Sunday
Jul172011
by 
Bishop Hill
Bishop Hill Gagging the sceptics
Jul 17, 2011 Climate: Sceptics Climate: solar Nigel Calder is reporting the remarkable news that CERN is forbidding its scientists from "interpreting" the results of Svensmark's CLOUD experiment. In other words, if it's a success, one is not permitted to note that it makes a big dent in arguments for catastrophic global warming.
H/T Matthu
Reader Comments (71)
"""I have asked the colleagues to present the results clearly, but not to interpret them. That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate. One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters."""
-------
Frankly, I can read that many ways, it appears just ambiguous. Certainly, I expect when the broad scientific community sees the paper, programs and data it can decide on interpretation independently of the authors,
John
Hmmm. Wonder if warmist poster boy du jour and CERN employee Prof (he's so D:Reamy) Brian Cox had a hand in making sure things stay 'on message'...
Sounds like fear of retribution for being off-message. We live in sick times.
"One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters." But that doesn't apply to CO², of course, which is the only possible cause of higher temperatures. And lower temperatures. And flat-lining temperatures. This has gone beyond the theatre of the absurd.
A note of caution - Calder's reaction may well be wrong.
No, let's please have the actual results without any interpretation. We don't want another 'hide the decline'. Let's have the uninterpreted data and the statistics. Then it doesn't matter whether CERN employees are allowed to interpret or not because there are plenty of others who can do that. Anyway, CERN employees are particle physicists and technicians and might not be best suited to do an interpretation in a different field.
Some people think that data can speak for itself. It can't, so it will always need to be interpreted. But we don't want an interpreted version being made public - we want the data, then we can all assess and interpret it, and discuss its interpretation.
physicists at Lancaster University could find no link between solar variability and cloud cover.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7327393.stm
So Terry Sloan is one person who would probably want to put his own interpretation onto the CERN results if they confirm the result already reported by the University of Aarhhus. And once he puts his interpretation onto the results, I cannot see this opening up a huge debate.
These results will be impossible to ignore.
ScienttistFortruth: the point is that a smaller set of results have already been released by the University of Aarhus. The Cern Cloud results will simply be providing corroborating evidence.
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/15/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation/
https://calderup.wordpress.com/2011/05/17/accelerator-results-on-cloud-nucleation-2/
[ My previous post: of course I had meant to say I cannot see this not opening up a huge debate. ]
Sat 2nd July Daily Telegraph had a weather article on the back page. It was penned by Philip Eden and entitled - “Will July follow the warming trend?”
I have not managed to find it on the DT site but I am sure it will appear eventually.
Surprisingly the article did not mention CO2 or global warming but equated the “warming” in the UK of the last 50 yrs to a commensurate increase in sunshine hours.
I thought I had saved the article, but maybe somebody has been green and recycled it!
If anybody has access to it I would be extremely grateful.
Who would have thought that more sunshine hours could possibly equate to an increase in temperature?
at 11:42 PM ScientistForTruth
Point taken.
------------------------------------------
Bish - Gagging the sceptics?
Not sure, first is the data, then the science, then the falsification yea or nay.
We have seen a myriad of slanted presentations of data, lets for once just have the data. Especially in this case.
@Green Sand:
Did you try Google - "Will July follow the warming trend?"? It apparently requires subscription to gain access.
Nigel Calder, since 23 October last year, placed his blog in a holding pattern while dropping abundant hints that he is busy involved in an upcoming (?related) publication independent of CERN. Of one thing I am certain, he prefers scientific correctness to political correctness.
CERN's admonition is likely to focus more attention on any interpretations, not to hide them.
Gary Turner
Thanks Gary, had tried a few days ago when out of the country and the whole atricle was available via "press service". I copied bits and posted elswhere. earlier today when I checked via "Google" I got a part article that did not have the ref to temps and sunshine.
Now I get the same as you - a subs site, not a problem I will try their "free". Just seemed a bit unusual?
