News on the new Non Scientist – Updated: now with bullying

Jo Nova has launched a new publication, inspired today by their latest article. Read on.

Non Scientist Cover

You might think journalists at a popular science magazine would be able to investigate and reason.

In DenierGate, watch New Scientist closely, as they do the unthinkable and try to defend gross scientific malpractice by saying it’s OK because other people did other things a little bit wrong, that were not related, and a long time ago. Move along ladies and gentlemen, there’s nothing to see…

The big problem for this formerly good publication is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change (and the answer could be warm or cold but it’s always ALARMING). That leaves them clutching for sand-bags to prop up their position as the king-tide sweeps  away any journalistic credibility they might have had.

I’ve added my own helpful notes into the New Scientist article, just so you get the full picture.

Read the whole story at Jo Nova’s website, and tell her I sent you.

UPDATE: More bullying from scientists

In WUWT comments, Keith Minto points out the New Scientist is listed in the Climategate emails

See: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=796&filename=1179416790.txt

From: “Michael E. Mann”

To: Phil Jones

Subject: Re: More Rubbish

Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400

Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!

New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They

are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,

including the HS!

I have been reading this publication on and off since Nigel Calder was the editor. It was quite an curious, edgy publication then, willing to push boundaries (it was the first to publish Sir Alister Hardy’s Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) even though it then arrived 3mts late by seamail from Britain.

Nigel Calder co-authored “The Chilling Stars” with Heinrick Svensmark and made it into a very readable cosmic ray/cloud formation story that has captivated so may of us.

Unfortunately, along the way it lost the ability to question and forgot what the ‘Scientist’ part of its title really meant.

It appears that Mann was discussing this New Scientist article from May 16th, 2007

The 7 biggest myths about climate change

Cover of 19 May 2007 issue of New Scientist magazine

Interestingly, after that fawning article on “a guide for the perplexed”  see in the CRU email archive on March 8th there is an email that names one of the authors of the May16th New Scientist article, Fred Pearce, where complaints are lodged about the upcoming March 10th issue and plans are suggested to counter it.

Here are web links for the two people mentioned: Eystein Jansen and Richard Somerville it appears there were BCC’s to CRU, otherwise we’d not have this email in that collection.

Here’s the email: http://www.eastangliaemails.com/emails.php?eid=784&filename=1173359793.txt

From: Eystein Jansen <eystein.jansen@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

To: Richard Somerville <rsomerville@xxxxxxxxx.xxx>

Subject: Re: [Wg1-ar4-clas] Responding to an attack on IPCC and ourselves

Date: Thu, 8 Mar 2007 08:16:33 +0100

Cc: wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

Hi,

just a quick reply. I am in on this, and will respond to a draft letter, in the hope that

you will make the first, Richard? I agree that it can be short. It is strange to see this,

knowing that the delegations I spoke to in/after Paris clearly said that the CLAs got it

their way, and that I believe this is the strong common perception we also had as CLAs

about the outcome.

Best wishes,

Eystein

Den 8. mar. 2007 kl. 03.11 skrev Richard Somerville:

Dear Fellow CLAs,

The British magazine *New Scientist* is apparently about to publish several items critical

of the IPCC AR4 WGI SPM and the process by which it was written. There is an editorial, a

column by Pearce, and a longer piece by Wasdell which is on the internet and referenced by

Pearce.

I think that this attack on us deserves a response from the CLAs. Our competence and

integrity has been called into question. Susan Solomon is mentioned by name in

unflattering terms. We ought not to get caught up in responding in detail to the many

scientific errors in the Wasdell piece, in my opinion, but I would like to see us refute

the main allegations against us and against the IPCC.

We need to make the case that this is shoddy and prejudiced journalism. Wasdell is not a

climate scientist, was not involved in writing AR4, was not in Paris, and is grossly

ignorant of both the science and the IPCC process. His account of what went on is

factually incorrect in many important respects.

