Ocean acidifcation .

[Exile]

Originally Posted by newhaul

Ok consider this and I found it to be censured everywhere but here .
https://www.reddit.com/r/climateskep.../?ref=readnext
Read it then tell me why they would publish and then censure it .

Here's a few possibilities. Maybe it was this:

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded. In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

Then again, it could have been this:

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

Or this?

"Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said."

These last words were certainly prophetic. But then it could have just been that, while this scientist believes there is some warming effect from CO2, his projections are lower than the IPCC and he believes the effects of the sun have been largely ignored. So why would anyone want to hear from a guy like that?

Well, apparently not desmogblog, even though it acknowledges that

"[a]lthough he is skeptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a “dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels.” His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favor of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power."

Apparently that's not good enough, however, since his team's projections are for a "change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports." But who cares what the chair of the physics dept at a leading university thinks? Especially when he used to be a true believer . . .

"A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say."

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Don't be too sure about that...

Forbes is not scientific journal. It regularly has posts from Heartland and others.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Here's a few possibilities. Maybe it was this:

“Only people who don’t understand science take the 97% statistic seriously,” he said. “Survey results depend on who you ask, who answers and how the questions are worded. In any case, science is not a democracy. Even if 100% of scientists believe something, one person with good evidence can still be right.”

Then again, it could have been this:

“The real problem is funding from funding agencies like the National Science Foundation because these proposals have to undergo review by people in a community that ostracizes us,” he said, because of his non-conventional viewpoint.

Or this?

"Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said."

These last words were certainly prophetic. But then it could have just been that, while this scientist believes there is some warming effect from CO2, his projections are lower than the IPCC and he believes the effects of the sun have been largely ignored. So why would anyone want to hear from a guy like that?

Well, apparently not desmogblog, even though it acknowledges that

"[a]lthough he is skeptical of man-made climate change, he stresses that there are a “dozen good reasons why we should strive to burn less fossil fuels.” His two primary reasons are pollution and depletion. He is in favor of developing cheap energy alternatives such as wind and solar power."

Apparently that's not good enough, however, since his team's projections are for a "change of 1.0 to 1.5 degrees Celsius – much less than the 1.5 to 4.5 degree change the IPCC has used since it began issuing its reports." But who cares what the chair of the physics dept at a leading university thinks? Especially when he used to be a true believer . . .

"A few years ago if you would ask me I would tell you it's CO2. Why? Because just like everyone else in the public I listened to what the media had to say."

Bull do do.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by newhaul

sorry to break it to you but the Cern cloud experiment was wrong. Or rather incomplete.

You fail to provide evidence for this assertion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Reefmagnet

Don't be too sure about that...

I cannot determine Forbes' reasoning. Doron Levin's ballywick is cars, not astrophysics or climate science.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/#b42a73b1ad7e

Unlike others, I am not prepared to leap to conclusions.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

What exactly is being suppressed? He is being ignored.

* * *

The world of evolutionary biology tends to mostly ignore "intelligent design."

Oh right, and there's a difference when it comes to whether a scientist gets published depending on whether his work is suppressed or ignored?

Where's the intelligent design part? Did I miss something off his rap sheet on desmogblog, or is this just another one of your more generalized slurs against religious people?

Originally Posted by jackdale

It is neither censored or censured.

There are numerous rebuttals.

https://www.google.com/search?q=shav...hrome&ie=UTF-8

Google scholar has his publications

https://scholar.google.com/citations...BuUAAAAJ&hl=en

And how many are climate science related? I see two, and one is quite old.

Originally Posted by jackdale

Bull do do.

No matter how you say it, you say it a lot. My post was mostly just quoting this scientist. Maybe he has a discussion blog you could join and tell him directly? Please do re-post the discussion here.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I cannot determine Forbes' reasoning. Doron Levin's ballywick is cars, not astrophysics or climate science.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/doronlevin/#b42a73b1ad7e

Unlike others, I am not prepared to leap to conclusions.

Well, that's only fair. How about keeping an open mind to the possibility then? Oh, and you might want to actually read Shaviv's explanation I posted first before immediately responding with one of your variants of "BS." Just so you can at least understand where the opinions you don't happen to "like" are coming from.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

And how many are climate science related? I see two, and one is quite old.

I see more. Read harder.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

I see more. Read harder.

He's onboard with much of the official position, so need ones which contradict basic themes. Like the one Newhaul posted. I didn't understand the Forbes rejection either. Seems like it'd be right up their alley. Maybe IBD will pick it up.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

He's onboard with much of the official position, so need ones which contradict basic themes. Like the one Newhaul posted. I didn't understand the Forbes rejection either. Seems like it'd be right up their alley. Maybe IBD will pick it up.

From 2017

Increased ionization supports growth of aerosols into cloud condensation nuclei
H Svensmark, MB Enghoff, NJ Shaviv, J Svensmark
Nature communications 8 (1), 2199

Proof positive that he, and other "skeptics" get published.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

Well, that's only fair. How about keeping an open mind to the possibility then? Oh, and you might want to actually read Shaviv's explanation I posted first before immediately responding with one of your variants of "BS." Just so you can at least understand where the opinions you don't happen to "like" are coming from.

"Any scientist who rejects the UN’s IPCC report, as he does, will have trouble finding work, receiving research grants or publishing, he said."

He was published in Nature in 2017.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

From 2017



Proof positive that he, and other "skeptics" get published.

That's a reach. According to you but not them. Who's less biased?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by jackdale

He was published in Nature in 2017.

After those comments, maybe for the last time?

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

After those comments, maybe for the last time?

Unsubstantiated idle assertion.

[jackdale]

Originally Posted by Exile

That's a reach. According to you but not them. Who's less biased?

That is a giant leap of a conclusion.