Vincent Gray advises me via email:
Dear Folks
I have been a subscriber to the “Scientific American” for as long as I can remember. I have been bitterly disappointed at there persistent embrace of the climate change fraud and the publicity they have given to its promoters.
I have still kept subscribing for the occasional genuine scientific articles.
I just received the issue for November 2010 and I almost fell off my chair at two of their articles. They now admit for the first time the sceptics might be right and they invite discussion on their website.
The first article, page 8 entitled “Fudge Factor” tells of a scientist who always found the results which fitted theory when they did not, how this sort of thing happens all too frequently and includes a sentence questioning whether proxy temperatures measured from tree rings are not an example..
The second article, page 58 has a full page photograph of Judith Curry, Climate Heretic who has been consorting with the likes of Chris Landsea, Roger Pielke Sr, Steven McIntyre and Pat Michaels, who has doubts about the entire IPCC process. I had noticed her intelligent letters on the various blogs.
There is a diagram showing how ridiculous the Hockey Stick becomes when you put in the uncertainties.
I have only just finished reading this so I have not so far commented, but I thought you should know that when a magazine like the “Scientific American” permits free discussion on climate change it must mean the beginning of the end.
Cheers
Vincent Gray
==========================
Direct link to Judith Curry’s article:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=climate-heretic&page=1
Unbelievable !
“when a magazine like the “Scientific American” permits free discussion on climate change it must mean the beginning of the end.”
Climategate was “the team’s” Stalingrad
“Now this is not the end. It is not even the beginning of the end. But it is, perhaps, the end of the beginning.”
Sir Winston Churchill, Speech in November 1942
Is Scientific American in danger of returning to real science? Does this mean there is no longer a consensus? What would Al Gore say?
Vincent Gray,
Thanks for the tip.
I am running out now to the local Barnes & Noble to get a copy.
Note: it may not be the beginning of the end . . . but at least the end of the beginning (thanks Churchill?).
John
I think, rather than “the beginning of the end”, it is actually the beginning of the beginning–finally, open discussion about SCIENCE! (although I never thought I’d see the day from this namesake magazine.
…I thought you should know that when a magazine like the “Scientific American” permits free discussion on climate change…
Has anyone actually tried commenting on the web site – with success, I mean? Did your (presumably skeptic) comments actually get posted?
Perhaps, they have just realized, that it is impossible to have an intelligent conversation, without the skeptic participating. There are still lots of climate discussion forums, who believe, the solution to climate debate, is to eliminate any skeptic who dares to post contrarian viewpoint. They, then wonder, why their blogs receive little readership, other than those who enjoy echo chambers. Maybe, SA’s new policy will begin a change throughout the community, but I am not holding my breath! GK
Woohoo
Unlike new scientist here in the UK I’ve always felt that Scientific American was the heavy weight, so this is great news 🙂
I can start buying it again 🙂
My relationship with SA has been the same as Vincent Gray’s. When the Heartland Conference was in NYC I wrote and asked them to walk down the street and cover it. A couple of other notes were, likewise, ignored. Since then they have only had alarmist nonsense in the magazine.
Our location is such that I am possibly the last person in the USA to get my copy – maybe it will arrive today or Monday. This month, at least, there is something to look forward to. Now I’ll have to write and say something nice.
Does Scientific American consider that scientific papers should not be published without the release of supporting data etc?
“…when a magazine like the “Scientific American” PERMITS FREE DISCUSSION on climate change….” I and my children’s children are forever in gratitude. Thank you, thank you boss – sir. Please do the right thing in November America.
Two years ago I bet my professor in grad school that within two years even SA would be forced to admit that the science of AGW is far from settled. I did my semester project on why the science as not settled. He gave me an A on my presentation and research, but he still strongly held to the “all the scientists agree so it must be true” mantra.
I think I will shoot him an email.
Like many I was a near life long subscriber to SA and NG, the former probably responsible in part for my choice of Physics as a field of Study. About a decade ago I dropped both when they ceased to present balanced views and became presenters of the Gorian view of climate.
