Scientific American has sunk to spectacular new lows. I know far more about this topic than the author, and they deleted my comment.
Merchants of Doubt about Global Warming Hope to Strike Back – Scientific American
They are neither Scientific nor do they support American values of free speech. They should change their name to Pravda.
Their daily article feeds have crossed over into hysteria.
When I was a kid I loved Scientific American. They published real science back then. The only use I would have for Scientific American today is if it was printed on toilet paper.
I remember when it was “scientific” and I eagerly waited for the next issue. It hasn’t been particularly “scientific” for quite a while.
This is what happens when the UN gets involved, everything gets adjusted with the new prefix ‘UN’.
UNScientific UNAmerican.
🙂
When the only way they have to win their argument is to stop you speaking … you know you’ve won!
True dat!
Yes, the quality of all the science publications have taken a gigantic hit due to the global warming ideology. This is destroying NASA and NOAA, two once-proud scientific organizations where the scientists risked their lives doing things like diving into massive hurricanes while they flew aboard prop planes to learn more about these.
Tony, why don’t you comment under another name? Maybe then they’ll focus on the content of your writing instead.
I think it would not mater.
They delete any comments with a trace of skepticism.
Scientific American went over to the dark side some time in the 1990s
Editors since 1947:
Dennis Flanagan (1947 2005)
Jonathan Piel, (1984 1994)
John Rennie (1994–2009)
Mariette DiChristina (2009 …)
First Global Warming Article? —
Global Warming Trends [August 1990]
Analysis of land and marine records confirms that our planet has warmed half a degree Celsius in the past century. Future warming trends, however, remain uncertain
By Philip D. Jones and Tom M. L. Wigley
National Geographic is worse
I agree that both are far gone. Not sure how it could be worse that SciAm becoming a propaganda rag tho
ugh.
Oops, hit enter with the cursor in mid word, but I kind of like the way that came out.
Orwellian.
Scientific American was bought out by a former NAZI. And no I am not kidding.
I posted the research yesterday.
I agree 100% with all above who lament the decline of this publication. I also used to read this magazine as a lad, and waited for new issues eagerly.
I now see they go so far as to delete not just some, but all skeptical comments on all comment threads. All that is left are the responses to the deleted comments…just hanging there.
It is shameful, and yes, it is un-American.
Worse, the article is really no more than a feed from the article writer’s pieces at Energy & Environment’s Climate Wire ( http://www.scientificamerican.com/author/evan-lehmann/ ) which has always struck me as being hardly more than an enviro-activist propaganda pusher outlet.
I was also among the list of people in that email chain – Fred Singer likes what I do when it comes to exposing where the smear of skeptics originates. Makes me wonder if that article writer saw my own 10/20 reply to all the others about the origins of the smear and Oreskes’ nefarious role in keeping it alive…. and that bit reminded me that I need to update my GelbspanFiles blog post about Oreskes ( http://gelbspanfiles.com/?p=2009 ) with the latest crippling problem that Ron Arnold confirmed for me.
Nice Work Mr Cook
Yes, very nice work. That’s some good digging!
Thanks, both. Currently working on a new GelbspanFiles.com blog post using Evan Lehmann’s enslavement to Greenpeace’s Kert Davies as a segue into a look into the history of the notion of journalists / institutions rejecting ‘industry corrupted’ / ‘conflict of interest’ skeptic climate scientists. The notion was pushed by the same enviro clique Davies/Gelbspan was involved with 15 years ago.
S.A. is non-stop pimping the AGW.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/global-warming-could-hit-rates-unseen-in-1-000-years/?WT.mc_id=SA_Facebook
If it isn’t actually warming, does that make the ‘rate unseen’?
Yes, namely ‘invisible’.
lol David Biello retweeted
Tim Rayner @timrayner01 · 18m 18 minutes ago
Take a deep breath. You’re tasting 400PPM CO2 and we’re probably the first humans to inhale it. HT @extinctsymbol http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/ …
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/co2-levels-for-february-eclipsed-prehistoric-highs/
ROTFLMAO!
Ernest Beck published old data showing results over 550 ppm. Neftel et al (1982) found that CO2 concentrations in air bubbles from 150-year-old ice ranged from 300 to 2350 ppm.
Greenhouses are routinely @ 1000-1500 ppm,
Sub crews see CO2 levels as high as 8,000 PPM
The CO2 data has been rigged even worse than the temperature data.
Thank you Gail. Your post is priceless!
Money, money, money money….MONEY!
Now you’ve gone and done it; got that song playing over and over in my mind.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rkRIbUT6u7Q
It is of course the usual Marxist tactic to tag the comically unfunded climate realists with the term “merchants” when defending their 29 billion dollar industry.
The AGW religion didn’t count on some HONEST scientists/researchers/”just-a-bloggers” fighting back instead of folding like a cheap suit.
They did not count on the internet or Climategate.
The did not count on the leaked Danish Text putting the much hated World Bank in charge. Copenhagen climate summit in disarray after ‘Danish text’ leak
All of you have done wonders to expose this. I appreciate this blog and the informational comments and links!
I lasted about a week at Scientific American before being banned; they are really touchy and do not tolerate deviance from the Message, not even a hint, which is what did it for me. Michael Mann offered readers a data set and a model for free, you can download the model and data and he assured readers they would get the same result he did.
Since I am a computer programmer, I commented that of course you will get the same result, it is a computer program and does exactly what it is told to do, in other words it is deterministic but not perhaps corresponding perfectly to the real world.
It’s nice that it was available for download and might be a good teaching tool but that wasn’t the implication given by the article. The implication is that you’ll run this computer program and your very own computer will assure you of the reality and magnitude of global warming.
OR you can just look out the window.
I was BANNED from commenting at SciAm for simply posting a link to this chart. No commentary, I just posted the link for their consideration.
They said I was “name-calling”! I guess we’ve reached the point where telling the truth is a revolutionary activity. That was clearly a case of: “They can’t handle the truth!”
SciAm certainly has become post-Orwellian propaganda. I haven’t written to NatGeo yet, but from the slant of their articles, I suspect they’re almost as bad. Almost.
That’s a shame. FWIW, the data points didn’t match ( didn’t all begin at the same time).
I cleaned it up for you. …
http://www.woodfortrees.org/graph/rss/from:1997/plot/rss/from:1997/trend/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/offset:0.68/plot/esrl-co2/from:1997/normalise/offset:0.68/trend
Smokey,
SciAm was bought out by an ex-NAZI.
In 1986, it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it ever since.
Georg von Holtzbrinck was a Nazi
http://www.atlantic-times.com/archive_detail.php?recordID=1646
I am interested in collecting the names of people who were banned from Sci America or at least their stories. I recently noticed I was unable to like or comment on their facebook posts, but thought it was an error. It’s been almost 2 weeks and I’m still “banned” I guess. I didn’t know it was possible for a facebook page to make such restrictions on specific users.
I’m an avid science enthusiast and I’m going to school to either become a biochemist or biomedical research. I’m still undecided which field I want to go in. I’ve commented on dozens of SciAm articles as a climate skeptic offering up the latest research and engaged in several civil debates. I was never banned for these discussions.
The last comment I made (no screen shot) was on an article announcing Hillary’s presidential candidacy and how she was using the environment as her platform. I made a comment about how this was similar to the Obama campaign that used racism as a tactic against opponents. I said now we will be called moronic psuedoscientists if we oppose Hillary. I currently live in Sweden (5 years) and I see how these environmental tactics work. You can have the majority of the population be against a tax increase or new fees, but as soon as the government says “it’s for the environment” most shut down. It’s taboo to speak against an environmental issue here in a sense. How can we have rational discussions on the economics of a country and it’s people with someone hanging a green leaf over our heads?
I’m a strop proponent of GMO’s and vaccines. I have been very verbal about this for years now. I received high marks on a national exam, because of my ideas in regards to genetic modifications. My skepticism of the man made climate change goes above and beyond the standard arguments. I use their own research to point out the gaps in “evidence.” I find it completely ironic I was banned for speaking out against Hillary. This needs to be addressed. If we start to allow the science community to silence their own what’s next?