07 September 2011

Spinning global warming science.

Some scientists speculate that earth's temperature variations might be caused by fluctuating solar winds that impede or don't impede cosmic rays that might not or might cause cloud formation, which affects how much sunlight is not or is reflected by the clouds.

Algore Red Alert.

A CERN experiment was proposed for a cloud chamber and particle beam accelerator.
Mr. Kirkby's CERN experiment was finally approved in 2006 and has been under way since 2009. So far, it has not proved Mr. Svensmark wrong. "The result simply leaves open the possibility that cosmic rays could influence the climate," stresses Mr. Kirkby, quick to tamp down any interpretation that would make for a good headline.

This seems wise: In July, CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer told Die Welt that he was asking his researchers to make the forthcoming cloud-chamber results "clear, however, not to interpret them. This would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate-change debate."[1]
It's not the science of the CERN Director that I find odd as his way of approaching an experiment touching on global warming. It seems perfectly unobjectionable to me that scientists would interpret the results of any experiment with which they're involved.[2] Who better to interpret results than the scientists most closely connected?

Thus, it's seems highly irregular that the Director would ask for non-interpretation given his fear of some outside reaction from scientists and politicians with the highly politicized agenda that we now know all about. Think University of E. Anglia emails.

I'd expect a let-the-chips-fall-where-they-may approach to apply to all manner of scientific inquiry and it's disappointing to see the director of a major institution of science trimming his and his staff's sails to accommodate CO2 gales from AGW votaries.

If the experiment were to validate a theory that creosote interferes with Japanese beetle propagation, would there be a need to keep the researchers involved from speculating about experimental results? Why should there be a different approach just because there is a well-funded, influential, mendacious outside group that might not like the result?

[1] "The Other Climate Theory. Al Gore won't hear it, but heavenly bodies might be driving long-term weather trends." By Anne Jolis, Wall Street Journal, 9/7/11.
[2] Possible exception: nerve gas experiments.


Anonymous said...

It would seem that if results from experiments can not be made then the proper conclusion would be to shut down the CERN facility and save the public some money. Maybe they would do better as wait staff at a restaurant or hotel.

Col. B. Bunny said...


Correct. If the scientists involved can't interpret the findings who should?

And when, for that matter? After the AGW nonsense is placed on the shelf next to the nuclear winter hoax?