German Reaction To CERN Project: Stubbornness And Dismissiveness – To The Bitter End

Here is a sampling of the media reaction coming from Germany on CERN’s cosmic ray cloud seeding experiment.

Normally the German mainstream media is quick to report on new scientific developments, especially anything indicating catastrophic global warming. But this time they have been slow and cautious.

FOCUS magazine online starts with:

Climate skeptics doubt that man-made greenhouse gases are to blame for global warming. A new study appears to confirm their claims.”

FOCUS, in its comprehensive 6-part piece, goes on to concede that the questions behind the causes of global warming are far from being answered. FOCUS tries to play down the CERN results, and so resorts to quoting 2 hardline warmists, Jochem Marotzke, Director of the Hamburg Max Planck Institute for Meteorology and Stefan Rahmstorf of the Potsdam Institute for Climate Impact Research (2 institutes that would be pretty much be out of business if the cosmic ray theory proved right).

‘The mechanism is plausible, but it is not quantitatively enough to explain the observed warming’, assessed Jochem Marotzke. Stefan Rahmstorf completely threw out the the idea recently: ‘Cosmic rays have been measured since 1953; they show no increasing or decreasing trend analog to solar brightness. Without such a trend, one can also explain no change in cloud cover,’ he insists.”

Die Welt writes:

And: Which role do clouds play in all this?  ‘Cloud’ has found the first preliminary answers to that. The sun could play a bigger role than first thought. “Could!”, emphasizes Kirkby und Curtius.

Actually Danish scientist Henrik Svensmark found the preliminary answers, and CLOUD simply added a huge dose of confirmation. And funny how Die Welt in the past never emphasized the word “could” in its numerous articles on kook warmist scenarios, but is quick to do so here.

Die Welt also quotes Kirby who compares two charts: one of temperature vs solar activity and Mann’s hockey stick chart. Die Welt writes:

‘Look here’, he said ‘at how striking the correlation between solar activity and global temperature has been over the last 1000 years.’  In comparison another chart stands right next to it, the famous ‘Hockey Stick Chart’, which suggests that there was hardly any climate fluctuation over the last 1000 years and that a sharp rise began only 150 years ago. That would mean: Only man drives the climate, and the sun not. “It turned out to be false”, he [Kirby] said.”

Indeed Mann’s view of the past 1000 years is looking more and more like a fairy tale of epic proportions. Die Welt did find space to mention Svensmark:

Also Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark is working on the interaction between solar activity and climate change. ‘Although our experiments were not very complex, we had similar results three months ago’.”

Yes, Svensmark produced good data – on a shoestring budget. Compare his cost-effectiveness to the countless tens of billions of dollars wasted on the loads of useless junk science produced by warmists. A few million dollars are proving the $100+ billion wrong.

Finally Die Welt writes about the chief of CERN and his controversial request of last July of “not to interpret the results”.

Curtius denies having received such a request. ‘Of course we have to interpret our results’, he said, “otherwise other people will do it’.”

German skeptics slam German stubbornness

Skeptic blogs and sites have been blasting German stubbornness and warming dogmatism, and their refusal to acknowledge CERN’s results. Science journalist Edgar Gärtner at his blog slammed obstinate German science, writing a piece called: Cloud Experiment Exposes Climate Swindle: He writes:

Already 200 years ago it was detected by famous English astronomer William Herschel that the price of bread always increased when the number of sunspots was very low. Svensmark believed he could explain why it was so. But when he published his hypothesis together with his boss Eigil Friis-Christensen, then IPCC Chairman Bert Bolin called them ‘naive and irresponsible’.

Funny how who’s turning out to be “naive and irresponsible”. Gärtner also writes:

One can suspect that the results contain political dynamite, also when taken alone they do not suffice to bring down the greenhouse gas house-of-lies. But in combination with the recently published NASA satellite measurements, which we reported on not long ago, it could very well happen. These measurements have clearly shown that a man-made heat trap in the atmosphere just cannot be. The temperature increase recorded over the earth’s land mass at the end of the last century, which in the meantime has stagnated, has to be attributed to other causes. The successfully completed Cloud experiment on fluctuating solar activity offers a solution. The trillions of euros that the EU wants to have for fighting the supposedly man-made climate change are purely for nothing.”

