios, and how sensitive the climate might be to CO2. Lots of factors are involved, both anthropogenic and natural, and if we don't really know what the main players are, then we don't know if we're spending money wisely trying to fight the war on CO2.

  25. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    So the hockey stick is BLX then...BUT

    So if we remove the so called "hockey-stick" we see nice correlation, but with that in it does seem a little out of kilt with the other stats...But it still don't mean can't ignore common sence and be less wasteful.

    Still pains me that we have a frige that vents all its extracted heat into a room instead of heating the water some and cookers that when finished cooking don't recycle there latent heat to heat the hot water instead of venting slowing into the room as they cool down, yet obsessed. Guess too many people in the 70's had there hopes pinned on a cheap superconductive material being available by now :|.

    But nice stats and can see were astrophysics and weather forcasting start to cross-over a little bit more than they do now, eventualy. Personaly I utterly understand why they have passed no comment, its one of those hot potoatoes that even if your right your cast aside for not worshiping he hockey stick.

  26. PyLETS

    Extra, extra read all about it

    Doesn't matter if a story lacks evidence and Occam's Razor points to a more logical explanation, older scientists warning younger scientists to be careful about what they say to journalists is obvious fodder for a science conspiracy theory which will always sell better than unbiased science reporting. Person who pays the piper and all that.

    Coming from the world's third oldest profession, recently embarrassed by revelations of story gathering criminality on an industrial scale, need we be surprised ?

    1. John Savard

      Ah, yes.

      Too bad "Climategate" involved hackers stealing the scientists' E-mails instead of News of the World staffers hacking into the scientists' cell phones. Some attitudes might be turning around now if that were the case.

      1. Feralmonkey
        Thumb Down

        Wrong John

        The Climatgate emails were apparently released by an insider not by a hacker at least that's what the police said. They show what is wrong with politically sponsored science, that is the scientists become hostage of a political ideology and too often ignore results that counter what they are "supposed" to find. This helps them keep their job but corrupts science on a horrendous scale.

  27. maclovinz


    ...The Couch Potato Scientists Guild

    Motto: "Purporting to know everything about science".

    Ah well, least they're not 'a-certain-party-who-shall-remain-nameless' from the States....who know all about 'God'.

  28. Anonymous Coward

    hard science...

    is going to dump on soft science. Great scientific discovery has never been done by consensus. And lastly, and personally, global warming is political puke. It stopped me voting. I'd get into more of the science but, why bother. This comment is enough of a waste of time responding to AGW hawks quick on the trigger. May they pay for it all with their own cash and, if they have them, their pensions. And, stop the bull on CO2 you extremist #$&@*#@ arrogant little @%&@s.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      "Great scientific discovery has never been done by consensus" Sorry, but that is complete rubbish. There are some famous discoveries that one person has found, but they are all - eventually - ratified by consensus. Just look at the drug industry you test, test, test and test again until everyone is happy with the result before you use it. The identification of the Human Genome was a group achievement. Rocket science is - except for a few early pioneers - all done by consensus.

      It is however, very, very, rare for consensus to be overturned if there is such a high rate of consensus. There are examples, where consensus has been overturned, such as big-bang vs steady state, or evolution, but these are areas where there was little initial certainty.

  29. Al42


    Anybody else noticed Pooh Bear in the bottom right of the Map ?????

  30. Beelzeebub

    This Earth

    Has been impacted by several large asteriods, such as the one which killed the dinosaurs, but not me. How did the Earth regenerate after the nuclear winters that these impacts caused?

    I think we need to know.

  31. peter_dtm


    Why do an experiment ?

    To test an hypothesis

    What do you do with the results of the experiment ?

    Interpret them in terms of what the experiment was supposed to test (ie agrees with the theory/disagrees with the theory)

    What do you do with the interpretation of the results ?

    Modify the theory so it better describes the real world ie MORE interpretation.

    The result HAVE to be interpreted otherwise the experiment is a waste of time and money – and since I have been forced to become a ‘citizen’ of the EUSSR; rather than remaining a subject of the nation of my birth I object to the waste of my tax £

    but I suspect I'm not welcome here as I do logic not emotions; and so belong in the past of real science not in modern feely cuddly post normal science; so I'll just get me coat

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Object all you like, I revel in the amount of tax money that is given to CERN and big science like it. I would gladly give three, four, five, even twenty times as much tax to CERN as I currently do. Twenty times as much would be something like 20 pence a year.