New Scientist inexplicably violates basic journalistic standards by publicizing and

editorially agreeing with a vicious attack by an uncredentialed source without checking

facts or hearing from the people attacked. The editorial and Pearce column, which I regard

as packed with distortions and innuendo and error, are pasted below, and the Wasdell piece

is attached.

My suggestion is that a strongly worded letter to New Scientist, signed by as many CLAs as

possible, would be an appropriate response. I think we ought to say that the science was

absolutely not compromised or watered down by the review process or by political presure of

any kind or by the Paris plenary. I think it would be a mistake to attempt a detailed

point-by-point discussion, which would provoke further criticism; that process would never

converge.

Please send us all your opinions and suggestions for what we should do, using the email

list [1]wg1-ar4-clas@xxxxxxxxx.xxx

I am traveling and checking email occasionally, so if enough of us agree that we should

respond, I hope one or more of you (not me) will volunteer to coordinate the effort and

submit the result to New Scientist.

Best regards to all,

Richard

Richard C. J. Somerville

Distinguished Professor

Scripps Institution of Oceanography

University of California, San Diego

9500 Gilman Drive, Dept. 0224

La Jolla, CA 92093-0224, USA

Here’s the editorial that will appear in New Scientist on March 10.

Editorial: Carbon omissions

IT IS a case of the dog that didn’t bark. The dog in this instance was the

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change.

For several years, climate scientists have grown increasingly anxious about “positive

feedbacks” that could accelerate climate change, such as methane bubbling up as

permafrost melts. That concern found focus at an international conference organised by

the British government two years ago, and many people expected it to emerge strongly in

the latest IPCC report, whose summary for policy-makers was published in Paris last

month.

It didn’t happen. The IPCC summary was notably guarded. We put that down to scientific

caution and the desire to convey as much certainty as possible (New Scientist, 9

February, p 3), but this week we hear that an earlier version of the summary contained a

number of explicit references to positive feedbacks and the dangers of accelerating

climate change. A critique of the report now argues that the references were removed in

a systematic fashion (see “Climate report ‘was watered down'”).

This is worrying. The version containing the warnings was the last for which scientists

alone were responsible. After that it went out to review by governments. The IPCC is a

governmental body as well as a scientific one. Both sides have to sign off on the

report.

The scientists involved adamantly deny that there was undue pressure, or that the

scientific integrity of their report was compromised. We do know there were political

agendas, and that the scientists had to fight them. As one of the report’s 33 authors

put it: “A lot of us devoted a lot of time to ensuring that the changes requested by

national delegates did not affect the scientific content.” Yet small changes in language

which individually may not amount to much can, cumulatively, change the tone and message

of a report. Deliberately or not, this is what seems to have happened.

Senior IPCC scientists are not willing to discuss the changes, beyond denying that there

was political interference. They regard the drafting process as private. This is an

understandable reservation, but the case raises serious doubts about the IPCC process. A

little more transparency would go a long way to removing those qualms.

Here’s the Pearce column:

Climate report ‘was watered down’

* 10 March 2007

* From New Scientist Print Edition. [2]Subscribe and get 4 free issues.

* Fred Pearce

BRITISH researchers who have seen drafts of last month’s report by the Intergovernmental

Panel on Climate Change claim it was significantly watered down when governments became

involved in writing it.

David Wasdell, an independent analyst of climate change who acted as an accredited

reviewer of the report, says the preliminary version produced by scientists in April

2006 contained many references to the potential for climate to change faster than

expected because of “positive feedbacks” in the climate system. Most of these references

were absent from the final version.

His assertion is based on a line-by-line analysis of the scientists’ report and the

final version, which was agreed last month at a week-long meeting of representatives of

more than 100 governments. Wasdell told New Scientist: “I was astounded at the

alterations that were imposed by government agents during the final stage of review. The

evidence of collusional suppression of well-established and world-leading scientific

material is overwhelming.”

He has prepared a critique, “Political Corruption of the IPCC Report?”, which claims:

“Political and economic interests have influenced the presented scientific material.” He

plans to publish the document online this week at [3]www.meridian.org.uk/whats.htm.

