As a physicist who considered going into climate science in undergrad, non-scientists have no idea how politicized climate science is. I realized I might be pressured into lying about my results, which I don’t think I would do, but I had followed Orson Scott Card’s (a science fiction writer) blog in high school and he highlighted physicists and other scientists who had been canceled for going against the global warming narrative. I just didn’t feel I had the financial ability to withstand canceling, I am a coward.
In science people really do tend to study what people will pay them to study.
Consensus in science is a warning that it is not science at all.
Is it credible that EVERYONE else EXCEPT HIM is lying? And lying in the same direction? And every climate scientist in all other countries? In Japan? In China? In France (where I live)? Does this even really pass the smell test? Just because you're a coward does not mean that absolutely everyone else is as well, with one single solitary exception. If you are going to be a skeptic about everybody at least be consistent don't make exceptions that suit your own interest and prior beliefs.
“The conditions in the ionosphere and magnetosphere of Earth are influenced by the electromagnetic state in interplanetary space, which is in turn affected by the sun.”
—HANNES ALVEN, Physicist and Nobel Laureate
=====
“Paleoclimatic data provide extensive evidence for a sharp global cooling around 2700 B P. The causes of natural climate variation are discussed. Changes of the galactic cosmic ray intensity may play a key role as the causal mechanism of climate change. Since the cosmic ray intensity (reflected by the cosmogenic isotope level in the earth's atmosphere) is modulated by the solar wind and by the terrestrial magnetic field, this may be an important mechanism for long-term solar climate variability. The Sterno-Etrussia excursion may have amplified the climate shift, which, in the first place, was the effect of a decline of solar activity. During excursions and inversions, the magnetic moment decreases, which leads to an increased intensity of cosmic rays penetrating the upper atmosphere. Global changes in the electromagnetic field of the earth result in sharp changes in the climate-determining factors in the atmosphere, such as temperatures, total pressure field, moisture circulation, intensity of air flows, and thunderstorm activity. In addition, significant changes in the ocean circulation patterns and temperature regimes of oceans will have taken place.“ (2016 / Cambridge University Press.)
Thanks for sharing the text. Let me give you a clear analysis, separating the **valid scientific points** from the **exaggerations, omissions, and politics**:
---
### 1. **Svensmark’s Core Scientific Claim**
* He argues that **cosmic rays and solar activity regulate cloud formation**, which in turn strongly affects Earth’s climate.
* Mechanism:
* Active Sun → stronger magnetic field → fewer cosmic rays → fewer clouds → warming.
* Quiet Sun → weaker magnetic field → more cosmic rays → more clouds → cooling.
* He estimates the effect on Earth’s energy balance as **\~1–1.5 W/m² per solar cycle**, which he claims is **10× larger** than direct solar irradiance changes.
**Reality check:**
* Svensmark’s cosmic-ray hypothesis is well known, but **remains controversial**.
* Some lab experiments (like CERN’s CLOUD project) show that cosmic rays can help seed aerosols, but **the effect is too weak under current atmospheric conditions** to explain observed climate trends.
* The IPCC doesn’t completely ignore the Sun—it concludes that solar variability has had a **small but measurable effect** in the pre-industrial era, but **cannot explain the rapid warming since \~1950**, whereas CO₂ and other greenhouse gases can.
---
### 2. **On CO₂ Sensitivity**
* He suggests **\~1°C per CO₂ doubling**, which is below mainstream estimates (the IPCC’s “likely” range is **2.5–4°C**, with very low probability below 1.5°C).
* His lower estimate would imply a relatively benign warming future.
**Reality check:**
* The “\~1°C per doubling” figure is essentially the **no-feedback sensitivity** (only the direct greenhouse effect).
* The mainstream science adds feedbacks (water vapor, albedo, clouds) that amplify this to 2–4°C.
* Svensmark’s stance is **not wrong about direct forcing**, but **dismisses feedbacks that are strongly evidenced** in paleoclimate data and models.
---
### 3. **Historical Analogies (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age)**
* He links them to solar activity changes.
* This is partly supported by paleoclimate research, but **those changes were regional, not global**, and the magnitude is smaller than today’s warming.
**Reality check:**
* Reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were **not synchronous global events**; today’s warming is more rapid and global.
* Solar forcing did contribute historically, but **it cannot explain the past 50–70 years**.
---
### 4. **Clouds and Models**
* He says climate models cannot simulate clouds well, making their predictions unreliable.
**Reality check:**
* It is true: **clouds remain one of the largest uncertainties in climate projections**.
* However, uncertainty does not mean “models are worthless.” Models reproduce many observed trends (warming, Arctic sea ice decline, heat content in oceans).
---
### 5. **The Politics & Career Risk Angle**
* He claims that questioning CO₂ dominance is a “bad career move,” implying that dissent is silenced.
* He cites incidents of protest and vandalism at conferences.
**Reality check:**
* Academia can indeed have **funding and consensus pressures**—not unique to climate science. But there is no blanket censorship: contrarian research (like Svensmark’s, Shaviv’s, Lindzen’s) gets published, though often challenged.
* The protests are **real but rare**; they reflect activist behavior more than the scientific process itself.
* His framing suggests persecution, which makes his narrative attractive to climate-skeptical audiences.
---
### 6. **On Climate “Crisis”**
* He argues warming is **milder winters, economic benefits**, and exaggerated doom predictions (Pacific islands not sunk, Arctic not ice-free).
**Reality check:**
* While some early predictions were exaggerated in the media, the **core scientific projections (sea level rise, Arctic ice decline, heat extremes)** are being borne out.
* Pacific islands are already facing **measurable sea-level challenges**, even if not “sunk.”
* The Arctic has **not yet reached ice-free summers**, but its decline is faster than many models predicted.
---
### 7. **Overall Assessment**
* Svensmark’s **scientific contribution**: he highlights a plausible but **secondary mechanism** (cosmic rays/clouds). Mainstream science does not reject it outright but finds it **too small to explain modern warming**.
* His **downplaying of CO₂ sensitivity** conflicts with multiple independent lines of evidence (paleoclimate, models, observations).
* His **political framing** (career risk, censorship, “propaganda”) resonates with skeptical audiences but oversimplifies how science actually works.
* His **“climate is getting milder” argument** underestimates risks of extremes, sea level rise, and uneven regional impacts.
---
✅ **In short:** Svensmark provides a scientifically interesting but minority hypothesis. He is right that cosmic rays and clouds are worth studying, and that climate models struggle with clouds. But he **downplays the robust evidence for CO₂-driven warming** and exaggerates the idea of suppression and persecution. The blog amplifies his narrative in a way that makes it sound like mainstream science is willfully blind, which is misleading.
As a physicist who considered going into climate science in undergrad, non-scientists have no idea how politicized climate science is. I realized I might be pressured into lying about my results, which I don’t think I would do, but I had followed Orson Scott Card’s (a science fiction writer) blog in high school and he highlighted physicists and other scientists who had been canceled for going against the global warming narrative. I just didn’t feel I had the financial ability to withstand canceling, I am a coward.
In science people really do tend to study what people will pay them to study.
Consensus in science is a warning that it is not science at all.
In collage, the person I knew who went into climate science did so after he discovered he couldn't cut it in physics.
Is it credible that EVERYONE else EXCEPT HIM is lying? And lying in the same direction? And every climate scientist in all other countries? In Japan? In China? In France (where I live)? Does this even really pass the smell test? Just because you're a coward does not mean that absolutely everyone else is as well, with one single solitary exception. If you are going to be a skeptic about everybody at least be consistent don't make exceptions that suit your own interest and prior beliefs.
There are a number of climate scientists who publish contrary or critical analyses.
“The conditions in the ionosphere and magnetosphere of Earth are influenced by the electromagnetic state in interplanetary space, which is in turn affected by the sun.”
—HANNES ALVEN, Physicist and Nobel Laureate
=====
“Paleoclimatic data provide extensive evidence for a sharp global cooling around 2700 B P. The causes of natural climate variation are discussed. Changes of the galactic cosmic ray intensity may play a key role as the causal mechanism of climate change. Since the cosmic ray intensity (reflected by the cosmogenic isotope level in the earth's atmosphere) is modulated by the solar wind and by the terrestrial magnetic field, this may be an important mechanism for long-term solar climate variability. The Sterno-Etrussia excursion may have amplified the climate shift, which, in the first place, was the effect of a decline of solar activity. During excursions and inversions, the magnetic moment decreases, which leads to an increased intensity of cosmic rays penetrating the upper atmosphere. Global changes in the electromagnetic field of the earth result in sharp changes in the climate-determining factors in the atmosphere, such as temperatures, total pressure field, moisture circulation, intensity of air flows, and thunderstorm activity. In addition, significant changes in the ocean circulation patterns and temperature regimes of oceans will have taken place.“ (2016 / Cambridge University Press.)
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/radiocarbon/article/sternoetrussia-geomagnetic-excursion-around-2700-bp-and-changes-of-solar-activity-cosmic-ray-intensity-and-climate/3F6746E7AF6783FF74C40E77080A16BD?utm_campaign=shareaholic&utm_medium=facebook&utm_source=socialnetwork&fbclid=IwY2xjawM8rxhleHRuA2FlbQIxMABicmlkETE5OGt4U2w2NWxCcklpdE41AR7XcwLf8Ic6xp1EMt4NVy47N9P4gDutgBmHCyX3y0RYDGt7muXp6axCyFukIQ_aem_OgYkwve0ExXn2IFtmdHi0g
GPT replies:
Thanks for sharing the text. Let me give you a clear analysis, separating the **valid scientific points** from the **exaggerations, omissions, and politics**:
---
### 1. **Svensmark’s Core Scientific Claim**
* He argues that **cosmic rays and solar activity regulate cloud formation**, which in turn strongly affects Earth’s climate.
