Why Is Scientific American So Ill Informed About Earth Sciences?

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-are-americans-so-ill

————————————————————————————————————-

I’m baffled about how clueless the writers at that magazine are. Glaciers have been melting for the last 15,000 years. That is why they call it an “interglacial” period.  15,000 years ago Chicago was buried under a mile of ice.

As far “island populations retreating from coastlines” goes, the Maldives are building a new airport right on their coast. The Maldives sea level scam is a way to extract money from guilty westerners, with the help of useful idiots who write magazine articles.

http://www.maldivestraveller.mv/

h/t to Marc Morano

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to Why Is Scientific American So Ill Informed About Earth Sciences?

  1. Justa Joe says:

    Scientific American magazine wants to present itself as an authoritative science journal, but they keep giving us the Maldives are sinking line, which at absolute best is a contentious claim, but the public are the ones with a problem?

  2. Anne says:

    Why are more and more people who actually understand science refusing to ever again spend one nickel on a Scientific American publication?

  3. Jimbo says:

    We all know that when the sea rises, the atoll rises with it, and when the sea falls, they fall as well. Here is some more stuff about island problems which have nothing to do with co2:

    Human induced factors that can lead to sea water inundation, intrusion and erosion:
    Sand mining and gravel extraction for the construction industry
    Blasting boat passages
    Impacts of recreational divers
    Unsustainable over-extraction of fresh water from the lens
    Over fishing of beaked fish which create sand which is vital for island formation

    The following is an open letter to the president of the Maldives written in 2010 by the sea level rise expert Dr. Nils-Axel Mörner. His main points were:

    “Let me summarize a few facts.
    (1) In the last 2000 years, sea level has oscillated with 5 peaks reaching 0.6 to 1.2 m above the present sea level.

    (2) From 1790 to 1970 sea level was about 20 cm higher than today

    (3) In the 1970s, sea level fell by about 20 cm to its present level

    (4) Sea level has remained stable for the last 30 years, implying that there are no traces of any alarming on-going sea level rise.

    (5) Therefore, we are able to free the Maldives (and the rest of low-lying coasts and island around the globe) from the condemnation of becoming flooded in the near future.”

  4. Jimbo says:

    Rate of sea level rise accelerating?

    Wenzel, M., and J. Schröter – 2010
    “The global mean sea level for the period January 1900 to December 2006 is estimated to rise at a rate of 1.56 ± 0.25 mm/yr which is reasonably consistent with earlier estimates, but we do not find significant acceleration.”

    Sea levels have been rising for well over 12 thousand years.

  5. Latitude says:

    They really need to stop implying people are stupid for not agreeing with them……..

    …then again, maybe not! LOL

  6. This post reminded me that USAToday already had an article on “Public’s knowledge on climate lacking” several months ago, on Oct. 16th 2010. It was, and is, an obvious propaganda point, which they must think is a good one to keep using. I will repeat my comment on that earlier article here: Climate scientists’ knowledge on climate is lacking — that is what the public needs to know.

  7. TonyM says:

    I have been a subscriber to Scientific American for decades. Ever since AGW became a public issue, SA has been an ardent promoter of the theory and of the scientists who support it. I have never seen a rebuttal article from a prominent climate scientist. Even rebuttal letters to the editor are few and far between. A few months ago, the editor, apparently in response to many letters including mine asking for the other side of the story, said words to the effect that since there was general agreement in the scientific community of the veracity of AGW, he didn’t see the point in presenting articles that disagreed because it would only serve to muddy the waters. My opinion- he had made up his mind and no one was going to change it. Every chance they get, whether in the caption to a picture or in a summary of an article, SA notes that global warming is a causitive factor. Climategate revealed that IPCC scientists had coerced many scientific journal editors not to publish articles that challenged AGW theory. One can only ask if SA was one of those or if somehow they get funding from the vast global warming gravy train.

  8. Scarlet Pumpernickel says:

    Unscientific America should be moved to the Religious section of Borders and other booksellers

    • Paul in Sweden says:

      LOL, the magazine sections in Sweden are small but should the opportunity present itself I will move the whole pile of SciAm to the religious section along with the other faith based publications mascaraing as science. 🙂

      When I hit NYC again I am going to go out of my way to reorganize the mags at the book stores that are my Mecca in Manhattan.

  9. Bruce says:

    The more people become informed about climate change the more they seem to become sceptical. Funny, could be something to do with the data. Except, it seems, editors of SciAm. Pity I dropped my subscription in disgust 15 years ago or I might be more informed.

  10. Dave N says:

    I guess Nasheed is hoping that AGW is solved before the airport goes underwater:

    http://www.maldivestraveller.mv/details/Local+News/maldives-is-poster-child-for-need-to-stop-global-warming

  11. Justa Joe says:

    [i]”…as in South Korea, there is no doubt about the findings of climate science, said Sun-Jin Yun of Seoul National University. All three of the nation’s major newspapers—representing conservative, progressive and business perspectives—accept climate change with little unjustified skepticism.”[/i]

    If the media is completely sold out to AGW the public will express less skeptiscism in Korea, and that’s a good thing? Well guess if you’re a warmist you like absolute conformity to their climate hyjinks.

    [i]”Some of Rosenstiel’s advice recalled Lessl’s observation when he reminded the audience that interviews are entirely on the record and that they are not conversations. “One way of doing that is to be like a politician and answer what you want to answer and not answer fully what they have asked,” [/i]

    You’d think if the CAGW case was so rock solid you could field any question and answer it honestly.

    That article from SciAm was so scientific. It even included a revelation that Skepticism in the USA was being WELL funded by the Koch Bros. It included a citation for this ‘fact’ by a very sound source the UK Guardian, which in turn got this insinuation from Green Piece. I mean you can’t get much more scientific than that.

  12. Erik says:

    Denmark gave the Maldives 80 mill to fight sea level rise and all we get is a lousy airport?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *