C.E.R.N Scientific Study Concludes – Global Warming is Caused By The Sun!

By James Delingpole – telegraph.co.uk

If Michael Crichton had lived to write a follow-up to State of Fear, the plotline might well have gone like this: at a top secret, state of the art laboratory in Switzerland, scientists finally discover the true cause of “global warming”. It’s the sun, stupid. More specifically – as the Danish physicist Henrik Svensmark has long postulated – it’s the result of cosmic rays which act as a seed for cloud formation. The scientists working on the project are naturally euphoric: this is a major breakthrough which will not only overturn decades of misguided conjecture on so-called Man Made Global Warming but will spare the global economy trillions of dollars which might otherwise have been squandered on utterly pointless efforts to reduce anthropogenic CO2 emissions. However, these scientists have failed to realise just how many people – alarmist scientists, huckster politicians, rent-seeking landowners like (the late Michael Crichton’s brilliant and, of course, entirely fictional creation) the absurd, pompous Sir Reginald Leeds Bt, green activists, eco-fund managers, EU technocrats, MSM environmental correspondents – stand to gain from the Man Made “Climate Change” industry. Their discovery must be suppressed at all costs. So, one by one, the scientists on the cosmic ray project find themselves being bumped off, until only one man remains and must race against time to prove, etc, etc…

Except of course in the real world the second part wouldn’t happen. No one would need to go to the trouble of bumping off those pesky scientists with their awkward, annoying facts and their proper actual research. That’s because the MSM and the scientific “community” would find it perfectly easy to suppress the story anyway, without recourse to severed brake cables or ricin-impregnated hand-washes or staged “suicides”.

This is exactly what has happened with the latest revelations from CERN over its landmark CLOUD experiment, whose significance Lawrence Solomon explains here:

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 à¼ber-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.

So if it’s so great, why aren’t we hearing more about it? Well, possibly because the Director General of CERN Rolf-Dieter Heuer would prefer it that way. Here’s how he poured cold water on the results in an interview with Die Welt Online:

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.

Nigel Calder, who has been following the CLOUD experiment for some time, was the first to smell a rat. He notes:

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

Lubos Motl, too, detects some double standards here:

One could perhaps understand if all scientists were similarly gagged and prevented from interpreting the results of their research in ways that could be relevant for policymaking. However, the main problem is that many people who are trying to work on very different phenomena in the climate are not prevented from interpreting – and indeed, overinterpreting and misinterpreting – their results that are often less serious, less reliable, and less rigorous, perhaps by orders of magnitude, than the observations by the European Organization for Nuclear Research.

Moreover, this sentence by Heuer

One has to make clear that cosmic radiation is only one of many parameters.is really a proof of his prejudice. Whether the cosmic radiation is just one player or the only relevant player or an important player or an unimportant player is something that this very research has been supposed to determine or help to determine. An official doesn’t have the moral right to predetermine in advance what “one has to make clear” about these a priori unknown scientific results.

But then, as Lawrence Solomon reminds us, this was never an experiment the scientific establishment wanted to happen in the first place.


The hypothesis that cosmic rays and the sun hold the key to the global warming debate has been Enemy No. 1 to the global warming establishment ever since it was first proposed by two scientists from the Danish Space Research Institute, at a 1996 scientific conference in the U.K. Within one day, the chairman of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, Bert Bolin, denounced the theory, saying, “I find the move from this pair scientifically extremely naive and irresponsible.” He then set about discrediting the theory, any journalist that gave the theory credence, and most of all the Danes presenting the theory — they soon found themselves vilified, marginalized and starved of funding, despite their impeccable scientific credentials.

The mobilization to rally the press against the Danes worked brilliantly, with one notable exception. Nigel Calder, a former editor of The New Scientist who attended that 1996 conference, would not be cowed. Himself a physicist, Mr. Calder became convinced of the merits of the argument and a year later, following a lecture he gave at a CERN conference, so too did Jasper Kirkby, a CERN scientist in attendance. Mr. Kirkby then convinced the CERN bureaucracy of the theory’s importance and developed a plan to create a cloud chamber — he called it CLOUD, for “Cosmics Leaving OUtdoor Droplets.”

But Mr. Kirkby made the same tactical error that the Danes had — not realizing how politicized the global warming issue was, he candidly shared his views with the scientific community.

“The theory will 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,” Mr. Kirkby told the scientific press in 1998, explaining that global warming may be part of a natural cycle in the Earth’s temperature.

The global warming establishment sprang into action, pressured the Western governments that control CERN, and almost immediately succeeded in suspending CLOUD. It took Mr. Kirkby almost a decade of negotiation with his superiors, and who knows how many compromises and unspoken commitments, to convince the CERN bureaucracy to allow the project to proceed. And years more to create the cloud chamber and convincingly validate the Danes’ groundbreaking theory.