Wasdell is not a climatologist, but his analysis was supported this week by two leading

UK climate scientists and policy analysts. Ocean physicist Peter Wadhams of the

University of Cambridge, who made the discovery that Arctic ice has thinned by 40 per

cent over the past 25 years and also acted as a referee on the IPCC report, told New

Scientist: “The public needs to know that the policy-makers’ summary, presented as the

united words of the IPCC, has actually been watered down in subtle but vital ways by

governmental agents before the public was allowed to see it.”

“The public needs to know that the summary has been watered down in subtle but vital

ways by governmental agents”

Crispin Tickell, a long-standing UK government adviser on climate and a former

ambassador to the UN, says: “I think David Wasdell’s analysis is very useful, and unique

of its kind. Others have made comparable points but not in such analytic detail.”

Wasdell’s central charge is that “reference to possible acceleration of climate change

[was] consistently removed” from the final report. This happened both in its treatment

of potential positive feedbacks from global warming in the future and in its discussion

of recent observations of collapsing ice sheets and an accelerating rise in sea levels.

For instance, the scientists’ draft report warned that natural systems such as

rainforests, soils and the oceans would in future be less able to absorb greenhouse gas

emissions. It said: “This positive feedback could lead to as much as 1.2

================

Here’s the editorial Carbon Omissions and another  March 10th article at The New Scientist discussing the WG1 being “watered down”.  Looks like they got their way, since the May 17th article was highly pro AGW or as Dr. Mann said:

They are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point, including the HS!

Your tax dollars at work.

UPDATE2:

Interestingly, due to Climategate, WUWT is now within striking distance in terms of reach and traffic of the New Scientist, and Scientific American. Prior to Nov 19th, WUWT was around the world rank 40K mark on a regular basis, now we’ve moved up. In the USA WUWT is now ranked 4823 according to this analysis.

Click for details at Alexa.

WUWT readers can help close the gap by referencing WUWT articles in letters to the editor, other blog posts, and blog comments where relevant. Thanks for your consideration. – Anthony

Advertisements

  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Paul Coppin

Oooh, I really would like a tiff or a big jpg of that, suitable for printing and framing. As to the New Scientist being a “formerly good publication”, hmm – more like Scientific American Lite…. or Popular Science without either the Popular or the Science…

AlexB

I just read the lates issue of New Scientists which had a short on the CRU e-mails. It included a water tight explaination of why CO2 is responcible for the present warming. I will reproduce thier argument here. The words are not the same but nothing has been lost in the translation:
CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has increased in concentration over the industrial period. We know that this increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming becasue we haven’t been able to attribute it to anything else e.g. increase in solar energy.

Robert of Ottawa

I read through Joe Nova’s article and she has it exactly right. I had already, before reading her article, written to the Non Sicnetist why I continued to not purchase their politcal propaganda.
They are losing money; help them lose more!! Write them and rub their noses in it!

Robert of Ottawa

Paul Coppin @ 18:31:11
Scientific American Light? The Non Scientist has been around almost as long, certainly all my lifetime. I used to read it as a “newspaper of record” of what was going on in the various fields of science and engineering. It was always more immediate than SciAm.
However, now, it is a worthless piece of crap.

Ack

Its stuff like this, why i dropped “Scientific” American

TJA

AlexB,
You’re joking… I hope.
[REPLY – I think so. My ironometer definitely activated. ~ Evan]

Jack

New Scientist is deleting most of the comments about the Denialgate article.
My guess is that anyone who doubts in the AGW hypothesis is in violation of the terms of service.
funny how that works.

hysteria
MarkG

We used to read every issue of New Scientist when I was at school in the 80s, and back then it was one of the most informative science magazines around. Today, though, I wouldn’t even use it to wipe my backside.
I suspect their big problem is that the web has essentially made them obsolete for science reporting, so their only hope of staying in business is publishing alarmist claptrap in the hope of bringing in new readers who can’t miss the latest ‘Oh my Gore, we’re all going to die!’ scare story.
Will be sad to see them go bust, but after the last few years of Warmist nonsense they won’t really be missed.