Thankfully the freedom of the Internet provides a march wider view of the world.
Good news. I canceled my subscription years ago when they ran an article claiming that agriculture ended the last ice age. That’s right, bronze age humans committed the first AGW. The author’s own charts and graphs didn’t support the claims being made. It was clear that Scientific American had become a mindless cheerleader for every global warming theory to come down the pike. Since I’m not a scientist and depend on the authors and editors to help me stay informed, SA was useless for its purpose. Maybe, it is safe to resubscribe?
Yes! Another sign that the MSM are entering damage limitation mode in connection to CAGW.
Climategate was pivotal in bringing about a move back to reality. The last 15y without any statistically significant warming certainly helped too.
It will be interesting to see if these articles affect their sales.
Steamboat – I just checked the comments , and they’re currently running slightly in favor of the article . Of course this may change .
SA article on Judith Curry says early on
One black mark, one good mark. Then
More black marks.
“End of the beginning” at the very most IMHO.
I stopped subscribing 20 years ago. It is going take awhile before I trust them again.
Vincent,
“… when a magazine like the “Scientific American” permits free discussion on climate change it must mean the beginning of the end.”.
Oh, I do really hope that you are right, my friend, but there are other, more sinister and esoteric forces at work amongst the nonsense, nay, propaganda of climate change fraudulence.
Google your excellent weather forecaster ‘John Coleman’.
Have a dabble (Google) with others, such as Christopher Monckton and Robert Carter, who will both illuminate and illustrate the absurdities that we are having to put up with.
You may perhaps also like to look at a recent synopsis delivered by the President of the Czech Republic, Viclav Klaus, which can be found on -http://www.spectator.co.uk/australia/6392618/thank-heavens-for-bob-carter.thtml
Could this be the harbinger of sanity in climate science?
not much of a capitulation here. Look at the summary from the article:
In Brief
* If people and governments are going to take serious action to reduce carbon emissions, the time pretty much has to be now, because any delay will make efforts to stave off major changes more difficult and expensive to achieve.
* In the wake of “Climategate” and attacks on policy makers, the public is more confused than ever about what to think, particularly when it comes to talk of uncertainty in climate science.
* Climate policy is stalled.The public needs to understand that scientific uncertainty is not the same thing as ignorance, but rather it is a discipline for quantifying what is unknown.
* Climate scientists need to do a better job of communicating uncertainty to the public and responding to criticism from outsiders.
Same old SA BS has been for at least 15 years since I quit subscribing. Judith was not presented in the light of truth as I see it, she is just wanting to do good science, but the background data quality is in question, further stymieing real progress in a positive direction. Towards an expansion in the amount of knowledge that can be brought to bear to solve the cyclic nature of climate and weather patterns.
As a very interested layman as far as science is concerned I also used to really look forward to each edition of SA and NS for close on 40 years.
I cancelled both about a decade ago as they were no longer publishing science as I understood it.
I won’t be rushing out to buy a copy of either until I am convinced that there has been a major shift within the editorial ranks bringing genuine science back as the core of their publication business.
And I bet there is a few small wars now going on deep within the editorial enclaves of many science publications on whether there should be a rethink and a recognition that the science publications have made some very bad editorial judgement calls in the way they have turned from publishing genuine science to to advocacy and high profile gatekeeping for some unproven and very suspect science.
Wow! In a world with many good people and arguments on both sides of the debate this makes sense. The same cannot be said of Norwegian Minister of Foreign Affairs Jonas Gahr Støre that this month compared climate skeptics with the campaign by tobacco lobbyists.
http://translate.google.no/translate?hl=en&sl=no&u=http://www.aftenposten.no/fakta/innsikt/article3797321.ece
He is alarmed at how climate skeptics are using any doubt about the research results, and draw parallels to how the tobacco giants were trying to sow doubt about tobacco carcinogenic properties.