So could it bring down the “greenhouse gas house-of-lies” as Gärtner suggests? Don’t bet on it.

AGW is now fatally embedded in all German institutions

It’s going to take Germany a long time to wake up from it’s global warming science folly, if at all. The prospects are poor. All of Germany’s major institutions like the public media, government, political parties, science bodies (such as the PIK, German Weather Service, Max Planck Institute), schools, etc., all have negligently and wrecklessly embedded the global warming dogma deep and firmly into their structures and psyche, thus making it the main pillar on which the architecture of Germany’s future society will rest. Now that pillar is cracking and crumbling. Suddenly Germany’s grand plans for a Green Empire are facing the scrap heap.

Will German leaders be able to come to terms with that? They seemingly (and stupidly) have gone beyond a point of no return with their zeal. They’re pushing their heads deeper into the sand. Expect them to get shriller. Germany is stuck in a self-made dilemma. Once a brand of science gets institutionalized nationally, and to the extent that it has in Germany, it is very very difficult – if not impossible – to remove. Germany has tragically been though something eerily similar before. Will a complete demise be the only way out? Germany has a way of hanging in – all the way to the bitter end.

22 responses to “German Reaction To CERN Project: Stubbornness And Dismissiveness – To The Bitter End”

  1. Ecotretas

    Hey, It’s better in Germany than in Portugal. Till the moment, not even one reference in the press (I follow newspapers and Google News directly)…

  2. DirkH

    “Will German leaders be able to come to terms with that? ”

    Probably not; they’re insane. From two months ago:

    “German finance minister wants to buy Greek solar electricity to help the Greek economy.”

    And the opposition parties are even worse.

  3. Harry Dale Huffman

    Clouds may influence the weather, but not the climate. The comparison of temperatures in the atmospheres of Venus and Earth gives the definitive facts that trump every theory today, whether consensus or skeptic:

    Venus: No Greenhouse Effect

    Venus is covered by a planet-wide, thick covering of clouds, but they don’t affect the temperatures at any given pressure, over the range of Earth tropospheric pressures, except WITHIN THE CLOUDS THEMSELVES. They don’t affect the overall temperature lapse rate structure that governs the long-term average vertical heat distribution in the troposphere. The temperature-vs-pressure curves of Venus and Earth, when only the difference in their distances from the Sun is taken into account, are essentially the same. This means ONLY the incident infrared solar radiation accounts for the temperatures in both atmospheres (and the same portion of that infrared irradiation in both cases). The Venus/Earth comparison is the real news, and should be front-page news around the world. Skeptics are just setting themselves up for greater disappointment when the CERN CLOUD results are realized to be irrelevant. Clouds don’t affect the climate.

  4. DirkH

    Blue Planet In Green Shackles. Guitar players risk being prosecuted like they were smuggling ivory.
    “”I don’t go out of the country with a wooden guitar.””
    Gibson raided by Feds.

  5. Edward

    Where and when did it somehow happen that AGW was assumed by the EU + other political elites and their [lapdog] government funded scientific institutions [Potsdam, CRU/HadleyCentre and in the States – Penn State, NASA/GISS etc] to be somehow ‘set in stone’?
    Incredibly, it happened though, we took our eye ‘off the ball’ and all of a sudden 97% of 14 scientists said – it was so!

    In 1985, it was just a figment of Mrs Thatcher’s [febrile and demented] mindset, then Hansen, later Al Gore got hold of it – and in Germany, the old ‘comrades’ lapped it up – IDEAL!

    It is just a postulation afterall, a spurious and deviously made correlation, that is someway [lightyears] from proving causation.

    As each piece of evidence erodes what little vestige of hypothetical guesswork was left – how can it be that the ‘CAGW fantasy’ still has legs?

    Well, that’s because it is a political fiction and a myth, it is difficult to kill off ideas – even if they are wrong headed, misanthropic and even, insane lunacy – they thought the earth was flat and that, the Sun went round the earth once, you know!
    Funny [now?] that, then you could be sent to prison for doubting the orthodoxy, how times haven’t changed much?!………………………………………..
    It will be back to burning witches again – this is what we’re dealing with here – they [alarmists] aren’t rational human beings – they’re: ideological nutters.

