Man-made Climate Change hypothesis…smashed, once and for all

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 Discredits Man-made Global Warming

by Chriss W. Street

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

From Chriss Street: this is the permalink from Nature.

Hockey Schtick weighs in with a Wall Street Journal article: The Other Climate Theory

 The Politics of Cosmic Rays


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.


Alister McFarquhar

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.

About Tom Harley

Amateur ecologist and horticulturalist and CEO of Kimberley Environmental Horticulture Inc. (Tom Harley)
This entry was posted in Climate, media, Oz politics, science, weather and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

17 Responses to Man-made Climate Change hypothesis…smashed, once and for all

  1. Thank the Irish as well please —-
    They also have something to say on this particular matter

  2. Pingback: Anthropogenic Climate Change Obituary… | pindanpost

  3. Nuke Nemesis says:

    Sorry, that’s a misrepresentation of the study. It’s not proof, but it is another nail in the coffin for AGW.

    AGW has been widely discredited. For instance, where is the hot spot in the troposphere? How is it the ice record shows warming proceeds CO2 increases by hundreds of years on average, but AGW theory claims CO2 causes warming?

  4. Pingback: CSIRO lost in ideology…of the global warming cult | pindanpost

  5. will gray says:

    I wish the impact were true, over @
    coments are raging. She points out more work can be done on this.

    • Tom Harley says:

      the debate is raging at WUWT too. Judith Curry also attracts all the ideologues that have their careers in strife … cultists. I prefer to believe the take from Professor Jyrki Kauppinen who says it’s such a blatant falsification, about AGW, in the Nature journal…

    • Tom Harley says:

      Climate Audit has audited the statistics, and found them cherry-picked, in Desslers paper, supposedly refuting Spencer and Braswell2011. Since talking to Spencer, Dessler withdrew parts and is having to change some more. Fantasy.

  6. MikeA says:

    Excellent humour, satire is too short in the climate debate

    • Tom Harley says:

      Even better at John Cook’s Scepticalscience, his supposed rebuttal of the CERN science, found a new scientist that co-wrote the paper who does not exist. Can’t even get the name right let alone the science…

  7. Thanks for your report.

    New solar flare videos on and emission lines of heavy elements (Fe, Mg, etc) in the extreme ultraviolet (EUV) spectrum:

    Falsify basic assumptions of:

    a.) The AGW model of Earth’s changing climate, and

    b.) The SSM model of the Sun’s constant heat.

    Other PhysOrg news stories and comments today on the AGW scare, smiling politicians spreading propaganda, and seriously crippled modern science:

    1. Switching from coal to natural gas

    2. Smiling politicians campaigning for AGW (more dark humor)

    3. Black holes (more and even darker humor)?

    Confirm the oldest scriptures again:
    “Truth is victorious; Never untruth!”

    With kind regards,
    Oliver K. Manuel
    Former NASA Principal
    Investigator for Apollo

  8. Pingback: things get better… | pindanpost

  9. Pingback: Restoring scientific integrity…Dr Manuel comments | pindanpost

  10. Pingback: Confirming AGW’s obituary… | pindanpost

  11. Pingback: James Hansen admits failure…can’t communicate | pindanpost

Leave a Reply

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

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

Google+ photo

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

Twitter picture

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

Facebook photo

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


Connecting to %s