      You also seem to mis-understand how basic science works - come up with a theory, observe the theory, respond to the results and change your theory based on new evidence, repeat. That's how science works.

      Also, if you do logic and not emotions, how come you can't see the advantages of Europe acting as a collective, together we are the world's largest economy.

      1. peter_dtm

        oh dear

        quote AC

        You also seem to mis-understand how basic science works - come up with a theory, observe the theory, respond to the results and change your theory based on new evidence, repeat. That's how science works.

        end quote

        that's what I said

        hypothesis (it is only a theory AFTER the proof is in and a consensus formed that it accurately describes a facet of the real world - which takes years and lots of experiments)


        INTERPRET the results

        MODIFY (if necessary - or scrap) hypothesis

        No interpretation - no modification.

        and if you did read it you would also notice that I object to paying IF science is not done ie if the interpretation that is required by the scientific method is not made.

        CERN is not an EU institution by the way and is one of the best things around - full of science & engineering. Not to mention IT. And some really GOOD engineering; that allows for some amazing science. In fact why don't we cut all politicians pay by 20% across CERN member countries and give it all to CERN (ok it would probably only pay for a minutes worth of their electricity bill)?

        Why is Europe not logical - because the people who make up the member states that were allowed to have referendums said NO. And the people of the UK who were promised a referendum about membership of a nation-state were never given one. And because Common Law and Napoleonic Law can not co-exist - and why should we give up Common Law ?

        And because most of what we are told about the EU has been lies; the UK politicians ALWAYS deny that the whole purpose of the EU is a single state (not even federal). If it was GOOD THING why do they have to lie about it ? What is logical about that ? I have found that big lies are normally told to hide big nasty truths - and the EU is based on a big lie.

        Power and £ to CERN ! Devil take the lying eurocrats

  32. Disco-Legend-Zeke


    ..."12m muons pass through your body every 24 hours."

    I generally only feel one once a week or so. A "Cosmic Ray Hit," one that strikes a nerve ending in just the right way.

    Sequester Carbon Dioxide, Buy a beer.

  33. Herby

    Experts? Consensus??


    Everyone is an "expert" and with all them "experts", we can have a "consensus". You would think that they know everything. If they are so "accurate" in this "climate change" stuff, predict with 100% accuracy the weather next week.

    Good luck, the weather service can't do that, and they have lots of computers AND real experts to back them up.

    By the way, there is a tropical storm of the US Atlantic Ocean. Have your "consensus" "experts" tell us what is going to happen with it. Make my day!

    Tides come, tides go, but the ocean stays the same!

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      They don't know everything, that's the point of consensus.

      Also, you kind of spoil your post by not understanding the difference between climate and weather.

      Oh and I recognise the quote, but oceans don't actually stay the same.

      1. Feralmonkey

        do you know the difference?

        I know the difference between climate and weather unfortunately most AGW alarmists heretofore referred to as warmista's don't, every weather event in the world is proof of AGW and that is ANY event warm or cold ie snow covered most of the northern hemisphere even areas that haven't seen snow in a century it is proof that the planet is warming dangerously (never mind that is colder in those area's than it has been in a CENTURY.)

        1. Anonymous Coward
          Anonymous Coward


          You mix up localised weather with climate - it can be far colder in one small area, but the world as a whole can be warmer.

          Furthermore, every extreme weather event (and this bit is crucial) *above the average* is a tiny piece of evidence that something is going on. If there are a few years of more extreme weather events, followed by a few of less, it's probably nothing. The problem is that this isn't happening, it is getting warmer, there are more extreme weather events (only just, but there are more and enough to be statistically noticeable) and the question is not if it's happening, but what to do about it.

          1. Anonymous Coward


            "Every event that deviates from the average" might be closer to correct. Meaning of course that NEGATIVE deviations have equal indicative weight as POSITIVE variations. Your statement is a classic failure caused by confirmation bias!

            And in any case - only the climate change extremists (the end of the world as we know it) crowd support the idea that "extreme events" are indicative of AGW. It is simply not true and the evidence is pretty clear on the matter.


