copenlu/druid huggingface dataset:
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2023-07-19): July 2023 marks the 50th anniversary of one of the greatest discoveries made at CERN, the international particle-physics research centre near Geneva, Switzerland: namely, weak neutral currents. The discovery, made by the Gargamelle experiment, provided key evidence that one of four known fundamental forces in nature, the weak interaction, is inextricably entwined with another, the more familiar force of electromagnetism. That finding opened a path of exploration that led, by way of numerous breakthroughs, to the discovery of the Higgs boson in 2012 — and it is still revealing new and exciting perspectives today. [...] Happy birthday, Higgs boson! What we do and don’t know about the particle [...] Eventually, the last missing ingredient of the standard model was the Higgs boson. Experiments at LEP actively searched for the elusive particle, but it became clear that an even more powerful accelerator was needed to produce it. LEP operations ended in 2000, paving the way for the installation of a new proton–proton collider, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), in the same tunnel. The discovery of the Higgs boson was famously announced in 2012 by two LHC experiments, ATLAS and CMS. Again, its measured mass was in excellent agreement with predictions.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2024-03-04): When it was first turned on in 2010, some feared it really would open the gates of Hell, or at the very least unleash a planet-guzzling black hole. Fortunately, the LHC didn’t destroy the world (far more energetic space particles already hit our atmosphere every day). But within the machine’s fiery collisions, the Higgs boson – that elusive "God particle" that gives things mass – was at last found in 2012. [...] The Higgs boson was originally known as the "goddamn particle", given, in the words of one physicist, it was so "goddamn hard to find". [...] When the field gets particularly excited, a ripple emerges we interpret as the Higgs boson, like the bump you get when you twitch a rope. One CERN scientist, suddenly facing down the world press at the announcement of the Higgs discovery in July 2012, described it like this: imagine the Higgs field as a waiting media pack. A celebrity (heavy particle) will be mobbed by the journalists, where someone unknown (i.e. lighter) would slip easily through. Likewise, a juicy rumour (the Higgs boson) will travel through that media scrum, drawing journalists together from one end to another in a bump.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2024-06-18): On June 18, a Threads post shared a screengrab of what appeared to be a miscapitalized news headline that read, "‘Sorry, but we accidentally ended the world in 2012’ Admits CERN scientists." [...] We rate the claim that CERN scientists admit they "accidentally" ended the world in 2012 False. [...] Waterford Whispers News, "Sorry, But We Accidentally Ended The World In 2012" Admits CERN Scientists," (archived), accessed June 26, 2024
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2018-01-16): "Sorry, But We Accidentally Ended The World In 2012" Admits CERN Scientists SCIENTISTS at the European Organization for Nuclear Research, CERN, have admitted today to ending the world as we know it back in 2012, while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle, WWN can confirm. [...] "Um, we’re really, really sorry about this whole mess, but we accidentally ended the world seven years ago," CERN Director General Rolf-Dieter Heuer began, "yeah, we fucked up and we know it’s probably a lot to take in, but right now, none of us technically exist.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (1999-10-12): I've never been the same since.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2009-11-20): Personally I hope the LHC gets up to full power and running at the latest by the end of 2011, so I can sigh and say "Whatever, wasn't the world supposed to end last year too when the LHC went online? This is getting ridiculous..." If they are delayed into 2012, the conspiracy nuts will align and we'll never hear the end of it (until 2013 anyway). [...] In other universes, they didn't have any issues starting the LHC, it accidentally the entire universe, and they got wiped from creation. [...] Scientists around the world cheered triumphantly learning their efforts weren't in vain as they found the elusive 'G-d' particle. Or so they thought. Early this morning a lab technician noticed a flaw in the work, having double and triple checked it seems the ticker tape parades need be canceled. The particle they found was in fact a HiggsBison particle which is of no redeeming value. We have M. Bison here now.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2024-06-24): This Haunts Me: Did Scientists at CERN End the World in 2012? [...] Back in 2012, the Higgs Boson was still theoretical. It was thought to mediate the quantum field responsible for providing particles their mass, thus regulating the force of gravity. And beneath the border of France and Switzerland, scientists at the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN) were using their enormous and massively powerful particle accelerator to find it. [...] The scientists at CERN were messing with forces beyond their control — beyond their understanding. So maybe they did trigger a doomsday scenario — one that we couldn't see.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2022-07-20): As far back as 2008, the Large Hadron Collider (LHC), operated by the European Organization for Nuclear Research (CERN), was charged with creating microscopic black holes that would allow physicists to detect extra dimensions. To many, this sounds like the plot of a disastrous science-fiction movie. It came as no surprise when two people filed a lawsuit to stop the LHC from operating, lest it produce a black hole powerful enough to destroy the world. But physicists argued that the idea was absurd and the lawsuit was rejected. Then, in 2012, the LHC detected the long-sought Higgs boson, a particle needed to explain how particles acquire mass. With that major accomplishment, the LHC entered popular culture; it was featured on the album cover of Super Collider (2013) by the heavy metal band Megadeth, and was a plot point in the US television series The Flash (2014-).
