No, not the Nature Journal of Science. It can’t be. Al Gore will be heartbroken and stop eating. Phil Jones will cry. Michael Mann will have to sack his solicitor. Trenberth will be screaming “resign”. The late Steven Schneider will even be turning over in his grave. And Gavin Schmidt will be smashing up his models…”Nature Journal of Science was ours.” Dessler will be devastated.
And in Australia, Julia Gillard will be snookered. Bob Brown will be ashamed. Tim Flannery will still be waiting for the seas to rise from his home at sea level.
Apologies to Big Government, reprinted in full. Anthropogenic Global Warming…”going to the dustbin of history”
Nature Journal of Science, ranked as the world’s most cited scientific periodical, has just published the definitive study on Global Warming that proves the dominant controller of temperatures in the Earth’s atmosphere is due to galactic cosmic rays and the sun, rather than by man. One of the report’s authors, Professor Jyrki Kauppinen, summed up his conclusions regarding the potential for man-made Global Warming: “I think it is such a blatant falsification.”
The research was conducted by CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, which invented the World Wide Web, built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and now has constructed a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreates the Earth’s atmosphere. The climate study involved scientists representing 17 of Europe’s and America’s premiere research institutes. The results demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that can grow and seed clouds in the Earth’s atmosphere; the temperatures then fall as the density of the clouds increase. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere; the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
Nature Journal has been the holy-grail of scientific research publication since it was established in England in 1869. Its original editors gave the title to their new scientific journal in celebration of a line by British poet William Wordsworth: “To the solid ground of nature trusts the Mind that builds for aye”. Because research scientists are the primary audience this most prestigious of journals, the magazine strives to retain its stamp of approval as the pinnacle of scientific credibility for original research. Nature first introduced its readers to X-rays, DNA double helix, wave nature of particles, pulsars, and more recently mapping of the human genome.
But Nature’s reputation suffered a huge black eye on November 21, 2009 when a hacker broke into the computers at the University of East Anglia’s Climate Research Unit (CRU) and released 1079 emails and 72 documents exposing willful fraud in several scientific papers published in Nature that supported Al Gore’s theory Anthropogenic Global Warming. CRU houses the most world’s most extensive data base on atmospheric temperatures and the e-mails exposed blatant exaggerations of the warming data, possible illegal destruction of evidence, and conspiracy to manipulate or suppress data not supporting of the man-made Global Warming theory.
One e-mail describes tricks used supporting Anthropogenics in major Nature article:
“I’ve just completed Mike’s Nature trick of adding in the real temps to each series for the last 20 years (ie from 1981 onwards) and from 1961 for Keith’s to hide the decline.”
As the Wall Street Journal and other conservative media hyper-ventilated over the hacker leaks they referred to as the “Climategate Scandal”; Nature quickly retaliated in defense of Anthropogenic Global Warming with a scathing editorial titled: “Climatologists Under Pressure” stating: “Stolen e-mails have revealed no scientific conspiracy, but do highlight ways in which climate researchers could be better supported in the face of public scrutiny.” The editorial skewered academic doubters of man-made Global Warming as the “climate-change-denialist fringe” and in a shocking Freudian-slip the Nature editorial roared its political partisanship:
“This paranoid interpretation would be laughable were it not for the fact that obstructionist politicians in the US Senate will probably use it next year as an excuse to stiffen their opposition to the country’s much needed climate bill. Nothing in the e-mails undermines the scientific case that global warming is real — or that human activities are almost certainly the cause.”
For Nature to now publish research that eviscerates the Anthropogenics theory heralds a tectonic rejection by academia of support for United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change. The UN protocol requires every nation on earth to reduce their atmospheric emissions of greenhouse gas to 94.8% of 1990 levels to “prevent dangerous anthropogenic interference with the climate system.” The U.S. Senate legislation that Nature sought to stridently lobbying for is named “America’s Climate Security Act of 2007”; commonly known as the Cap-and-Trade Bill.