New Scientist get a mention in the climategate archive:
http://junkscience.com/FOIA/mail/1179416790.txt
…apparently incorporating Mike Mann’s perspective into New Scientist journalism – and, as being ‘dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point’, ‘including the HS!’ (ie. the Hockey Stick). And this was on Thu, 17 May 2007, in case Al Gore’s team are reading (& sometime after the Hockey Stick should have been at history in journalists minds, if not Jones’ and Mann’s, anyway).

Jim

I dropped SiAm in the 80’s for this sort of thing. But Non Scientist is even worse. At least they are no longer trying to hide the fact that they are no deeper than the shallow end of the Kiddie pool.

Bob Meyer

“If we are going to judge the truth of claims on the behaviour of those making them, it seems only fair to look at the behaviour of a few of those questioning the scientific consensus. There are many similar examples we did not include. We leave readers to draw their own conclusions about who to trust.”
Whom do I trust? Not the New Scientist. Science is not about trust, it’s about truth and there’s darn little of it in their publication.
They are comparing works by skeptics that, at worst, contain errors, with deliberate deceptions perpetrated by people upon whose works the entire “science” of AGW depends. “Non Scientist” is too kind a name for this kind of trash.
“The New Scientist” is AGW’s answer to Leni Riefenstahl. Nah! Forget that. Leni Riefenstahl was competent. These guys are more like “Comical Ali” of Iraq.

Mapou

There are plenty of magazines and sites out there (e.g., Wired, Ars Technica, Scientific American, Physorg, Slashdot, Reddit, etc.) that get their marching orders from the perpetrators (whoever they are) of the GW scam. I’m beginning to believe that this [snip] is way too vast for it not to be centrally controlled or instigated by a small group of powerful people who can throw a [snip]load of money at their pet projects, if need be. Who could those supercrooks be? And I’m not talking about people like Al Gore, greenies or crooked climate scientists, btw. These guys are just paid puppets.
I’m cynical, I know.

Gary

I used to read New Scientist occasionally 20 years ago, but even then I found a lot of hyperventilating although some of the articles were thought-provoking.
It seems the mockery level has ratcheted up lately. Street theater in Copenhagen cuts both ways: http://www.foxnews.com/scitech/2009/12/15/polar-bear-phil-jones/?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=feed&utm_campaign=Feed%253A+foxnews%252Fscitech+%2528FOXNews.com+-+SciTech%2529

Steve Oregon

One of the lamest defaults for warmers this has been.
“We know that this increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming becasue we haven’t been able to attribute it to anything else”
One honest translation of that is,
“We prefer to speculate that increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming because every other cause is only specualtion.”
My impression of the greater truth is we know that many things cause climate to fluctuate but are still in early stages of understanding how to adequately measure the changes. Let alone on what to attribute to the changes.
It also seems logical to assume the various sources of influence on the climate and the degree of each influence is in continual flux as well, with the degree of force from some altering the force of others.
However, and unfortunately, it has become obvious the science of measuring climate has been corrupted and set back a number of years.

OT: The Law of Unintended Consequences:
MILWAUKEE – Cities around the country that have installed energy-efficient traffic lights are discovering a hazardous downside: The bulbs don’t burn hot enough to melt snow and can become crusted over in a storm — a problem blamed for dozens of accidents and at least one death.

How do I subscribe?

AlexB

Re: TJA (18:52:02)
I hope they (New Scientist) are joking.

