Nice!
HaHa, Now that "Clmate Gate" has blown up in the face of science deniers,why not invent another fabricated "scandal"(!)?? I'll just sit back patiently, like I did with "climate gate", and wait for this one to blow up in your face. Good times!
Latest news from CERN regarding the CLOUD experiment.
http://cdsweb.cern.ch/record/1221088
I understand people that spent two decades emotionally investing themselves in climate denial have an understandable need to flail around for the last remaining little factoids that allegedly support their lifelong denial of climate change.
However, beyond the realm of message board theorizing, and unsubstantiated assertions, clinging to climate denial hope is highly problematic: The CLOUD experiment isn’t an alternative theory to anthropogenic climate change.
It’s not out to debunk human-influenced climate change.
Indeed, if you read the actual scientific literature (and not press releases or media accounts) the
lead scientist on the CLOUD project -
Jasper Kirkby - himself
doesn’t deny anthropogenic forcings on recent climate change
This is from a scientific paper Dr. Kirkby wrote in late 2007, early 2008. (note: The evidence for human influenced climate change has only become even stronger since he wrote this paper)
"Despite these uncertainties, the question of whether, and to what extent, the climate is influencedby solar and cosmic ray variability remains central to our understanding of the anthropogenic contribution to present climate change."
--JASPER KIRKBY, Lead CLOUD scientist, in
Published in Surveys in Geophysics 28, 333–375, March 2008*
The reader’s digest version of this scientific publication is this:
-The Lead CLOUD scientist himself in his own published literature
doesn’t deny anthropogenic forcing of climate change.
-The author
hypothesizes that cosmic radiation
may influence cloud cover, and therefore provide an external forcing mechanism to explain
part of the recent observed climate change.
-The problem with a hypothesis is that amounts to an educated guess. The author concludes that at present there is no known physical mechanism to link cosmic radiation to aerosol formation and cloud formation.
-The bottom line, is that this CLOUD research
may be helpful in resolving some uncertainty about the fraction of climatic change that can be attributed solar external forcings on climate. Or, alternatively, it might demonstrate the cosmic radiation has
negligible effect on recent climate change. That's what a hypothesis is: an educated guess that can be tested to see if it can be nullified. Either way, it’s premise is not to debunk, or turn on its head, the broader conclusions and observations of human-influence climatic forcings.
*
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0804/0804.1938v1.pdf