  34. Anonymous Coward

    Re: You obviously don't know any particle physicists (I do)...

    Really, you do? Then ask them to explain modern science to you. I have a background in particle physics, and am an accelerator physicist working at CERN. As such, I am very well aware how time consuming it is to stay on top of your current field of research. Just keeping up with some quite specific accelerator research takes an awful lot of time. I read few particle physics papers anymore, despite their relevance. My reading on atmospheric modelling doesn't go beyond Nature.

    I assure you that what I know of modern climate modelling has very real, narrow limits. Of course, I studied fluid dynamics in the past and use lots of numerical codes, but that doesn't mean I could assess the impact of a factor on global climate with any confidence. The atmospheric physicist studied relativity and has experience with instrumentation, but I wouldn't suggest letting him design a particle collider either.

    Of course, either of us could spend years (or less for those polymaths...) retraining and have a crack at the other field, though I somehow doubt anyone working on CLOUD fancies doing that.

    (Nuke, because, well, atmospheric physicist building a particle collider)

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Upvoted, despite the fact you took a swing at me.


      Yep, many a beer evening doing just that. I know more and understand less and have fewer brain cells to show for it :)

      My point was however, a repsonse to a previous post that seemed to indicate that partical physicists were somehow incapable of understanding climatology. This is a patently false and deluded position. The very idea for CLOUD was about understanding the basic science of something observed that has a very high correlation with observed climate, and may in fact be causal (science is pending, coming soon from CERN)

      I was not suggesting particle physics was the be all and end all of science (though if you find the Higgs ...), I was merely suggesting that rigorous experimental science is something particle physicists and CERN do, where as there is IMHO, a lot of less rigorous crap in the climatology field.

      I sort of think it's a bit late for the DG of CERN to go all PC on us. The decision to investigate and fund CLOUD was a decade ago (?) and it was very clear at the time that the results could seriously undermine the AGW political "orthodoxy" by proposing a scientifically verifiable alternative mechanism for climatic variability. Personally, I applaud CERN for the bold decision to advance science.

      Let me know when you find the Higgs btw.

  35. Werner Donné

    Calder wasn't misquoted

    I don't think Nigel Calder was misquoted. Just read the book "The Chilling Stars" he wrote together with Henrik Svensmark. This book makes the case for at least investigating the effect of cosmic rays, which is a correct scientific attitude. The reaction to this from the "scientific world" has been very far from scientific.

    1. Anonymous Coward
      Anonymous Coward


      Of course there is value in investigating the effect of cosmic rays - I know a few climate scientists and they all say it's worth a look - that doesn't mean that there is any consensus on the effects, or that the people at CERN are qualified to judge them.

      1. Anonymous Coward

        It is worth a look

        Svensmark rated a mention in IPCC 4 as is pointed out other places on the net.

        However, the prevailing orthodoxy has limited the ability of Svensmark et. al. to publish, and their work has been denigrated and dismissed very loudly and publicly by AGW supporters (the "Hockey Team").

        Hopefully CLOUD will result in some real, falsifiable science, and we will be able to incorporate this into what we already know about climate (no matter what way the science turns out).

        CO2 forced runaway AGW is not a silver bullet and is an unproven hypothesis.

        Pleasing to hear that there are open minded climate scientists still around.


  36. Martin Usher

    They're trying to do science..... a world where saying or even hinting at the wrong thing can put your funding at risk.

    American scientists are becoming masters at dodging the outside world. You can't argue rationally with belief, especially belief that has little to no scientific training*** and is congenitally innumerate.

    (***After all, we all know that science is just another belief system, isn't it?)

    1. Anonymous Coward

      Ok, if they are trying to do science...

      where are the portals and the cake, hmmmm?

  37. Dodgy Geezer Silver badge

    Rolf-Dieter Heuer Faustus

    "There are some things that Man is not meant to know..."

    Cackles insanely, then pulls huge switch down to start the LHC.....

  38. Adrian Esdaile

    I think those graphs

    absolutely PROVE it!

  39. veti Silver badge

    Nothing to see here, move on

    Could it be that it would just be stupid to speculate about the effects of something for which such scant data exist?