Still, as you’d expect, the BBC remains dutifully on-message. Read this report by its science correspondent Pallab Ghosh and you’ll be left in little doubt that a) the latest results are dull beyond measure and b) that if they do mean anything at all, it’s that global warming is still very much man-made. Here’s their tame expert, Reading University’s Dr Mike Lockwood, on hand to provide them the perfect pull-quote:

Does this mean that cosmic rays can produce cloud? – No”

Wake Up World's latest videos


Join Wake Up World's Ever Evolving Social Communities

Facebook Twitter Pinterest Google Plus


  • Mick

    Of course, all anyone who really wants this debate ended once and for all need do, is to look at the climate and temperature data on any and every other planet in our solar system. Compare it to what we are seeing take place on Earth, in both percentages of increase, and the timeline in which it has been observed to occur. The only conclusion one will be left with, is that, unless there are secretly large human (or technologically advanced non-human) civilizations on these planets, planetary warming, as well as cooling, is a natural, repeating cycle.

    Now, can this cause complications for human life? Sure. Areas which are now inhabited have been covered with water in the past. When they eventually become so again, people will be displaced. However, depending upon how much global temperatures increase, humans may find the act of moving to higher altitudes, which are now too cool for many to comfortably tolerate, to actually be desirable. Many of these areas are presently either not inhabited by humans, or are only sparsely inhabited. My point is, I believe the world to be large enough to accommodate a migrating human race from these displaced areas to more easily habitable areas. There has also been an interest expressed by some (PayPal’s founder Peter Thiel for one), to create “floating micro-countries”:


    I wonder, and have concerns about the impact of this, to my mind likely, migration of humanity on nature and all within her, be they animal, vegetable, or mineral, but hey… maybe this will be what causes us to all finally start getting along with one another, and having respect for nature’s sanctity. Perhaps not, but nothing wrong with being starry-eyed every once in a while, right?

    So, to close out this monologue, I am all for humanity to cease it’s rampant raping and denuding of the natural world, but to disingenuously force us all into eventually paying an oxygen consumption tax in the name of lining some pocketbooks, and giving more power to the people who already wield too much, is not only inexcusable, but also ultimately foolhardy.

    • Peter

      Whether man-made or contributed global warming is a hoax or not, our society is still polluting the air and water and killing thousands of entire species. Can anyone say the health of life on this planet is equal to or better than it was even 50 years ago? Of course not. It is far worse and continues its downward slope. And we ARE responsible for that. Man-made global warming was the first time a large group of people even paid the slightest attention to the rapid destruction we are causing life on earth. Hoax or not, for that it should be applauded. Only the oil companies have any reason to continue to fight against it.

      • Wake Up World

        We could not agree with you more Peter. We have always maintained that we MUST all do more to create a greener future for all. This is the only good thing to come out of this situation, people are finally becoming passionate about helping / protecting earth.

      • al eng

        I guess you missed the population explosion. You also must have missed that humans live longer. The polar bears are four times more in population then in the 1950s. But yes I agree humans pollutte by there mear existence. So maybe you should move to china to help straighten this problem out. But only if you are serios about your convictions.

        • Like Man-made global warming, over population is a myth. Here’s a few things to consider:

          If every Human on the planet were given 1/4 acre of land in Australia – 4% of land mass EXcluding Antarctica – We would still have a chunk of Australia left over…and the whole rest of the planet. (I human per 1/4 acre is rather a low population density, too…)

          If the volume of all Humanity were placed in the Grand Canyon, it wouldn’t fill one side canyon.

          If everyOne was placed in the state of Texas…We’d still have room there left over.

          The lies We are told to make money and control People…

          To end pollution, please consider signing My petition:


          • Anne Sullivan

            Brilliant comment. Just think of all the unused infertile and uninhabitable land in Australia. Or the Sahara

            And, just think how much space there is under the oceans. Most of the earth is covered by water. So we can’t have an overpopulation problem. Just let people “live” (or drown) in their ocean of choice.

    • AstroMike

      Mick, as a planetary researcher I can say that what you have stated about other planets is *completely* false. The only other planet shown to have any appreciable recent warming is Mars, and that has conclusively been shown to be caused by Martian winds exposing darker rock, in turn causing the planet to absorb more sunlight:


      Please stop spreading disinformation to fit your political whim.

    • Of course we exist in a world of large climate variations within well-known long term cycles and most of the Earth’s relative homeostasis is due to the stablility of the Sun, which controls the ‘ weather’ of the entire solar system. But this does NOT mean that DOUBLING an important element such as CO2 – let alone methane or water vapour – in the atmosphere will have no effect! Witness the current acidification of earth’s oceans if you want to argue there are no anthropogenic changes occuring in our biosphere. Ask yourself what DOUBLING the amount of an element in our atmosphere is likely to do – because it’s unlikely to have no effect! Don’t fall for the big oily lies of the fossil fools! We can’t continue polluting our nest; the rest is open to debate, but not this central tenet of environmentalism.