Mick

“Who you gonna call? Gore busters!!”
It’s a good tune…. LOL

I’m pretty sure that AlexB just forgot his /sarc tag.

syphax

“The big problem … is that they have decided already what the answer is to any question on climate-change”
Unlike this site, where open-minded inquisitiveness rules the day…

r

I used to read Scientific American all the time too. Now it is all about global warming and I can’t even stand to look at it. It makes me want to cry. Their web site is even worse.
I’ve taken to reading Science Daily on line. They seem to publish what ever is out there in a more unbiased way. Of course there are articles about warming because that is where the grant money is. I’ve noticed that even articles about research that has nothing to do with global warming tries to mention it somewhere in the text. Presumably for grant requirements or search engines. Unfortunately, they keep running a link under Science Video News: Research Meteorologist See More Severe Storms Ahead- the Culprit Global Warming. They have been running it for months. I don’t see how it is news anymore and there were no severe storms or hurricanes this season anyway.
They can’t even predict the weather two days from now never mind two years or two decades.

Keith Minto

NS has friends in high places…
rom: “Michael E. Mann”
To: Phil Jones
Subject: Re: More Rubbish
Date: Thu, 17 May 2007 11:46:30 -0400
Reply-to: mann@xxxxxxxxx.xxx
yep, I’m watching the changing of the guard live on TV here!
New Scientist was good. Gavin and I both had some input into that. They
are nicely dismissive of the contrarians on just about every point,
including the HS!
I have been reading this publication on and off since Nigel Calder was the editor. It was quite an curious, edgy publication then, willing to push boundaries (it was the first to publish Sir Alister Hardy’s Aquatic Ape Hypothesis) even though it then arrived 3mts late by seamail from Britain.
Nigel Calder co-authored “The Chilling Stars” with Heinrick Svensmark and made it into a very readable cosmic ray/cloud formation story that has captivated so may of us.
Unfortunately, along the way it lost the ability to question and forgot what the ‘Scientist’ part of its title really meant.

Dave Worley

I just watched the CNN/Youtube “debate” featuring Daryl Hannah, Thomas Friedman, Byorn Lomborg, et al, wherein Daryll Hannah proclaimed that she does not use petroleum. Later, the commentator noted that she just flew into Copenhaagendaaz on a red eye flight from Africa. How heroic.
Was that an all elecric jet liner?

pops

Tom – I’ve seen the traffic light problem where I live, along with some amazing swerves and near-collisions. It’s amazing that people will blast through a snow-covered traffic light without caring which color might be showing.
I canceled PopSci in the 80s – they were already too politically correct. Sigh. We clearly live in the age of propaganda.

Charles Platt

New Scientist has been infested with politically correct hangwringing for many years, reflecting the general mood of guilt and pessimism that afflicts the UK. I speak as a former UK citizen.

Mr Gary said (19:07:20) :
“I used to read New Scientist occasionally 20 years ago, but even then I found a lot of hyperventilating although some of the articles were thought-provoking.”
Many a middle-aged politician now says the same about certain publications that never pretended to be scientific although they disclosed vital statistics … “I only subscribed for the articles on sports cars.”

r

Who do we trust for science news?
That’s easy, show me the data and how you mesured it and I will show you the truth.

Michael

It’s funny reading the news articles on COP15 and Climategate these days. They only discuss the level of Tyranny we are supposed to be willing to accept.

ShrNfr

The New Scientist is to News Week as Science is to Weak. I subscribed for a while, but the cover story hype was never lived up to the story in the mag. Needless to say they have become a AGW drum beater for the past while with the usual claims but no evidence. As far as I am concerned they can go to the great pulp recycler in the sky. Scientific American is starting to be a disappointment too. I’ll keep my subscription, but its really not worth much any more.

Gary Hladik

I let my “Scientific” American sub lapse after they did their hatchet job on Bjorn Lomborg.
I’m currently saving up for a subscription to “Skeptical American”. 🙂

P Wilson

AlexB (18:35:16)
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has increased in concentration over the industrial period. We know that this increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming becasue we haven’t been able to attribute it to anything else e.g. increase in solar energy.”
It is 31F at the moment in central London. I am wearing a black cashmere coat and gloves to stay warm. Therefore, black coats and gloves cause freezing atmospheric temperatures, but maintain body insulation.

