Listen To The Science Journalists

Scientific American endorsed Joe Biden to save the US from COVID and global warming – and to help the poor. They said he would listen to the scientists.

Scientific American Endorses Joe Biden – Scientific American

Most US COVID-19 deaths occurred under Biden.

United States COVID – Coronavirus Statistics – Worldometer

Biden is crushing the poor with high energy prices.

Gas Station Price Charts – Local & National Historical Average Trends – GasBuddy.com

US CO2 emissions plummeted under Trump, while China’s skyrocketed to more than double those of the US.

Annual CO₂ emissions

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

9 Responses to Listen To The Science Journalists

  1. arn says:

    When the high priests of intellect endorse a brain dead warmongerer of the MiC
    than things are really really bad.

  2. MJMJ says:

    Tony, that Trump/Biden graph is not proper. While more deaths have indeed occurred under Biden, the graph itself is misleading because the area under the curve does not represent death occurring during each time interval but rather the cumulative deaths. So if there are any deaths at all during a time period, the area will be larger per timer interval compared with a previous time interval. You should know this given you expertise.
    You need to graph the actual deaths per time interval on the Y axis.

    • tonyheller says:

      I said most deaths occurred under Biden, which is what graph shows. Less than 500K under Trump and more than 500K under Biden. The x-axis shows that the pandemic has gone on twice as a long under Biden as under Trump.

      • Stuart Hamish says:

        Just out of interest Tony , Paul Homewood and WUWT have reported on Paul Krugman’s New York Times garbage article and Norways warm weather Yet Homewoods Tromso maximum temperature series graph cuts out at 1925 which is interesting in the context of The Argus newspaper clipping you republished here
        recently citing summer Tromso temperatures in 1922 ” ranging from 90 to 95 degrees Fahr ” ..When I typed an update in the caption ‘new time series ‘ the message comes up as ” Error”

  3. Jerome says:

    “Scientific American” is one of the most useless science journals in existence. They wouldn’t know science if it bit them in their collective arses. OK, bit over the top but, I stopped reading it 10 years ago – when they jumped on the Global Warming Scam.

  4. nobler says:

    My grandmother gave me my first subscription to Scientific American when I was ten. Back then, it was a decent publication, and I, and my fellow nerdz, always looked forward to the mathematical games from Martin Gardner – and drooled over the Questar ads. I think I learned a lot from their earlier articles on everything from quasars to journal bearings. Years later, I noticed the shift at SA from a broad focus to a very narrow focus. By the time I started tearing their renewal notices, SA had switched to nothing but environment and ecology folderol. I’d occasionally look at a copy at the local bookstore, but by then, it was a worthless waste of paper.

  5. Thomas Robillard says:

    About the graph that measures the growth of covid related deaths, it just saddens me how so many of my fellow citizens, especially in the healthcare industry, here in Santa Clara County, California, had rejected, and continued to reject Ivermectin as a real and safe treatment. It also raises fear in me. I wouldn’t have believed it if I hadn’t witnessed it. I see that it’s just too difficult for most people to be objective enough to look at more than one view of this problem in order to save a life. I hope that historians get these events correct so that future generations will learn from our mistakes.

    And if that is a true quotation from Scientific American, that too shows me that the editors of that company have not done their due diligence. All they have to do is open a college textbook on physics or chemistry, and then read about the molar heat of a gas to calculate just how hot 0.0004 mole of CO2 would have to be in order to raise 99.9996 mole of the remaining atmospheric gases by two degrees Celsius. It’s over 5,000 degrees if you are wondering.

  6. David says:

    I stopped subscribing to SA nearly 50 years ago when I started noticing that their science was often based on opinion. I’m very logical which makes talking to my wife difficult LOL but I notice opinions quickly. I don’t read stuff to get opinions unless it leads to unanswered points.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.