Scientific American widely is regarded as an excellent magazine bringing science to the general public. Among topics often editorialized is the dismal state of science education in America. One likes to think it to be a politically-neutral magazine, the intent of its authors to be to go beyond the capabilities of news journalists or science columnists in daily papers to investigate and present on issues in more depth.
One would be wrong. It is definitely left-of-center in its investigations and reporting, though normally not hysterically so.
Consequently I read with interest the editorial on public debate of science policy, science education and many of the current controversial issues in science.
Here is the opening paragraph:
Consider this partial list of issues that the next president of the U.S. will need to address: reducing greenhouse gas emissions; ensuring freshwater supplies; encouraging reliance on renewable energy sources; preparing for pandemics; developing stem cell technologies; improving science education; stimulating technological innovation.
Look at the first and penultimate points. See the problem? Notice the irony?
Now, it’s all well-and-good for a guy who flunked out of Divinity School but later invented the internet, finally having found a pulpit, to preach on the dangers of Anthropogenic Global Warming – that’s the technical name for human-induced warming, btw. And it’s just fine for various folks in Congress – none particularly challenged by too many working brain cells – to jump on this popular bandwagon being foisted on them by ignorant and ill-educated journalists and the readers mis-educated by them.
But for the editor of a science magazine to be taken in by this – and to propound public policy changes to deal with it is nonsensical.
Now I know all about Al Gore and his awards, and the nice list of 2,500 scientists who support his stupefyingly dumb GW theories. Are you aware that only one (1) actual Climate Scientist is on that list, joining 2 landscape Architects, 2 Hotel Mangers and a couple of Gynecologists in supporting the idea that “all scientists” support AGW? No? Look it up.
Are you aware that the following real Climate Scientists don’t support this nonsense?
• Henrik Svensmark, Director of the Centre for Sun-Climate Research
• Dr Richard Lindzen, MIT Sloan Professor of Meteorology
• Professor Bob Carter, Marine Geophysical Laboratory, James Cook University, Australia
• Professor Dennis Bray
• GKSS Forschungsznetrum, Geesthacht, Germany
• Dr William Gray, Hurricane Research guru
• Kerry Emanual, MIT
• Polyakov, Akasofu and seven other colleagues, International Arctic Research Center
• And, of course, the 100 Prominent Scientists who wrote an Open Letter to the Secretary-General of the
United Nations that the IPCC was wrong and heading the entire world in the wrong direction, which can be found here.
Still, some who know no better continue to believe in this AGW nonsense. But for the Editor of a prominent magazine on science to fall for the Elmer Gantry of Climate is absurd. The irony, of course, is that if the better science education he calls for came to pass, this editor would be a laughingstock of the real world – rather than the editor of a science magazine.
And, while we are talking about Al Gore, are you aware that, when he was President Pro Tem of the Senate, in August 1997, the Senate took a vote on the Kyoto language? That the vote was 18 months before GW Bush became President? That the vote was 95-0 AGAINST the treaty?
Look it up. It’s Gore and the Dems who rejected the language of Kyoto. And Bill Clinton who never submitted it to the Senate for ratification (why bother, right? 95-0?).