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2024-07-27): CERN’s Nellist says she understands where people are coming from. [...] Nellist said that, while the science CERN is doing at the LHC is groundbreaking, they are simply recreating "collisions that happen in our atmosphere all the time" in a controlled environment. "For billions of years this has been happening in our universe," she said.
Claim: CERN scientists admit they “accidentally” ended the world in 2012 while performing experiments into the Higgs boson particle. (Threads post, 2024-06-18)
Evidence (2022-06-15): Ten Years After the Higgs, Physicists Face the Nightmare of Finding Nothing Else (science.org) 90
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2016-01-01): Misleading : The short timeframe given makes it more difficult to say whether something is or is not outside the bounds of natural variability. However, thorough analysis in the 2013 IPCC report concluded it was “extremely likely” (a probability of at least 95%) that humans are responsible for more than half of the warming since 1950, and likely all of it.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2016-11-01): There is no convincing evidence that natural variability can account for the amount of and the pattern of global warming observed over the industrial era.2 ,3 ,4 ,5 Solar flux variations over the last six decades have been too small to explain the observed changes in climate.6 ,7 ,8 There are no apparent natural cycles in the observational record that can explain the recent changes in climate (e.g., PAGES 2k Consortium 2013;9 Marcott et al. 2013;10 Otto-Bliesner et al. 201611 ). In addition, natural cycles within Earth’s climate system can only redistribute heat; they cannot be responsible for the observed increase in the overall heat content of the climate system.12 Any explanations for the observed changes in climate must be grounded in understood physical mechanisms, appropriate in scale, and consistent in timing and direction with the long-term observed trends. Known human activities quite reasonably explain what has happened without the need for other factors.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2013-11-12): The SPM also misleads when it states, "Warming of the climate system is unequivocal, and since the 1950s many of the observed changes are unprecedented." The NIPCC authors explain, "Though the IPCC’s favored temperature record (HadCRUT) depicts a rise of 0.4 deg. C since 1950, other temperature records show little or no warming at all in the second half of the twentieth century." These include the US GISS land surface record, sea surface temperature records, including Hadley NMAT, atmosphere temperature records, such as Hadley radiosonde and satellite MSU, and land surface temperature proxies. The NIPCC authors conclude in response to the SPM, "It is likely that the HadCRUT temperature record underestimates the impact of urban heat islands [in falsely exaggerating] surface temperature records….[Moreover,] the post-1950 warming shown by the Hadley record is of about the same magnitude and rate as the known natural warming between 1910 and 1940, and is therefore not unprecedented." [...] Among Climate Change Reconsidered II’s conclusions, "neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climate history. Furthermore, solar forcings of temperature change are likely more important than is currently recognized, and evidence is lacking that a 2 degree C increase in temperature (of whatever cause) would be globally harmful."