The original has never been on the normal DT site.
regards
The Chilling Stars, A New Theory Of Climate Change by Henrik Svensmark & Nigel Calder -- I became so mesmerized by this book I read it in less than two days. A theory that has the potential to explain much of the history of climate change on the planet Earth; a theory that should be creating massive interest and excitement in climate science and meterology .... and yet it is ignored by the IPCC and the AGW priests.
...
Free as a cloud
No one ever really knew you
Make clear your illusion no, no, no, no
Some dreams you dream you alone
You thank Christ you're coming home
Better better give the dog a bone
Go go go go chew chew chew chew
...
For Brian Cox, from a real pop band - Tears for Fears - Dog's a best friend's god
The comments on Calder's blog are worth reading in their own right -- especially the one from Pascvaks.
I have to go with jorgekafkazar. Why would he voluntarily offer the information that he had cautioned the crew to cool it? To whom is the message directed? Surely, it is not directed to the public. Is he getting emails from the man-in-the-street complaining about outrageous interpretations from CERN scientists? No, no, and no.
He is sending the message to Big Daddy that he is cool.
Reminds of me of a spinal column that bends in several conflicting directions.
Warmista have everything to fear from Svensmark. His work is transparently in full accord with scientific method. He has actual physical hypotheses that connect the sun's behavior to cosmic ray behavior to cloud behavior. Warmista are locked in Gaia Models and have no physical hypotheses at all.
Svensmark's work might not reveal all secrets of climate science. But his work is genuine science and it will live in the annals of science. No Warmista can make that claim about their own work.
CERN's looked at clouds from both sides now,
From up and down, and still somehow
It's cloud illusions they recall.
CERN really doesn't know clouds... at all.
Typical hypocrisy. If the results were in favor of AGW he would probably REQUIRE their dissemination with multiple papers and methods to ameliorate the warming inline with the Consensus not to mention multiple news conferences trumpeting another sceptic claim disproven!!
Of course, if they give a clear PRESENTATION of the data I will be happy.
"CERN is forbidding its scientists from "interpreting" the results of Svensmark's CLOUD experiment".......
and then another body of "Climate Scientists" will muddy the water with......"the results are uncertain but we need more funds for additional research" .... Sarc <
As mentioned earlier, I think Halder is probably misinterpreting CERN's intentions.
I'm an experimental physicist who works at CERN. Our aim is usually to publish the results of our experiments with minimal interpretation. We expect that other publications will come from the community which offer interpretations and criticism. Consequently, I don't find the DG's comments remotely troubling.
@Kuhnkat - be careful of your "total hypocricy" criticism. You are drawing conclusions in the absence of data, and I rather suspect that you accuse climate scientists of that particular offence.
Dave,
you are right, I did mean Climate Scientists and am using too broad of a brush. There are good climate scientists who would not engage in this type of activity. Unfortunately most of them keep their mouths shut and assist by not engaging.
By the way, there is plenty of data on this as can be seen by the increased ranting of the Goreball Warmists with their attacks on sceptics and blather about accelerating doom of many different metrics. I would be interested to hear anything about this gentleman to indicate that he isn't hypocritical when it comes to climate science.
The message translates to me as ' remember team, we are scientists and not politicians. We will publicly publish the data without conjecture. It is then up to the climate scientific community to draw the results out of the data.'
Maybe even a little dig at BEST for making public statements before the main body of work was complete.
I see nothing 'wrong' or unusual with this statement. Science is about data, results, once you get into interpretation it becomes about nuance, politics etc. Anyone who speaks more than one language will understand the difference between translation and interpretation.
Anyone know when the results are due to be published?
Maybe some real scientists are as miffed as we are with the "pscience by press release" crowd.
The truth will out.
I look forward to watching the BBC coverage of Brian Cox eating his hat.
Ian E, in May it was reported the results were due in 2 or 3 months, updated to "this summer"
I think Josh covered the "take home message" best...
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/05/14/update-on-the-cern-cloud-experiment/
Frankly, I'm disgusted.
Well done!
I think you've summed up in one sentence there the whole "climatology" debate.
