UnScientific UnAmerican

On hundred years ago, Scientific American relied on empirical data. Based on experimental evidence and hundreds of millions of years of earth history, they published this article explaining why increased atmospheric CO2 levels would benefit agriculture.

“Fertilizing the air with carbon dioxide to promote plant growth

ONE of the principal constituents making up the body of a plant is carbon, representing about one-half of its organic substance. The opinion that this carbon is derived from the soil has long been abandoned, modern investigation having shown atmospheric carbonic acid to be absorbed by means 0f the chlorophyll 0r green matter of the leaves and decomposed into its elements, the carbon, in conjunction with the root sap and atmospheric m0isture, being worked into organic compounds.

Whereas atmospheric air at present is relatively poor in carb0nic acid, of which it contains only about .03 per cent, at an early period in the development of our planet, when this was covered with the luxuriant forests our coal deposits are derived from, it comprised incomparably greater quantities of this gas. This fact suggested the idea of heightening the fertility of the soil by increasing its carbonic acid content and thus producing conditions resembling those of antediluvian ages.”

This view has been confirmed by lots more empirical data since the 1920 article.

Carbon Dioxide Fertilization Greening Earth, Study Finds | NASA

Crop Yields – Our World in Data

But now Scientific American no longer relies on evidence, and instead promotes baseless speculation by people whom they call “experts.”

Climate change’s negative effects on plants will likely outweigh any gains from elevated atmospheric carbon dioxide levels

many skeptics also fail to mention the potentially most harmful outcome of rising atmospheric CO2 on vegetation: climate change itself. Its negative consequences—such as drought and heat stress—would likely overwhelm any direct benefits that rising CO2 might offer plant life.


Ask the Experts: Does Rising CO2 Benefit Plants? – Scientific American

The greatest expansion of life on earth occurred when CO2 was at its peak 540 million years ago.

When life exploded | Science News for Students

Plant life thrived when CO2 levels were much higher during the early Carboniferous Era. That is the reason we have our current coal beds, which are sequestered CO2.

Scientific American is rejecting basic science which has been known for centuries, and replacing it with mindless and inflammatory anti-science propaganda.

The Earth Is on Fire – Scientific American

We Broke the Atmosphere; Here’s a Way We Can Start to Fix It – Scientific American Blog Network

In 2012, Scientific American said that the scientific community had a range of opinions about when Arctic sea ice will be gone, ranging from before 2015 to “by 2030 or 2040.”

Arctic Sea Ice: What, Why, and What Next – Scientific American Blog Network

If we look at the actual trend in sea ice data since the start of MASIE records in 2006, the Arctic won’t be ice-free for 270 years.

Based on the summer minimum extent over the past 14 years, the Arctic won’t be ice-free for 214 years. The “experts” being quoted by Scientific American are simply making numbers up.

Our top experts said the Arctic would be ice-free by 2008.

Expert: Arctic polar cap may disappear this summer_English_Xinhua

North Pole May Be Ice-Free for First Time This Summer

BBC NEWS | UK | Swimmer aims to kayak to N Pole

Star-News – Google News Archive Search

Arctic Sea Ice Gone in Summer Within Five Years?

BBC NEWS | Science/Nature | Arctic summers ice-free ‘by 2013’

Gore: Polar ice cap may disappear by summer 2014

Wayback Machine

The Argus-Press – Google News Archive Search

Why Arctic sea ice will vanish in 2013 | Sierra Club Canada

Ice-free Arctic in two years heralds methane catastrophe – scientist | Environment | The Guardian

The End of the Arctic? Ocean Could be Ice Free by 2015 – The Daily Beast

A farewell to ice | Review | Chemistry World

And President Obama’s science adviser predicted ice-free winters.

…if you lose the summer sea ice, there are phenomena that could lead you not so very long thereafter to lose the winter sea ice as well. And if you lose that sea ice year round, it’s going to mean drastic climatic change all over the hemisphere.

– John Holdren, 2009

Scientific American has tried to erase the history of the 1970s global cooling scare, saying that it consisted of nine paragraphs in Newsweek.

How the “Global Cooling” Story Came to Be – Scientific American

There are tens of thousands of newspaper articles and other publications from the time which discussed this – here are a few of the them.

January 30, 1961 – NYTimes

washingtonpost.com – search nation, world, technology and Washington area news archives.

U.S. Scientist Sees New Ice Age Coming

Front Page of the New York Times, July 18, 1970. US and Soviet scientists were worried about Arctic cooling and expanding Arctic ice, and wanted to melt the Arctic by spreading coal dust on it.

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times




09 Mar 1980, 4 – The Dispatch at Newspapers.com

15 Apr 1973, 59 – The Post-Crescent at Newspapers.com

11 Oct 1975, Page 41 – Daily Independent Journal at Newspapers.com

14 Apr 1973, Page 8 – Iowa City Press-Citizen

22 Jun 1976, Page 5 – The High Point Enterprise at Newspapers.com

21 Jul 1974, 13 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

12 Jun 1975, Page 10 – The Ogden Standard-Examiner at Newspapers.com

March 1, 1975 | Science News


TIME Magazine Archive Article — Another Ice Age? — Jun. 24, 1974

March 2, 1975 – B-r-r-r-r: New Ice Age on way soon? | Chicago Tribune Archive

U.S. and Soviet Press Studies of a Colder Arctic – The New York Times

29 Jan 1974, 5 – The Guardian at Newspapers.com

The Director at the National Center for Atmospheric Research and his leading scientist were pushing global cooling.

12 Jun 1974, Page 20 – at Newspapers.com

The Genesis Strategy – The New York Times

The National Geographic Archive | November 1976 | page 1

TimesMachine: December 29, 1974 – NYTimes.com

21 Jul 1974, 13 – The Des Moines Register at Newspapers.com

Climate experts wanted to melt the Arctic to stop global cooling.


10 May 1979, 7 – Calgary Herald at Newspapers.com

International Team of Specialists Finds No End in Sight to 30‐Year Cooling Trend in Northern Hemisphere – The New York Times

25 Nov 1981, 13 – Chicago Tribune at Newspapers.com 

In this 2015 article they claim the Little Ice Age was started in 1492 by Christopher Columbus killing native Americans and enslaving Africans. Impressive how many politically correct themes they packed into a single piece of politically motivated junk science.

Mass Deaths in Americas Start New CO2 Epoch – Scientific American

According to the 1990 IPCC report, the Little Ice Age cooling began around the year 1200.


And according to the New York Times, the Little Ice Age began around the year 1450.

In Unexpected Places, Clues to Ancient and Future Climate; Warming? Tree Rings Say Not Yet – The New York Times

Scientific American claims that a 1C drop in temperature was caused by a 7 ppm decline in CO2.  That would imply a climate sensitivity of  0.14C/ppm.  During the Cambrian explosion of life 540 million years ago, CO2 levels were 7,000 ppm, which means earth’s temperature would have been about 1,000C.

Moving to a different topic, on September 15, 2020 Scientific American published this article praising the “science based” approach of New Mexico Governor Wuhan Lujan – i.e. lockdowns, masks, deprivation of freedom, work and income, etc.

How New Mexico Controlled the Spread of COVID-19 – Scientific American

Cases immediately skyrocketed after article was written.

Have we flattened the curve in New Mexico? – Johns Hopkins

The reality is that Scientific American is no longer a scientific magazine, and has been taken over by propagandists pushing a political agenda intended to destroy America.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden – Scientific American

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

18 Responses to UnScientific UnAmerican

  1. The final headline says it all. It is the clearest admission that this is not a scientific journal at all but a mouthpiece for a certain political point of view, therefore completely useless as a valid reference. It has followed National Geographic in its degeneration from respected journal to toilet paper.