The Heritage Foundation estimated that the costs of complying with Cap-and-Trade would include; a 29% increase in the price of gasoline, losses of hundreds of thousands of jobs, and lead to reductions of $1.7 to $4.8 trillion of the U.S. GDP by 2030. Furthermore, Cap-and-Trade would set up a gargantuan intergovernmental bureaucracy that would likely ban natural gas fracking, steam injection of tar sands, and surface coal mining for exploration and development of America’s immense energy reserves.
After 20 years of academic supremacy and hundreds of billions of dollars of costs; the Anthropogenic Global Warming theory seems headed for the dust bin of history. Perhaps the admirable action of the Nature Journal of Science to place scientific integrity above partisan politics will be a valuable lesson for the scientific community in the future.
Feel Free to Forward and Follow our Research at http://www.chrissstreetandcompany.com
From Chriss Street:
Hockey Schtick weighs in with a Wall Street Journal article: The Other Climate Theory
By ANNE JOLIS THE WALL STREET JOURNAL 9/7/11
And Walter Starck has this to say: Quadrant
This too from ICECAP: Who pays the piper?
By Rachel Moran, Saturday, 10 September 2011
Late last month, without much fanfare, scientific titan CERN released new evidence that could dramatically alter the balance of the global warming debate. Potentially vindicating the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark, new CERN research from their CLOUD project demonstrates that cosmic rays provide a seed for clouds. As a result tiny changes in the earth’s cloud cover could account for the earth’s variations in temperature. Such a revelation throws into question whether anthropogenic global warming is actually happening, or whether cosmic rays and the sun are the dominant controllers of the earth’s climate.
Such an important discovery should surely be big news. However CERN’s Director General has attempted to play down the study and it’s potential conclusions in order to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate.” So, instead of what should be a debate concerning the causes of global warming we are struck by an entirely different debate, the autonomy of scientists who receive government funding. CERN receives millions of euros in funding from it’s member states, the top three being Germany, France and UK, a list which is ever growing as more countries clamour to join the well-respected establishment. However such government funding undermines the very credibility that makes CERN the scientific goliath it claims to be. Nigel Calder makes a similar point, arguing that:
“CERN has joined a long line of lesser institutions obliged to remain politically correct about the man-made global warming hypothesis. It’s OK to enter “the highly political arena of the climate change debate” provided your results endorse man-made warming, but not if they support Svensmark’s heresy that the Sun alters the climate by influencing the cosmic ray influx and cloud formation. The once illustrious CERN laboratory ceases to be a truly scientific institute when its Director General forbids its physicists and visiting experimenters to draw the obvious scientific conclusions from their results.”
The scientists behind the CLOUD experiment have been in a battle for over a decade to continue and publish the results of the project due to their state-funded position.
Jasper Kirby, a CERN scientist, postulated back in 1998 that the cosmic ray theory would “probably be able to account for somewhere between a half and the whole of the increase in the Earth’s temperature that we have seen in the last century.” This admittance of a hypothetical alternative to anthropogenic theories was apparently a step too far for global warming activists who pressured the Western governments that control CERN’s funding to suspend the project. It is only after a decade of negotiation that the project was allowed to continue, and even now it’s results are being stifled by a need to placate political influences. As a result last week’s CLOUD paper perhaps reveals more about the distortion of science by government intervention than it highlights any real scientific breakthrough.
This is a vital blog not just because economic recovery will be even more prolonged because of the Carbon Scam which I have been promulgating here for a decade if not since last century.
The evidence, dodgy as manipulated temperature is, shows no support for the notion that man is influencing measurably climate, or that climate change is abnormal. Many including Caldwell know of the evidence that Sun affects climate. It didnt require extravagant CERN to demonstrate this.
What this shows is that Science if not dead as a Python Parrot is rapidily dying as it depends increasingly on Government for funds. So the results of science are increasingly political fodder. Galileo showed this politicision of science is not unique. But the post WW2 enlightenment associated with Popperian falsifications seems past. Sociology and philosophy have made science relative like morality and so irrelevant-just a branch of politics.
In deference to the masochistic Malthusiasm of the first comment, reality on climate does not mean mans damage to the environment should escape constant scrutiny. Falsifying evidence as in Carbon Scam will make this scrutiny less likely as folk take science with a fistful of salt.
Alister McFarquhar, M.A.,Ph.D.[Downing], Cambridge.