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
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?
Why are more and more people who actually understand science refusing to ever again spend one nickel on a Scientific American publication?
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:
Before any Warmists go apeshit on me about coral island atolls rising with sea level rise please the following read this first:
New Scientist – shapeshifing islands
and
The dynamic response of reef islands to sea-level rise
Meant to say
please read the following first:
Rate of sea level rise accelerating?
Sea levels have been rising for well over 12 thousand years.
Wake me up when it rises 100m
They really need to stop implying people are stupid for not agreeing with them……..
…then again, maybe not! LOL
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.
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.
Unscientific America should be moved to the Religious section of Borders and other booksellers
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.
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.
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
[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.
Denmark gave the Maldives 80 mill to fight sea level rise and all we get is a lousy airport?