    • Richard says:

      Spot on- i had to drop my subscriptions to Nature, Nat Geo, Smithsonian long ago when they turned sharp left.
      cannot even listen to David Attenbourgh in less than 10 minutes in his narration he blamed Global Warming 12 times. had to shut it off

  2. D. Boss says:

    “UnScientific, UnAmerican” indeed!

    Wow, just like a good attorney in a courtroom, you have completely destroyed the credibility of the witness with the evidence of their own words and deeds!

    I only wish we could get your presentation to the masses on say an hour long prime time television or cable show!

  3. dm says:

    Climate insanity, per Einstein. Forecasting doom again and again and again and … expecting to be correct, eventually.

  4. G W Smith says:

    If you can convince people that they themselves are the cause of global warming, then it’s easy to convince them that they themselves can reverse it. — If you can convince the people to believe in absurdities then you can convince them to commit atrocities. A wise man once said.

  5. There is no doubt CO2 is beneficial to plants and all life on earth. We are in fact experiencing a CO2 famine, even though the Left demands we think otherwise. Scientific American would probably like this video — maybe …

    • Doesn’t plant life reduce local albedo by virtue of the fact that it absorbs energy to convert carbon dioxide and water to sugars and cellulose and similar matter? Photosynthesis is endothermic. I suspect this would not affect the radiative balance much because the incoming radiation would be partitioned between biomass production and reflection rather than reflection alone. I daresay there exist alarmist papers confidently declaring that the greening of the Earth will, like everything else, lead to catastrophe.

  6. Conrad Ziefle says:

    Maybe Global Warming can be explained in simple sociological terms rather than convoluted attempts at scientific ones. Climate change, by definition, is a centuries long process. So how does a recent climatology graduate make a three decade long career out of something that is virtually static?

  7. kzvx says:

    Took a lot of scrolling to get through that one – and the last image tells you all you need to know

  8. Larry Webster says:

    Well that’s interesting… Dr. Stephen H. Schneider is the Stanford professor with Michael Crichton’s “Aliens Cause Global Warming” Lecture linked. He has completely ignored the lecture. And apparently we are in a new progressive phase of science. Opinion based science. What a creep.

  9. Daniel Smeal says:

    Wow. unlike the government and the media, you’ve been doing some research. Sometime last year, I plotted the yield increases of various ag crops with the apparent increase in CO2 (I converted the data to relative values [data points/max] so they could be shown on a single graph. It was ‘amazing’ how well the relative increase in CO2 fit the relative increase in crop yields since 1902. Of course, those of us with some scientific knowledge and common sense know that many variables (other than CO2) were responsible for yield increases over the years. But – if you showed this graph to the ignorant media, public, and government officials, would they ignore these other factors like they do with the climate-change vs. CO2 relation?

  10. Rah says:

    LoL! It’s really not going well for them. The CO2 level is dropping a bit probably because of this weak LaNina. Record setting cold in Central Europe right now and much of the US will be having colder than average temps for a couple of weeks this month. And Denver and the Rockies north of there are going to get another good snow.

  11. Walter says:

    Watched Seaspiracy the other night, was really expecting it to be mindless left wing drivel but they hammered on how much the ocean drives the climate and if you are actually concerned about climate change (assuming you believe in AGW) then preserving the seas and stopping overfishing (commercial drag netting) is a much bigger deal than anything carbon emissions related.

  12. spren says:

    That SA article from 2015 by David Bielo was once of the most ridiculous and preposterous things I’ve ever read. This embarrassing rag couldn’t even pass as Science Fiction American.

  13. GM says:

    CO2 levels WILL drop due to temperature because of Henry’s Constant. If Zharkova’s GSM happens we may see quite significant reductions in atmospheric CÖ2 – which, in spite of being well understood by engineers, may be difficult for the “climate experts” to explain…

Leave a Reply

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