* Mechanism:
* Active Sun → stronger magnetic field → fewer cosmic rays → fewer clouds → warming.
* Quiet Sun → weaker magnetic field → more cosmic rays → more clouds → cooling.
* He estimates the effect on Earth’s energy balance as **\~1–1.5 W/m² per solar cycle**, which he claims is **10× larger** than direct solar irradiance changes.
**Reality check:**
* Svensmark’s cosmic-ray hypothesis is well known, but **remains controversial**.
* Some lab experiments (like CERN’s CLOUD project) show that cosmic rays can help seed aerosols, but **the effect is too weak under current atmospheric conditions** to explain observed climate trends.
* The IPCC doesn’t completely ignore the Sun—it concludes that solar variability has had a **small but measurable effect** in the pre-industrial era, but **cannot explain the rapid warming since \~1950**, whereas CO₂ and other greenhouse gases can.
---
### 2. **On CO₂ Sensitivity**
* He suggests **\~1°C per CO₂ doubling**, which is below mainstream estimates (the IPCC’s “likely” range is **2.5–4°C**, with very low probability below 1.5°C).
* His lower estimate would imply a relatively benign warming future.
**Reality check:**
* The “\~1°C per doubling” figure is essentially the **no-feedback sensitivity** (only the direct greenhouse effect).
* The mainstream science adds feedbacks (water vapor, albedo, clouds) that amplify this to 2–4°C.
* Svensmark’s stance is **not wrong about direct forcing**, but **dismisses feedbacks that are strongly evidenced** in paleoclimate data and models.
---
### 3. **Historical Analogies (Medieval Warm Period, Little Ice Age)**
* He links them to solar activity changes.
* This is partly supported by paleoclimate research, but **those changes were regional, not global**, and the magnitude is smaller than today’s warming.
**Reality check:**
* Reconstructions show the Medieval Warm Period and Little Ice Age were **not synchronous global events**; today’s warming is more rapid and global.
* Solar forcing did contribute historically, but **it cannot explain the past 50–70 years**.
---
### 4. **Clouds and Models**
* He says climate models cannot simulate clouds well, making their predictions unreliable.
**Reality check:**
* It is true: **clouds remain one of the largest uncertainties in climate projections**.
* However, uncertainty does not mean “models are worthless.” Models reproduce many observed trends (warming, Arctic sea ice decline, heat content in oceans).
---
### 5. **The Politics & Career Risk Angle**
* He claims that questioning CO₂ dominance is a “bad career move,” implying that dissent is silenced.
* He cites incidents of protest and vandalism at conferences.
**Reality check:**
* Academia can indeed have **funding and consensus pressures**—not unique to climate science. But there is no blanket censorship: contrarian research (like Svensmark’s, Shaviv’s, Lindzen’s) gets published, though often challenged.
* The protests are **real but rare**; they reflect activist behavior more than the scientific process itself.
* His framing suggests persecution, which makes his narrative attractive to climate-skeptical audiences.
---
### 6. **On Climate “Crisis”**
* He argues warming is **milder winters, economic benefits**, and exaggerated doom predictions (Pacific islands not sunk, Arctic not ice-free).
**Reality check:**
* While some early predictions were exaggerated in the media, the **core scientific projections (sea level rise, Arctic ice decline, heat extremes)** are being borne out.
* Pacific islands are already facing **measurable sea-level challenges**, even if not “sunk.”
* The Arctic has **not yet reached ice-free summers**, but its decline is faster than many models predicted.
---
### 7. **Overall Assessment**
* Svensmark’s **scientific contribution**: he highlights a plausible but **secondary mechanism** (cosmic rays/clouds). Mainstream science does not reject it outright but finds it **too small to explain modern warming**.
* His **downplaying of CO₂ sensitivity** conflicts with multiple independent lines of evidence (paleoclimate, models, observations).
* His **political framing** (career risk, censorship, “propaganda”) resonates with skeptical audiences but oversimplifies how science actually works.
* His **“climate is getting milder” argument** underestimates risks of extremes, sea level rise, and uneven regional impacts.
---
✅ **In short:** Svensmark provides a scientifically interesting but minority hypothesis. He is right that cosmic rays and clouds are worth studying, and that climate models struggle with clouds. But he **downplays the robust evidence for CO₂-driven warming** and exaggerates the idea of suppression and persecution. The blog amplifies his narrative in a way that makes it sound like mainstream science is willfully blind, which is misleading.
---