Welcome to the Hardcore Husky Forums. Folks who are well-known in Cyberland and not that dumb.
Crony capitalism
WestlinnDuck
Member Posts: 15,326 
in Tug Tavern
Forbes, like the WSJ, is moderately conservative but is dedicated to crony capitalism, open borders and apparently now global warming. What we do know, is that 12,000 years ago Chicago was under a mile of ice. It isn’t now. Why? Man caused CO2? Uh, no. Best current hypothesis? That big ball of fire in the sky. We do also know that CO2 is a weak greenhouse gas that captures emitted infra-red light. However, the band with that is absorbed reaches a max amount at relatively low increased of CO2. There are now four molecules of CO2 for every thousand in the atmosphere. We also know that the green gaia religionists climate models are overstating temperature change. We also know that from Michael Mann’s bogus hockey stick to the recent downward “adjustments” of historic temperature records that politically correct climate “scientists” have no problem lying about data and that they are incredibly reluctant to share that data with scientific skeptics. Climate temperature have changed dramatically without any influence from man in the past. Once again, how much should we spend and what will it accomplish. The AOC dream is trillions and trillions and we would all then be freezing in the dark because the economy would resemble Cambodia under Pol Pot.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/forbes-toes-the-line-on-climate.php
Forbes Toes the Line on Climate
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.
More:
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.
https://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2019/08/forbes-toes-the-line-on-climate.php
Forbes Toes the Line on Climate
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.
More:
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.