    Let's assume for a moment that cosmic rays create clouds. Let's further assume that you've got enough historical data to show that peaks of cosmic radiation have coincided with above-average cloud cover. (Very dubious already - I seriously doubt if this data even exists on any meaningful scale.) Still we haven't even touched on the longevity or albedo of the clouds thus formed.

    Or we could, instead, compare cosmic radiation history with global climate history. This is inevitably pretty shaky, given that we're comparing two sets of data for which *only proxy records exist* - there are no actual thermometer readings or cosmic ray counts for the year 1300 - and to assume a causal relationship between them would be not merely to jump the gun, it would be to attach a jetpack and overfly the entire arsenal.

    This is an interesting finding, but to draw conclusions about climate change from it would be criminally premature.

    And finally, contrary to the article's tone, it's not "unusual" for managers to admonish their underlings against unfounded speculation in political hot-topic areas. It happens on a daily basis. The issue is that, generally, researchers *are* encouraged to speculate about the possible impact of their work, but when this would expose them to the kind of attention that instantly focuses on anything containing the word "climate", the caveats about the "very early stages" and "much more work needed" will be swept away in a tsunami of axe-grinding.

    So let's not pretend this is news. This is a director doing his job. Give him a nod of thanks or recognition if you like, then move on.

  40. Mallorn

    Request, not order

    Speaking as a particle physicist who works at CERN, but with nothing whatsoever to do with CLOUD, I think the article grossly misrepresents the facts. First Rolf has requested that they refrain from interpretation of their results NOT that they do not publish them i.e. the data will still be out there in the public domain for all to interpret. Secondly the DG of CERN has no ability to prevent experiments at CERN from publishing whatever they like. Technically he may be able to make CERN employed personel remove their names from the paper (although that's not for certain) but most of us working at CERN have positions in external institutes and have the protection of tenure (at least those of us not in the UK) for precisely this reason: we can publish what we like without fear for our jobs.

    Of course you would not lightly ignore the request of the CERN DG, especially when it is a sensible, well reasoned request such as this (sticking to the data is good science and avoids unnecessary politics). However it is a request.

  41. indulis

    The Reg gags the facts, tells readers to accept another conspiracy instead

    Anyone interested in some evidence that even massive amounts of cosmic rays don't have a significant effect on climate should look at Richard Alley's 2009 lecture to the AGU. A good chance to get educated about cosmic rays and how CO2 has saved the planet due to its properties to cause a 3C rise per doubling of concentration (the earth would not have come out of "snowball earth" if this was not true). Another line of evidence that supports the other lines of evidence from other studies. He also talks about the times in the past where the earth was bombarded by high concentrations of cosmic rays, yet they seemed to have little influence on climate.


    "In order for GCRs to successfully seed clouds, they must achieve the following three steps.

    1. GCRs must induce aerosol formation

    2. These newly-formed aerosols must grow sufficiently (through the condensation of gases in the atmosphere) to form cloud-condensation nuclei (CCN)

    3. The CCN must lead to increased cloud formation."

    The CERN CLOUD experiment addresses point 1, but does NOT include any modelling of what happens to any nascent clouds. So you can understand CERN saying to avoid talking about 2 and 3 as a reminder to scientists that are not in the field of modelling climate systems and feedbacks, and that the hunger for headline fodder by AGW skeptics means that ANY comment in any way related to climate will be used as proof that cosmic rays cause climate change. Well, we can see the proof that even before they speak by the headlines in The Register.

    "And since 1990, galactic cosmic ray flux on Earth has increased - "the opposite direction to that required to explain the observed rise in global mean temperatures" (Lockwood 2007). In fact, cosmic ray on flux recently reached record levels. According to Richard Mewaldt of Caltech, "In 2009, cosmic ray intensities have increased 19% beyond anything we've seen in the past 50 years." "

    So while cosmic rays have been going up we've been warming up, not cooling down. And with no discernible increase in clouds near the equator and the poles where cosmic rays should have the most impact.


    ... for some actual science and common sense, rather than speculation about YACT (yet another conspiracy theory, which seems to be all The Reg's "science" writers are capable of doing, apart from claiming that leaking nuclear plants are safe).