Michael

I have a scientific question, if someone out there could answer it, I would appreciate it.
If all the ice on the planet were to melt into the ocean today, How much colder would the average ocean temperature be than it is today?

keith

New Scientist often has a problem with anyone who does not subscribe to the party line.
http://www.thunderbolts.info/thunderblogs/archives/davesmith_au08/090919_newsci.htm
Big Bang deniers have the same problem, amongst others.

Vendicar Decorian

I almost dropped my subscription to Scientific American after their format change when they dropped the Amateur Scientist and some other regular columns, but gave it a chance. It didn’t take too long to watch them veer into the political correct waters and push the global warming angle when I finally pulled the plug. The same happened to New Scientist and I dropped that subscription as well. I’d agree that they are doing this to build readership, much as reality TV pushes crazies and partially clad nubile bodies to grow viewership. About the only thing NS is now good for is to go to their website and laugh at the comments thrown about after their “stories.”

chainpin

“Unfortunately, along the way it lost the ability to question and forgot what the ‘Scientist’ part of its title really meant.”
Priceless!

DR

Tom in Texas
That solution is simple: install solar/wind (free energy) powered heaters to defrost the lights.

Rob M.

It’s snowing in Copenhagen.

Scientific American Published a “laundry list” of nuclear weapons which the US had and the Soviets had, back in the ’80’s.
The then Editor went on National Putrid Radio to promote the “nuclear freeze” based on the FICTIOUS list they published.
As I recall the “bad, evil, mean” USA had 30,000 warheads. While the “gentle, kindly, warm, Soviet Union, had only a paultry 10,000 warheads.
The problem was, being the old “Civil Air Patrol” Brat that I was I immediately identified a bunch of “weapons systems” in the Sci Am article which had been decomissioned for years. Namely:
1. Nike/Zeus ground to air, nuclear tipped missles. (I’m not even sure they were ever actually fielded. It would involve putting NUCLEAR WARHEADS on missiles ABOVE GROUND and extremely vunerable to “commando attack” for theft purposes.
2. “Genie Missles”, air to air, 1 kiloton warheads, taken out of the arsenal in the ’60’s (same problem as above, one falls to Earth, unexploded, and you’ve just given someone the fissile material for a bomb.)
3. Decommissioned Atlas/Centar missles.
4. Decommissioned Bomark missles.
At the same time, there was absolutely NO mention of the surface ship SSN Missles which the Soviets had on many of their surface navy ships. Amounting to hundreds to perhaps as many as a couple thousand warheads. Medium range, granted. (300 to 900 miles) but capable of wreaking havok along the coasts of the USA.
I petitioned the local NPR affiliate to get “Fairness doctrine” equal time. I was given that time, at a time spot equivalent to the spot by the editor of Sci America.
It was just the “local” station, but I recieved calls and congratulations from 4 states surrounding the state I was in.
Sci America? Let’s call it what it is: UnScientific and UnAmerican.

Dave Worley

The deletion of comments at New Scientist is the ultimate in irony.

Charles Platt (19:31:51) : wrote
quote New Scientist has been infested with politically correct hangwringing for many years, reflecting the general mood of guilt and pessimism that afflicts the UK. I speak as a former UK citizen. unquote
I blame the science fiction writers and, more particularly, the editors. While the USA and the ROW were reading upbeat stories about technological solutions, we were forced to wallow in sleazy and unpleasant tales of deviant diddlings, ethically dubious and science-free tales which fitted the frequently barking world view of the editor, and PC navel-gazing goings-on in ever grubbier and narrower settings.
NS is making the same mistake that UK SF made: it is confusing the wishes and views of its editors and writers with what its readers want.
Hmmm… Platt, Charles Platt… Where have I heard that name before?
JF
(Only teasing, Charles, you never turned one of mine down.)

tarpon

The fraudsters are sure a tight knit group. You wonder why they never spent any time on real science, instead of just cooking the books. The striking thing to me is how journalism joined the hoaxers.
I say again, I sure hope enough real scientists stand up to save science, seekers of truth, as we knew it. Before it all goes down the drain of political science. It’s circling the drain right now. Worth remembering, public trust is not a renewable resource.