Maybe we could arrange for all climate scientists to have it tatooed on their foreheads (in reverse) so they could be reminded every morning when they look in the mirror.
"That would go immediately into the highly political arena of the climate change debate"
That's what worries the good scientist.
He knows that any conclusions need to be absolutely solid, any signs that the results from CERN put the skids under current governmental policies (ie taxation of fossil fuels, financial support for "renewables"), will mean it'll come under big attack, maybe to the extent of funding being cut, let alone the rabid outbursts from the Romms of this world.
We will, however, see who the real scientists are. Will The Team eat humble pie?
.........wait and see.
Lets hope we have lots of robust data that allows definitive interpretation.
Dear Green Sand,
I have a hard copy of the DT article of 2nd July by Philip Eden to which you refer. If you still cannot access the whole article electronically I could provide you with the missing bits (but not for a couple of days).
I think the DG is indeed concerned about CERN being dragged into the climate wars. This blog post and the source blog illustrate how a harmless restatement of good scientific practice i.e. experimentalists should publish data and not conjecture can be twisted into a "gagging" story.
"can be seen by the increased ranting of the Goreball Warmists with their attacks on sceptics"
Jul 18, 2011 at 7:55 AM | KuhnKat
Oh, the irony...
Sorry, the distinction you are proposing is entirely artificial, Dave. To say that experimentalists should not theorise is ridiculous. It's especially silly given that no theorist is going to theorise himself into a position that contradicts the politically correct accepted paradigm. The theorist, in the field of Climate Science, will simply ignore the new data.
I think Dave has a point.If we're not careful we get to the stage where we see everything through a sort of "red mist" of scepticism.
This statement is open to three possible interpretations:
1. This is vital to our understanding of climate. The facts (ie the data) need to speak for themselves.
2. In the light of (1) we cannot afford to let the sceptics cherry-pick bits of the results.
3. In (2) for "sceptics" read "warmists".
In any event we know full well that if the results seem to provide decent grounds for the thesis that cosmic rays have a significant effect on temperature then the "community" will be out to debunk them faster than a ferret disappears up a trouser leg.
Are we prepared also to admit that if they do not then the sceptic "community" — or at least parts of it — will be after them equally rapidly? There is a danger that in our urge to see an end to the current climate paradigm (which I also happen to believe is not far off) we fall into the same trap that we accuse the warmists of falling into, namely that we try to shout down anything that looks like a setback.
On this, I confess to being in some accord with Zed (much as that hurts).
Tell me, Zed, if the CERN results do suggest that cosmic rays and their effect on clouds have a significant effect on climate and that CO2 is only a bit player and that we were right all along about climate change being largely natural (which means there is a downturn coming), will you accept that and stop your fairly pointless posturing?
And your bad manners, of course?
Robinson
Experimentalists (at CERN anyway) theorise as little as possible. This is a big distinction between particle physics and,say, climate science. Its extremely rare for a particle physicist to develop a model and then try to disprove it or confirm its correctness with a set of measurements. Experimentalists spend their time designing and building detectors, and subsequently analysing data. Our remit is not to conjecture and we try to avoid doing this. If the data screams a certain message then we don't ignore that message but we've always had it drummed it into our heads that our job contains minimal interpretation. Writing as an experimentalist of 20 years standing (an appeal to experience not to authority btw), there is nothing remotely odd about the CERN DG's comments.
Furthermore, since this is all based on one blog post which featured a (google ??) translation of an interview in German in which the DG made one comment on this matter, don't you all think that it might be a good idea to come down from your high horses and write to the DG and ask him to clarify what he meant ? Generally speaking, those who "gag" try not to advertise the fact that they're doing it.
Cassio, many thanks might need it stuck for time myself at present. Want to see if he gives reference to the temp and sunshine data, would like to check it out.
@DouhieJ
Cox doesn't strike me as a warmist per-se
When pressed on the subject it seems that, first and foremost, Cox has ultimate faith in the supposedly incorruptible nature of the scientific method.