    Hey, and where is the report in The Reg about the fact that AGW skeptic Dr Richard Muller (partly paid by AGW skeptics and Tea Party founders/funders the Koch brothers) reanalysed the data and disproved the "badly sited temperature stations are part of a conspiracy to show global warming" theory. But hey, why expect BALANCED coverage here, especially if it does not fit in with the presumption that more CO2 is fine. Even if it is real science. Even if it was done by a self confessed AGW skeptic. It also

    Where are the headlines, Reg? "Climate skeptic proves no conspiracy- temperature stations OK, confirms rise in US temperatures!"

  42. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    CERN physicists not gagged ..

    A total misrepresentation and distortion of what Rolf-Dieter Heuer actually said and meant. And I would have thought that doing an interview with Welt Online was one sure way of not suppressing evidence. Rolf-Dieter Heuer: "I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them". Here's another non-gagged post by Jasper Kirkby lead scientist at the CLOUD experiment:

    “until this natural contribution to climate change is well understood there will be a big uncertainty as to what is going on with mankind’s contribution.”

    Video: "Evidence of pre-industrial solar climate variable" Jasper Kirkby (speaker) (CERN)

    "CLOUD is an experiment that uses a cloud chamber to study the possible link between galactic cosmic rays and cloud formation".

  43. John Smith 19 Gold badge

    Anyone ever wonder why the sensor is called a "Cloud" chamber?

    As well as a Wilson chamber.

    Wilson was inspired by the formation of dew droplets in nature.

    It was *the* tool for particle physics for roughly 40 years.

    BTW Particle physicists and high energy astronomers have been using high altitude balloon and sounding rocket instruments to measure high energy particles in the high atmospheres (80 Kft+) for at least a 100 years.

    IIRC there are also ground based very wide field of view instruments that watch the night sky to detect particle triggered "scintillations" to gather statistics on high energy particles.

    There is a *direct* record of high energy particle impacts on Earths atmosphere.

    It's incomplete and does not cover the whole planet. Then again hanging global warming on *one* tree ring is not exactly "global" either.

  44. Chris Coles


    Simply, why not also reach the conclusion that it is the temperature of the atmosphere that controls the quantity of cosmic radiation detected?

    Without any corroborating evidence; it is entirely possible that we might conclude that the temperature controls the data, rather than radiation controls.

  45. Quoffer

    Happy memories

    The general mentality of this debate reminds me of a similar debate which I was foolish enough to engage in a few years ago, namely the Evolution vs 'God created the world in 6 days 6000 years ago'. As an evolutionary biologist I mistaken allowed myself to be drawn into debates with so-called 'creation scientists', many of which held PhDs and scientific qualifcations (one was even an acedamic at a leading UK university). I was always frustrated by how they would take scientific findings which questioned cetain aspects of evolutionary theory and then state that this this 'proved' evolution to be wrong. They were so blinkered by their view that evolution was wrong that they would jump on any evidence that showed certain flaws in evolutionary theory (of which there are a few) rather than looking at the bigger picture which overwhelmingly supports it.

    What is interesting here is that: a) This is very much the same mentality as that used by most climate-change sceptices; and b) The young earth creationists were also climate change sceptics and would agree with many posts here.

    Ha, happy memmories...

    1. Chris007

      not me.

      Anybody who believes the earth was created in 7 days and is 10,000 (6,000 whatever) yrs old is, frankly, an idiot.

      However I am not convinced by the current argument that man-made CO2 is PRIMARILY responsible for climate change - Anybody who can give me a credible answer to my question (directly below this comment) then perhaps I may be swayed

      1. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        Try having a look at, they're pretty good. It's doubtful that any one person can teach you everything you need to know, it's just too complicated. Be very suspicious of individuals who have an answer to something as complicated as global climate.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          AGW propoganda

          This is a poor place to start. It is a heavily moderated site where no dissenting opinion is allowed to appear, and where the Gavin Schmidt & "Hockey Team" promote their agenda.

          There are planty of alternatives, however if your are suffering from a bout of confirmation bias withdrawal, is the place to go.


  46. Chris007

    To all the Climate change believers

    pls explain 1000ad - 1200ad warm period or mini ice-age using current IPCC models......

    what's that, you can't because there wasn't enough man-made CO2 production back then - oh dear....perhaps the climate is affected by something more significant than CO2 then.....