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2013-11-17): Late-twentieth-century emergence of the El Niño propagation asymmetry and future projections [...] Anthropogenic impacts on twentieth-century ENSO variability changes
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2016-02-01): "The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks." [...] "Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere."
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2017-09-04): Natural unforced variability in global mean surface air temperature (GMST) can mask or exaggerate human-caused global warming, and thus a complete understanding of this variability is highly desirable. Significant progress has been made in elucidating the magnitude and physical origins of present-day unforced GMST variability, but it has remained unclear how such variability may change as the climate warms. Here we present modelling evidence that indicates that the magnitude of low-frequency GMST variability is likely to decline in a warmer climate and that its generating mechanisms may be fundamentally altered. In particular, a warmer climate results in lower albedo at high latitudes, which yields a weaker albedo feedback on unforced GMST variability. These results imply that unforced GMST variability is dependent on the background climatological conditions, and thus climate model control simulations run under perpetual pre-industrial conditions may have only limited relevance for understanding the unforced GMST variability of the future.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2017-11-13): The rate of human-induced warming is estimated using the latest 20 years of data. The most recent 20 year trend is +0.16 °C/decade in HadCRUT4, and the uncertainty range spans from +0.12 to +0.32 °C/decade. For HadCRUT4-CW, the trend is +0.17 °C/decade (0.13–0.33 °C/decade). The range is skewed due to the one-sided uncertainty related to anthropogenic aerosols during 1950–80. Our warming rate estimate is compatible with the 1979–2010 trend calculated in Foster and Rahmstorf48 using multiple regression to filter out natural contributors (+0.17 °C for HadCRUT4). Other more physically based methods to remove natural variations yield equally compatible results49. Trends of shorter time intervals show larger anthropogenic warming rates in recent years, indicating that the trend in GHG forcing has likely been increasing, although CO2 emissions have stabilised during the last three years. Non-CO2 GHGs such as methane may be responsible for the accelerated anthropogenic warming rate28, with perhaps a minor contribution from reduced Asian aerosol pollution29,50.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2021-12-17): There is general agreement in the literature that anthropogenic greenhouse gases and aerosols have measurably affected observed oceanic and atmospheric variability in TC-prone regions (see Chapter 3). This underpinned the SROCC assessment of medium confidence that humans have contributed to the observed increase in Atlantic hurricane activity since the 1970s (Chapter 5, Bindoff et al., 2013). Literature subsequent to AR5 lends further support to this statement (Knutson et al., 2019). However, there is still no consensus on the relative magnitude of human and natural influences on past changes in Atlantic hurricane activity, and particularly on which factor has dominated the observed increase (Ting et al., 2015) and it remains uncertain whether past changes in Atlantic TC activity are outside the range of natural variability.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2017-02-09): Natural variability can not explain modern global warming, as Heartland Institute report claims
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2012-04-04): Human-induced warming reached approximately 1°C (likely between 0.8°C and 1.2°C) above pre-industrial levels in 2017, increasing at 0.2°C (likely between 0.1°C and 0.3°C) per decade (high confidence). Global warming is defined in this report as an increase in combined surface air and sea surface temperatures averaged over the globe and over a 30-year period. Unless otherwise specified, warming is expressed relative to the period 1850–1900, used as an approximation of pre-industrial temperatures in AR5. For periods shorter than 30 years, warming refers to the estimated average temperature over the 30 years centred on that shorter period, accounting for the impact of any temperature fluctuations or trend within those 30 years. Accordingly, warming from pre- industrial levels to the decade 2006–2015 is assessed to be 0.87°C (likely between 0.75°C and 0.99°C). Since 2000, the estimated level of human-induced warming has been equal to the level of observed warming with a likely range of ±20% accounting for uncertainty due to contributions from solar and volcanic activity over the historical period (high confidence). {1.2.1}
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2019-03-12): The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) synthesis report published in 2014 found a warming trend over Antarctica, but expressed low confidence that the warming was caused by human activities. In the late twentieth century, the ozone hole and its effects on air circulation may have partly shielded the continent from the global warming influence of greenhouse gas emissions. Continued success in addressing the ozone hole, along with fossil fuel emissions, may cause Antarctic temperatures to rise more rapidly in future decades. The Antarctic Peninsula—lower in elevation and closer to the equator—experienced rapid temperature increases for several decades in the twentieth century. Then, in the late 1990s, temperature increases slowed, and since 2000, the Peninsula has actually cooled. Studies published in Nature and Nature Climate Change in 2016 concluded that the recent cooling can be explained by natural variability and trends in Pacific Ocean temperatures. Despite the recent cooling, the northern parts of the Antarctic Peninsula remain much warmer than they were in the middle of the last century. [...] Turner, J., Lu, H., White, I., King, J.C., Phillips, T., Hosking, J.S., Bracegirdle, T.J., Marshall, G.J., Mulvaney, R., Deb, P. (2016). Absence of 21st century warming on Antarctic Peninsula consistent with natural variability. Nature, 535, 411–415. doi:10.1038/nature18645.
