This story is a few days old, but worth noting nevertheless. This account is from the Science and Environmental Policy Project’s The Week That Was:
Solar physicist Nir Shaviv reluctantly granted science journalist Doron Levin an interview, although Shaviv was skeptical that it would be published. A similar interview to a reporter for Bloomberg was reject by its editorial board. Leven assured Shaviv that Forbes would publish the interview online. It did – for a few hours. The interview was an immediate hit. Then, Forbes yanked the report with the statement:
After review, this post has been removed for failing to meet our editorial standards. We are providing our readers the headline, author and first paragraphs in the interest of transparency.
We regret any inconvenience.
What was Shaviv’s sin? He argues that the Sun is largely responsible for variations in the Earth’s global temperatures–on its face, a plausible view. But orthodoxy demands that we all pretend that carbon dioxide is a miraculous control knob that governs the Earth’s climate, to the exclusion of all other (often far more important) factors, despite ample evidence from the planet’s geological history. Forbes unfortunately knuckled under.
Shaviv strongly supports the Svensmark hypothesis and has co-authored papers with Svensmark. The key issue is that Shaviv considers that the increase in solar irradiation in the 20th century contributed one-half to two-thirds of estimated 20th century warming.
One of the strongest pieces of evidence is a graph of over eighty years, from about 1915 to 2005 showing the relationship between Sea Level Change Rate (mm/year) and changes in the Reconstructed Solar Constant (watts per square meter).). The sea level change rate is from stable tidal gages. As the oceans heat, they expand; as they cool, they contract. The relationship of the changes is quite dramatic.
There is much more at the link. For now, the principal point is that leftists who are losing arguments rarely change their minds. Instead, they try to shut up their opponents. We see that today, across pretty much the entire range of issues. In this instance, it is sad to see Forbes giving in to the anti-science mob.