His dismissal of skeptics doesn't seem to be based on his own expertise or even an awareness of the controversies surrounding the issue, just a touching faith that peer review will catch gross errors, so a skeptical position this late in the day *must* be based on ignorance and / or the vested interests.
All very reasonable Dave. But you can be sure that if the experimental results were the other way around, they would spawn 10,000 comments from CERN personnel and 100,000 press releases affirming that there is no link between cosmic rays and cloud condensation nuclei. Indeed, there would almost certainly be no prohibition on discussing the consequences of the results at all.
So it goes, hey?
Since CERN hasn't been known for its stance on climate either way I dont blame them avoiding getting involved in making definitive statements on it now based on one experiment.
Robinson
I have no idea what the experiment shows nor do I know how CERN management would react were the results to support or reject a given hypothesis. You don't know this either.
The argument "ah, but imagine how they would behave if....." isn't actually an argument.
Dave, I agree that imagination is no substitute for facts. But you could point us at other examples where the DG felt compelled to make a statement in this manner, in similar circumstances.
If there aren't any close matches, I think people are entitled to infer that there has been some special consideration in this case.
Dave:
I entirely agree. I am very much the skeptic, but I think one must guard against skepticism devolving into cynicism and paranoia. The same kind of thing has happened with the Berkley temperature study. Let's see the data and how it is produced before reacting.
Also many thanks for joining in: The more experimentalists involved in the discussion, the better, IMHO!
It's complete hypocrisy. CERN and other scientific institutions lose no time publishing conclusions from empirical evidence, usually in press-release form, if they think the publicity will help them get further funding. To trot out the ridiculous "experimentalists shouldn't theorise" line is just a little too USSR for my tastes.
Robinson
Yours was a strange reply. The DG talks with the management of all experiments. This is normal. Given the press interest in this experiment they undoubtedly will have discussed the dissemination of results. This is hardly conspiracy theory territory, not least since the result is a statement that dissemination will be made in a proper and correct way for an experimental paper.
Be wary of rhetorical questions. They need to be logically consistent to have any force. CERN is not in the business of producing controversial results which may have short term political implications. You won't find a similar statement on measurements of charged particle correlations in pp collisions because it isn't of general interest in the same way.
You write that people are entitled to infer whatever they want but, like your fantasy scenario in an earlier post, this is an empty statement. As I mentioned in an earlier post, if anyone wishes clarification then they should ask the DG. Drawing conclusions with scant evidence rarely leads to the truth however much it may bolster a pre-existing prejudice.
Apologies - part of my response was to mrsean2k.
Robinson - the comparison with the USSR is utterly ridiculous as well as being disrespectful to anyone who had to live under such a regime. CERN makes a big splash when it has results in its core activities. You will usually find then that the whole CERN industry (experiment, theory division) etc. is involved.
This is a specific result in one area.
I really don't know what you're complaining about. The experiment will publish its results in an entirely proper way.
Dave
I though that was the case; difficult to keep track without nesting or numbering. But I don't see how your comment addresses my question at all.
The issue isn't whether or not it's proper for one interpretation or another to be placed on the results.
The issue is whether or not it's an unprecedented step for the DG to be impelled to make a statement. When that's determined, you could the move on to interpreting the motivation.
I'm afraid that not seeing that there could be an agenda or motivation that extends beyond restating something that you claim is common knowledge, and with a particular timing, appears to be a little naive.
Why make the statement *at all* ?
Bish -
"Calderup" link, above, would be less "secure" but better for some as 'HTTP' ;-)
Dave, I'm pretty sure you are being disingenuous here. You used the word "conspiracy", whereas I have only ever referred to this issue as being "a network of complicity". And here again, CERN are showing themselves if not part of that network, then aiding it by not wishing to stand in opposition to it, regardless of what results CLOUD produces.
The exact quote is:
Which really makes me wonder what is going to happen if journalist A asks scientist A what his results mean in the context of Anthropogenic CO2 based Climate Change. What is he going to say? No comment? It's ridiculous. The scientist will have an opinion. I'm fine with CERN not having one.