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2020-04-29): WSD authors conclude that "neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979-2000) lay outside normal natural variability, nor was it in any way unusual compared to earlier episodes in Earth’s climatic history" (p. 84). This statement is an example of cherry picking data that conveniently fails to account for the increase in temperatures over the last 19 years. At what point would temperatures and climate changes be labeled as unusual or beyond the parameters of natural variability? There is no mention of a benchmark to indicate that threshold. WSD authors write, "Though the range of natural variation has yet to be fully described, evidence is lacking for any recent changes in global ocean circulation that lie outside natural variation or were forced by human CO2 emissions" (p. 92). How can one claim natural variability without being able to define it?
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2013-09-12): In the late-20th-century warming period (1970–2005) the observed trend is consistent with the BEST6 ensemble with the BEST6 trends dominated by GHG warming, as is also true of the WRST6 ensemble. In contrast to an earlier study7 using past generation climate models together with an empirical fit to global temperatures we find no evidence in the CMIP5 multi-model ensemble that changes in aerosols since the 1970s (here part of OTH) have contributed to recent Arctic warming. [...] Finally, using this set of current climate models run without natural and anthropogenic forcings it is possible to estimate the probability that the observed variation in Arctic-average surface temperature was due to internal climate variability alone. To accomplish this we have taken all available 106-year long independent segments from 17 of the above climate models with available control (i.e. externally-unforced) simulations. In total this yielded 92 such segments which were each masked with the observational coverage before computing piecewise linear approximations as above. Figure 6 shows that only one such segment, or realization, has early-20th-century warming as large as observed and that only two realizations have middle-20th-century cooling as large as observed – no realizations have late-20th-century warming as large as observed. The evidence, therefore, suggests that internal climate variability cannot account for the observed trends and this is supported by statistical tests of the null hypothesis that observed trends are consistent with zero29. Differences between observed and control–average trends in the early-20th-century and middle-20th-century periods have p-values equal to 0.01 and 0.02, respectively and near zero for the late-20th-century period (assuming the models are exchangeable with each other29).
Claim: Neither the rate nor the magnitude of the reported late twentieth century surface warming (1979–2000) lay outside normal natural variability. (Craig Idso, Robert Carter, S. Fred Singer, 2016-01-01)
Evidence (2017-04-28): Model outputs published in successive IPCC reports since 1990 project a doubling of CO2 could cause warming of up to 6°C by 2100. Instead, global warming ceased around the end of the twentieth century and was followed (since 1997) by 19 years of stable temperature. [...] The late twentieth century warm peak was of no greater magnitude than previous peaks caused entirely by natural forcings and feedbacks. [...] Solar forcings are not too small to explain twentieth century warming. In fact, their effect could be equal to or greater than the effect of CO2 in the atmosphere.