    1. DirkH

      The fun thing is that power politicians like Thatcher and Kohl used it for their purposes yet all the leftists support it. They wouldn’t find their way out of a wet paper bag.

      1. Edward

        How true that is Dirk.

  6. Bruce of Newcastle

    Dr Rahmstorf is contradicted by GISS’s own data which shows cloudiness correlating with the solar cycle. Of course he dares not investigate this correlation or graph the two datasets on a single graph. But the data is there for all the world to see Dr Rahmstorf.

    1. mindert eiting

      Yes Bruce, and the theory of Svensmark is beautiful because it translates correlation into causation, using the concepts of earth albedo, radiation from space, and the magnetic field of the sun. Most people are laymen in physics like me, but his theory can be explained to primary-school children. Rahmstorf has something to be afraid of.

  7. mindert eiting

    As I promised you yesterday, I have consulted my Dutch newspaper, Volkskrant, and they have in their science part an article of considerable size about the CLOUD experiment (Volkskrant, 27 August 2011, Wetenschap, p. 6). The translated title reads ‘The cosmos does something with cloud formation on earth’. It is a good article, written by Maarten Keulemans, with a thoughtful balance of pro’s and contra’s. Not bad for a newspaper that a few years ago installed explicitly a censorship on all AGW-skeptic information, which made me to realise that they had something to hide. See for a recent case of censorship:

  8. Ed Caryl
  9. DirkH

    CERN doesn’t only cause trouble for AGW. They also just killed supersymmetry.
    “…it’s been taught in Europe for decades as the correct model because it is so beautiful; but there’s no experimental data to say that it is correct.”

    1. Bruce of Newcastle

      Slightly over-the-top from the BBC. Read Lubos for a more nuanced view. I have been no particular fan of susy, but Lubos’ comments about LHC signals indicating a supersymmetric Higgs (actually multiple Higges) have been very plausible, albeit with insufficient data so far. My long experience is when you are in this grey zone of insufficient data you get all sorts of hyperbole going on, and it is very difficult for human beings to be patient and wait.

  10. biggreenlie

    The Eco-Whackos are facing the end of their tax payer funded parasitic pay cheques and we will witness a severe backlash from all the money sucking AGW believers!
    They could care less about the’s all about the $$$$.

  11. Hans Labohm


    You wrote: ‘Die Welt also quotes Kirby who compares two charts: one of temperature vs solar activity and Mann’s hockey stick chart. Die Welt writes:

    ‘Look here’, he said ‘at how striking the correlation between solar activity and global temperature has been over the last 1000 years. …’

    I am curious about the first graph. Is there a link?

    Hans Labohm

  12. DirkH

    Kirkby has shown these correlations in a lecture when CLOUD started.

  13. DirkH

    This is a sensation. The BBC has their own take on CLOUD.

    Notice that they violate their own code of conduct TWICE: First, they acknowledge the existence of skeptics – and second, they fail to call them deniers.

    This will have serious repercussions for the editor responsible, i fear. Half a year of re-education camp at futerra, probably.

  14. Jean Demesure

    Predictably, no Cloud in mainstream newspapers (le Monde, Libération, le Figaro…) in France too.

  15. SpaceScience
  16. SpaceScience

    Galactic cosmic rays and the related ion-induced nucleation
    have been proposed to be among the key factors governing at-
    mospheric aerosol budgets and subsequently cloudiness and
    global climate. Here we have shown, based on long-term
    experimental data, that atmospheric nucleation frequency or
    nucleation mode particle concentrations do not show corre-
    lation with galactic cosmic rays on either yearly or monthly
    basis. The geomagnetic activity showed similar seasonal be-
    haviour as nucleation event frequencies, peaking in spring
    and autumn, but this similarity seems to be caused by dif-
    ferent reasons. Accordingly, no significant daily correlation
    between these variables was found. Our results do not sup-
    port the idea that the ions produced by galactic cosmic rays
    would be a major factor behind secondary aerosol production
    and the related aerosol-cloud interactions.

By continuing to use the site, you agree to the use of cookies. more information

The cookie settings on this website are set to "allow cookies" to give you the best browsing experience possible. If you continue to use this website without changing your cookie settings or you click "Accept" below then you are consenting to this. More information at our Data Privacy Policy