Glenn

P Wilson (19:55:47) :
AlexB (18:35:16)
“CO2 is a greenhouse gas which has increased in concentration over the industrial period. We know that this increased concentration of CO2 is causing the warming becasue we haven’t been able to attribute it to anything else e.g. increase in solar energy.”
“It is 31F at the moment in central London. I am wearing a black cashmere coat and gloves to stay warm. Therefore, black coats and gloves cause freezing atmospheric temperatures, but maintain body insulation.”
Yes, but I have heard this argument before, some, some not including the Sherlock Holmes Law, “whatever is left has to be it”. It’s true, there is no direct evidence of any gg affecting global temperatures. One in particular I remember offhand is Hansen’s “circumstantial evidence”.
“Although greenhouse gases haven’t been caught “red-handed”, circumstantial evidence is overwhelming that carbon dioxide and its co-conspirators methane and nitrous oxide are creating a predicament for Earth’s climate.”
http://www.giss.nasa.gov/research/briefs/

JJ

“I’m currently saving up for a subscription to “Skeptical American”. :-)”
The damndest thing is, there are couple of “skeptic” type mags out there. They are full on AGW cheerleaders, though.
American Scientist is still OK. Actually does science articles. SciAmNot and Non Scientist are rags. And not just because of the AGW crap. All sorts of preachy left wing politics that isnt remotely related to science.

The weather outside is frightful,
[warmth?}…………….is delightful,
Let it snow, Let it snow, Let it snow.
(old song)

savethesharks

Thanks to Jo Nova for her fearless and tireless devotion to the truth!!
——–
Here’s a little more satire to digest from a Canadian friend of mine. Takes one minute to watch….and his point is valid. LOL

Chris
Norfolk, VA, USA

Michael

“Rob M. (20:08:05) :
It’s snowing in Copenhagen.”
Can you get video of it and upload it on Youtube?

thethinkingman

I subscribed to SA for 40 years and got some good information from it. Some time in the 80’s they changed most of their editorial staff to women and there was a shift towards pseudo-science ( in my opinion ) but I kept on with it. In the 90’s they went back to a more main stream science reportage but carried more op-ed pieces and some edutainment , but I kept with it.
Now with their rather excited, groupy, support of the non existent science for CO2 warming I have finally given up and when my subscription lapses in February I will not renew .
The NS , which I used to borrow from my English friend each week , was always a political rag pushing a left / liberal agenda but it was current and carried some very interesting and well written science articles. I stopped reading NS when my friend returned to the UK.
When I read , on line here, the apologia for CO2 and the CRU gangsters I went through a few back issues on line. I am very glad I have never bought a NS and I certainly wouldn’t hold anything they publish in much esteem.
It’s all a bit of a bugger really. I am a civil engineer involved mainly in irrigation infrastructure , earth dams and water distribution and keeping up with trends in science was both work and a consuming interest. What to read now? How do I know what’s true? There was never any climate change here in Zimbabwe but I was told by the big science papers that I was just not sensitive enough to detect it and yet the concern was supposedly about humans !
Let’s hope those boys at CERN don’t [snip] us all I don’t think I could take it and that would force me into politics. Mind you that’s what science seems to have become anyway.

Michael

“Neo Scientist” would be a more appropriate name for it.

Lou Skannen

Now don’t be too hard on AlexB. See:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18238-why-theres-no-sign-of-a-climate-conspiracy-in-hacked-emails.html
The offending party is determined pretty much the same way it’s been done since the Stone Age: “You have made the volcano angry! Prepare the virgins!” “But how do you know something we did made the volcano angry?” “What else could it be? The stars are congenially configured; no bolt of lightning split the sacred tree; the consensus among my fellow priests is that it’s your wicked ways, your fudging on your tithes.”