  • Jenna

    So my question is this…Is it any wonder the Sun ‘is’ causing global warming? Whether or not it is described because of co2 or cloud formation or a dying sun or solar flares, it is simply because the sun is after all the object to which heat our planet! Of course it is the cause of a warming planet…But the increase in heat which is changing can be down to many factors, none of which alone explain the causes. The only fact we have is that something is increasing the heat on the earth, changing climates and eco structures worldwide, the only realitive link coincides with humans…this goes the same for the increase in species extinction..The fact is people are causing changes to the earths eco systems, complex dynamics between humans our planet, weather systems, and even the sun are bound to change as well.

  • I would go further than Peter’s Principle above. I would suggest that verifiable global problems such as ocean eutrophication / garbage gyres, farmland erosion, desertification, deforestation, fish habitat destruction, etc. were/ are being ignored BECAUSE we distracted ourselves with the global warming nonsense. Further, I posit that ALL such agendas are driven by corporate (actually multinational) interests and their profit (greed) motive as coordinated/ marketed by globalist organizations such as UN, IMF, World Bank, TriLateral Commission, and their ‘puppet governments’ – as truthtellers (labeled ‘conspiracy theorists’) like to say. The Occupy movement has a lot of ground to cover. The Mainstream Media can rest assured it will eventually lose the battle (and hopefully their mandate) to suppress such truths.

  • Dave

    All of these idiots banging on about how great the man made global warming scam is because “it promotes a greener future” need to wake up and smell the coffee.

    The people involved in perpetuating this myth care not one jot about being green, what they care about is raping the public of as much money as possible, and obtaining as much power for themselves as possible by disempowering everyone else.

    It is a corporate driven money making scam, the carbon credits market alone will make some of the people behind it $Trillions of dollars – imagine it, they are making huge profits for trading in a commodity that doesn’t even exist, doesn’t need to exist, and was created out of thin air – essentially making money by being the middle men in the trade of unnecessary permits – pieces of paper to give people permission to pollute – you want to pollute more, give me some more money.

    It is ridiculous and the sad thing is that the idiots who for some reason despise everything Human and want to punish us all for (lets face it) corporations who deforest areas and cause pollution, etc, will end up enslaving us all to draconian legislation that will achieve nothing but create a new breed of all powerful dictators, and bigger more powerful corporations who will be given power to subdue us by any means necessary supposedly for our own good, while they line their pockets at our expense.

    These people are not your friends, they do not care about you, you are a commodity with a $dollar value, as outlined in the infamous Summers memo from the World Bank.

    Look it up.

    • Ed

      What you say Dave of course resonates with the people, but you’re worried cause you’re as greedy as the corporations. It’s a fact that there is too many people on the planet. We are all part of the system no matter how we dress ourselves up with words such as eco, organic and permaculture. The only way out is to drop our ego. Everything becomes nothing anyway, but our heavy control of the biosphere and resulting damage to the atmosphere is leading our biodiversity, the species we evolved with and should trust, love, grow with, listen to, and watch over as well as ourselves into an ugly abyss.

      I don’t buy your argument or the over-simplistic one that was sold here. The biosphere is in dance with the atmosphere; non of the spheres would exist without the sun.

    • Sirspongy

      Dave, you do realize that the Summers memo was satirical, right? It was leaked after being heavily edited so that the sarcasm was not evident, which made it seem like it was being serious.

  • Spot on, Dave.

  • ItstheClimateCrisisperiod

    Dave, You are afraid because you don’t have a clue.

    “The people involved in perpetuating this myth care not one jot about being green, what they care about is raping the public of as much money as possible, and obtaining as much power for themselves as possible by disempowering everyone else.”

    If the Carbon credit market you are referring to is the cap and trade scheme it will not work at all. It is a bogus ploy to do nothing for longer. A true carbon tax would be a big improvement but still not enough. If the Public’s Government eliminated all other taxes and only funded itself by a carbon tax on everything that produces carbon it may be enough, but I am doubtful.

    You know it is all the government’s money anyway so when it levies taxes it is using its own funds.

    The science, which is as sound as any science could be is not much concern anyway. The dilemma is like this, If I stomp on the gas I am killing my grandchildren and yours and billions of others. It’s the butterfly effect. We have stolen enough from our world. If you love thy God and thy neighbor as thy self can you really pollute my air and eventually kill my children? If you disagree with that you are a greedy foolish man. You need to get on the right side of this.

  • Saxtus

    This article you have wrote is extremely confusing.Sorry!

  • Saxtus

    What does the article mean by “dutifully on messege”?

  • The solar activity right now with the sun is in a cooling period, which contradicts the increasing temperatures on our earth, so global warming is not necessarily natural, one could argue.

  • Well duh, the sun causes global warming…it’s the “primary cause”… The secondary cause IS HUMAN CRAP in the atmosphere. It’s sheer ignorance to believe otherwise, no matter how many lame studies counter the valid ones. This is like saying ,”The sun causes skin cancer”. NO it doesn’t, it’s the CRAP humans ingest and put on their bodies reacting with the sun… Not the Sun which is the Source of Life here. Silly humans destroy their atmosphere……. and thanks to the Sun, will become ILLUMINATED.