Live at 1 PM ET: Climate Scientist Fired. Was It For Countering the Narrative? — The Climate Realism Show #210

One of Denmark’s most internationally recognized climate researchers, Dr. Henrik Svensmark, was just sacked from his long-time position at the Technical University of Denmark. Unlike many climate scientists, Svensmark conducted actual science experiments, and his work on the effects cosmic rays and clouds have on the climate was leading edge. He was fired after years of moves that look like they were purposely trying to push him out. What happened? Is it because his work didn’t support the alarmist climate narrative? We will have Dr. Svensmark on the program to get the story directly from him.

On Episode 210 of The Climate Realism Show the Heartland Institute’s Anthony Watts, Linnea Lueken, Sterling Burnett, Jim Lakely and Henrik Svensmark will also cover some of the Crazy Climate News of the Week. Is climate change ruining summers for kids? Can wind farms help real farms? Is the best way to fight Net Zero through comedy?

Join us Friday at 1 p.m. ET on YouTube, Rumble, X, and Facebook. Participate in the show by leaving your comments and questions in the chat.

5 6 votes

Article Rating

10 Comments

D Sandberg

July 31, 2026 10:58 am

Svensmark: Clouds are the mechanism

“During the last 100 years cosmic rays became scarcer because unusually vigorous action by the Sun batted away many of them. Fewer cosmic rays meant fewer clouds – and a warmer world.” [en.wikipedia.org], [quotefancy.com]

More important scientifically is Svensmark’s research conclusion:
“A large fraction of earth’s clouds could be controlled by ionization.” [climatedis…nnexus.com]

And from his 2000 review paper:
“During the last solar cycle the Earth’s cloud cover underwent a modulation in phase with the cosmic ray flux.” [ftp.space.dtu.dk]

That’s not what the alarmist climate industrial/university complex wants to hear. Cosmic rays aren’t taxable but CO2 emissions from FF sources are. Result, no research funding for Svensmark’s employer, no job for Svensmark. The surprise is his research lasted as long as it did. Good for him that he wasn’t in the USA.

Bruce Cobb

July 31, 2026 11:51 am

If it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, and swims like a duck, chances are very good that it’s a duck. His research threatened the now-struggling Climate Industrial Complex, so he had to go.

Victor

July 31, 2026 2:50 pm

Does a 3% change in low cloud formation affect Earth’s temperature?
A temperature anomaly curve is needed in the graph to see the relationship between temperature and cosmic radiation.

https://www.icr.org/content/new-theory-climate-change

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to Victor

July 31, 2026 8:04 pm

“Anomalies” are second degree nonsense. To back an argument, bring data.

KevinM

Reply to Phillip Chalmers

July 31, 2026 9:05 pm

I think that’s the problem. There’s no human-produced data anywhere about any measured quantity with a long enough record to prove or disprove the cause of 1C changes in average earth temperature if you accept that earth is billions of years old.

Phillip Chalmers

Reply to KevinM

August 1, 2026 2:33 am

I am completely on board with Victor quoting Svensmark that the solar magnetic field is a potent cause of significant changes in the climate of earth.
I just wish several things would be done differently.
Such writings should always claim to be A cause not THE cause particularly when the article or report is for the intelligent general reader.
Other than in serious learned journals or lectures, reports to the public should always avoid words like anomaly or driver and the abominable word forcing
Making it clear that it is a mechanism, a process which is being identified as part of the complex overall variability and at least a hint of the detail (in this case cosmic ray associated production of ice crystal enucleation, the smallest unit of clouds).

Bob Weber

Reply to Victor

August 1, 2026 7:45 am

There is a very simple contradiction in the cosmic ray theory.

Why was the cloud cover trend negative under nearly equal cosmic ray extremes since 2000?

If cosmic rays, which are inversely related to the sun’s magnetic field strength, were as strong in this solar cycle #25 as they were in solar cycle #23, which they were, then why did cloud cover diminish since 2000, especially since the cosmic ray strength was about the same during the last two solar minima? Why did cloud cover change so much when cosmic rays didn’t change much?

Bob Weber

August 1, 2026 7:56 am

If Henrik Svensmark had not been fired hardly anyone would be talking about his theory today.

He was probably not fired for countering the narrative, but for low productivity over 20 years.

-1

George B

Reply to Bob Weber

August 2, 2026 7:40 am

I personally know two professors that were employed at a Boston based university that were fired for not receiving grant money. Both were excellent teachers and subject matter experts. None of their proposals for research funding were approved. After about 3 years of this failure both were terminated. It a brutal world out there in academia. I know several professors at DTU that have been there for years. They have excellent funding records.

My personal success rate at fund was about 20 percent or less. Just enough to stay employed along with some peer reviewed publications.