From the Financial Post.
Excerpt:
The science is now all-but-settled on global warming, convincing new evidence demonstrates, but Al Gore, the IPCC and other global warming doomsayers won’t be celebrating. The new findings point to cosmic rays and the sun — not human activities — as the dominant controller of climate on Earth.
The research, published with little fanfare this week in the prestigious journal Nature, comes from über-prestigious CERN, the European Organization for Nuclear Research, one of the world’s largest centres for scientific research involving 60 countries and 8,000 scientists at more than 600 universities and national laboratories. CERN is the organization that invented the World Wide Web, that built the multi-billion dollar Large Hadron Collider, and that has now built a pristinely clean stainless steel chamber that precisely recreated the Earth’s atmosphere.
In this chamber, 63 CERN scientists from 17 European and American institutes have done what global warming doomsayers said could never be done — demonstrate that cosmic rays promote the formation of molecules that in Earth’s atmosphere can grow and seed clouds, the cloudier and thus cooler it will be. Because the sun’s magnetic field controls how many cosmic rays reach Earth’s atmosphere (the stronger the sun’s magnetic field, the more it shields Earth from incoming cosmic rays from space), the sun determines the temperature on Earth.
[…]Yet this spectacular success will be largely unrecognized by the general public for years — this column will be the first that most readers have heard of it — because CERN remains too afraid of offending its government masters to admit its success. Weeks ago, CERN formerly decided to muzzle Mr. Kirby and other members of his team to avoid “the highly political arena of the climate change debate,” telling them “to present the results clearly but not interpret them” and to downplay the results by “mak[ing] clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.” The CERN study and press release is written in bureaucratese and the version of Mr. Kirkby’s study that appears in the print edition of Nature censored the most eye-popping graph — only those who know where to look in an online supplement will see the striking potency of cosmic rays in creating the conditions for seeding clouds.
Well, this is no surprise to me. We’ve KNOWN that the planet was warmer in the Middle Ages than it is now. We’ve KNOWN that the surface temperatures on Mars increased when ours was increasing.
Why do secular socialists have to insist on believing what they want to believe against the scientific evidence, and then lie to everyone else, using taxpayer money? If they want to propagate their myths, why do they have to get the government involved? Why can’t they just have a global warming church and go to that, and leave government to serious people who don’t believe in myths and superstitions?
We really need to get leftist ideology out of the business of government. I don’t mind if they want to teach their flat-Earth myths to each other with their own money, but why do I have to pay for it?
If you are curious about this story, James Delingpole has more on it in the UK Telegraph.
Related posts
- Drowning polar bears scientist being investigated for misconduct
- NASA data shows that atmosphere will trap far less heat than UN predicted
- Former alarmist scientist admits global warming is a “fiction”
- Scientist quits American Physical Society over “global warming scam”
- How reliable are the “independent” reviews of Climategate?
- NASA admits that their data is worse than CRU Climate-gate data
- 19 points that undermine the claims of global warming alarmists
- Global warmist Phil Jones admits there’s been no global warming since 1995
- UN IPCC global warming alarmism based on student essay and magazine article
- How the UN’s IPCC cites non-scientific claims from the World Wildlife Fund
- Chairman of UN’s IPCC used bogus claims to grab global warming cash
- Does global warming increase the frequency of hurricanes?
- Canadian government finds polar bear population up 163% since mid-1980s
- Polar bear populations are not decreasing now
- Russian economists accuse CRU of cherry-picking Russian temperature data
- UK Daily Mail summarizes the Climategate scandal
- Armed guard prevents questions on Climategate at UN conference
- Australian climate data also adjusted to hide the decline
- What does Climategate really prove about global warming?
- Comparison of hockey stick graph data to a larger data set in the same area
- Oceans are not warming now
- Polar ice caps are not melting now
- Princeton University physicist testifies against global warming
WINTERY KNIGHT 
Very interesting.
Now WK, you know you’re a racist for saying such things right?
http://www.billoreilly.com/video?chartID=554&vid=-141769272020070316
;)
LikeLike
This has a pretty good breakdown on the consensus of global warming:
http://www.skepticalscience.com/global-warming-scientific-consensus-intermediate.htm
I believe it is only the extreme far right that believes that AGW is a dead issue and that’s only because for some unknown reason, they want to stick their heads in the sand and ignore what is going on around them. To believe that we can dump as many emissions as we do in to our shallow atmosphere and have completely zero affect defies rationale. Then to compare two completely different planets – earth (with a thick atmosphere, living mass, and a molten core) and mars (barely an atmosphere, no confirmed living mass, and a dead planet) – and then draw a similar conclusion on the affects of atmosphere, only pushes that logic defying rationale that much closer to loony land. Then to say, “well we had a short while centuries ago and we don’t know why it warmed so that must prove that we can have endless polluting nowadays and nothing should happen” pushes you smack in to loony land.
Now I think the link you presented is a very interesting theory, but if you actually read the links and the Nature article, they’re still conducting their experiments and no one else has replicated their work (and I do agree if it’s highly politicized, it may take a while), but just because you believe you can show that cosmic rays have an affect on global warming does not prove that man is not having also having an affect.
LikeLike