    1. Chris007

      thumbs down...

      ...yet no explanation why a thumbs down or an explanation to satisfy my question.

      how very expected from the believer brigade

      1. This post has been deleted by its author

      2. Anonymous Coward

        You haven't been following

        You obviously failed to read the "climategate" mails, wherein you will have found the answer.

        The medieval warm peiod has been expunged from the record using specially chosen "tree-o-momenters". By this method the question you pose becomes irrelevant.

        Historians, geologists and quite a few others (statisticians and "tree-o-momoter" experts as well) have some serious issues with the temperature record which excludes the medieval warm period - but for the time being "Gavin Schmidt and the hgockey team" pretty much control the primary information flows and the medieval warm period no longer appears to have existsed


      3. Anonymous Coward
        Anonymous Coward


        I was under the impression that the medival warm period was a localised event and therefore not climate.

        1. Anonymous Coward

          It was global (more or less)

          There is deological evidence to suggest it was in fact global. The jury is out - more research needed - but growing evidence suggests that it was not a limited event.

  47. Anonymous Coward
    Anonymous Coward

    Odds of cosmic ray spike coinciding with industrial expansion?

    Has anyone considered the incredible odds of cosmic rays, a fairly random phenomenon based on distant events, spiking at the same time as a the massive expansion of humanity's industries and carbon output? They must be, er, astronomical?

    Cosmic rays don't have a known pattern like solar behaviour, but they do seem a convenient 'nothing to do with us' excuse for the deniers.

    Either that, or the universe is trying to self-correct humans out of existence before we get off this dirtball and spread our filthy ways to the stars.

    1. viz

      If you read the findings...

      Cosmic rays don't have a known pattern like solar behaviour, but they do seem a convenient 'nothing to do with us' excuse for the deniers.


      Actually when solar activity is high, it seems to deflect cosmic rays, leading to less cloud formation. You can read the science yourself. The phenomena discovered at CERN may also explain why other planets are warming too. Mars is losing it's ice caps. What are the odds that the rate at which the ice caps melting on Mars is spiking at the same time as the massive expansion of humanity's industries and carbon output? Astronomical? Yet there it is...

      You are engaged in a fallacy. The rule you are breaking is "Correlation does not necessarily imply causation". It's quite possible that there are other factors causing the earth to warm besides AGW. I'm not a denier, but until all the facts and proof are in, I remain skeptical of any theory that explains global warming. Anyone that believes otherwise is a fool, like the global cooling alarmists of the 80s. Back then we were going to freeze to death.

  48. Adrian Midgley 1

    30 seconds with Google on IPCC cosmic rays shows the Third Annual Report contains ...

  49. David Robinson 2


    No-one has mentioned the report in the newspaper this morning that a certain professor Steven Rose ? has said that the BBC would not be broadcasting anything that did not go along with the AGW theory. That is as if they hadn't been doing that all along! This at the same time as the announcement about cosmic rays..

    Conspiracy? Hiding the facts? Of course not. It's just that we cannot be trusted with anything but the official line.


    1. Anonymous Coward
      Big Brother

      BBC Policy

      There is a BBC policy statement prohibiting balance on this matter.

      The policy of the BBC is that the debate is over and AGW is the answer.

      I am sorry I do not have the link, go looking for it if you are interested.


  50. Berg

    Good Lysenko Reference

    Today's post-modern climate science is precisely the same thing. The science was equally settled about phrenology. Look up "Pseudoscience" in a dictionary a decade from now and you will find the picture of professional fraudsters Gore/Pachauri receiving the Nobel (peace) Prize.

  51. Anonymous Coward

    One thing I DO know ...

    ... is that this matter will ultimately be settled by the likes of us commentards and professional, ethical journalists like Andrew Orlowski.

  52. viz
    Thumb Up

    Wow some real science...

    This might explain why the rest of the planets are warming too. I'm almost positive that the planetary (planets other than earth) warming isn't happening because of my neighbor's Chevy Suburban.

    I'm not a denialist, because I know the planet is warming. I just have some serious reservations about the AGW alarmists' lack of comprehensive science and their willingness to jump to conclusions before all factors are considered.

This topic is closed for new posts.