From Scientific American, Press release, July 5th 2011:
Blog Network Launches on ScientificAmerican.com
Today Scientific American launched a new blog network which unites editorial, independent and group blogs under the magazine’s banner. The community of 60 bloggers provides authoritative information and insights about science and technology, and their roles in global affairs. The blog network, overseen by Blog Editor Bora Zivkovic, who serves as moderator for the community, encourages discussion and facilitates the exchange of ideas with both the bloggers and Scientific American readers.
Zivkovic, known for his own “A Blog Around The Clock,” a blend of chronobiology, science, media and education among other subjects, has invited a diverse group of voices for the network. Bloggers range from graduate students, who are launching their careers, to veteran science writers such as John Horgan, Director of the Center for Science Writings at the Stevens Institute of Technology.
Renowned writers including Jennifer Ouellette (“Cocktail Party Physics”), Darren Naish (“Tetrapod Zoology”) and Scott Huler (“Plugged In”) join veteran Scientific American bloggers John Platt (“Extinction Countdown”) and Jesse Bering (“Bering in Mind”) on the network. The format of the blog allows for great diversity in tone and topics. Many of the bloggers focus on the bridge between science and other fields such as philosophy, sociology, music, art, gender and race, hip-hop culture and literature.
“In its 165 year history, Scientific American has built a reputation as the leading publication for science in the general media,” says Zivkovic. “The goal of the blog network is to provide a new platform for people in the science community to exchange ideas and interact with the SA readers in a dynamic way.”
The Scientific American Blog Network features three new SA editorial blogs. @ScientificAmerican provides news, updates, highlights and anecdotes from the Scientific American newsroom while “The Incubator” highlights the best work by students in science writing and journalism schools. The “Network Central” blog will feature highlights from the blog network each week. Existing SA editorial blogs such as “Observations,” “Solar at Home,” “Anecdotes from the Archive” and “Expeditions” remain. The network also features new blogs by Scientific American Editors Davide Castelvecchi (“Degrees of Freedom”), Anna Kuchment (“Budding Scientists”), and Scientific American Mind Editor Ingrid Wickelgren (“Streams of Consciousness”). There are future plans to launch additional staff-authored blogs.
The Scientific American Blog Network is hosted on its own landing page, blogs.scientificamerican.com.
Links:
http://twitter.com/#!/sciamblogs
About Scientific American:
Scientific American is at the heart of Nature Publishing Group’s consumer media division, meeting the needs of the general public. Founded in 1845, Scientific American is the oldest continuously published magazine in the U.S. and the leading authoritative publication for science in the general media. Together with scientificamerican.com and 14 local language editions around the world it reaches more than 5 million consumers and scientists. Other titles include Scientific American Mind and Spektrum der Wissenschaft in Germany. For more information, please visit www.scientificamerican.com.
===============================================================
I looked through a number of blogs, some of which were refugees from last year’s advertising debacle over at ScienceBlogs. Interestingly, there appears to be no blogs about climate.
The filter selector has no category for it. In “Energy and Sustainability”, as well as “More Science”, I looked also, but found none on that topic. Perhaps the powers that be at SA realize that climate is not a topic for the meek, as it often gets very ugly and contentious, and it just isn’t worth the hassle.
Or maybe, climate is falling off the serious science radar at SA?
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
A hopeful sign. I dropped my subscription several years ago, because of the unrelenting inclusion of AGW in most articles. I just finished reading ‘Future Babble’ (Gardner), it really helped me understand why we humans desire predictions and why they are so very often wrong.
Interestingly, there appears to be no blogs about climate.
Except almost everything written in SA seems to insert the standard idea so they likely didn’t think it necessary. A non-conformist bloger isn’t apt to be around long. But maybe you, Anthony, should submit a few pages and see how they respond.
Unable to connect, says my browser.. Exactly, says I.
Just the quiet before the storm?
One of the SA bloggers had something interesting to say… I wonder if this could come back to haunt SA??
“…In turn, those scientific communities share the knowledge they have built, and deploy some of those scientists to tackle the problems the public wants or needs solved…”
–Dr. Janet D. Stemwedel in Let’s talk about “Doing Good Science”
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/doing-good-science/2011/07/05/lets-talk-about-doing-good-science/
Sharing knowledge, Janet? Novel concept. You might want to mention that to some of your colleagues.
……..Climate Change not there?? How could you be so naive to think SA wouldn’t fade it into the mix….with extra echo??? Just look at what Anna Kuchment has to say:
“..The importance of clearly defining the field and explaining the methodology behind it are paramount at a time when debates among policy-makers about addressing climate change and among educators about teaching evolution are blurring the public’s understanding of the difference between science and ideology, said the panelists at the talk, “Aiming for Scientific Literacy by Teaching the Process, Nature and Limits of Science.”…
http://www.scientificamerican.com/blog/post.cfm?id=schools-should-teach-kids-more-abou-2011-02-22
Now, with the two blog posts above taken together, with that emphasis on “The importance of clearly defining the field and explaining the methodology…” combined with “..scientific communities share the knowledge they have built..”, SA will shortly show us its true colors, and my money is on those colors being AGW green. Dollars, that is.
I recently read the last two issues of their magazine and saw the meme of climate and climate change mentioned more than enough for me.
Nope, you can bet they will wind up under Agenda 21 Sustainability
I found the climo-blog!!!
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/creatology/2011/07/05/welcome-to-creatology/
“We also want to explore how the marriage of science and art can propagate emotional impacts beyond the bald facts…”
Dead ringer, I say.
Cool. Are they going to have some science in it this time?
Anthony, this is about the closest that I have been able to find so far:
http://scienceblogs.com/guiltyplanet/2009/09/guilty_language_of_offsets.php
Well, not quite free of climate junk. The blog called ‘Extinction Countdown’ which appears devoted to pumping the ‘mass extinction’ story – and therefore the new UN push on ‘biodiversity’ – has stories of why x (e.g. the platypus) is doomed due to AGW.
Another case of the incestuous marriage between AGW climastrology and its twisted sister ‘Conservation Biology.’ As the latter is my favorite corrupt science due to my previous career, it promises to be a great source of garbage to dissect.
The headline story there now is about some alleged ‘subspecies’ of chimp, whose convenient status as a subspecies was just ‘discovered’ in 1997. Each time they invent one of these ‘new’ entities to save that conveniently reduces the number of each, while creating another new research franchise.
Save the South Cleveland Crow! Only joking. Save the ‘Sacramento Valley Red Fox’! Not joking.
Pessimist me says wait for SA to start another blog network focused entirely on CAGW climate related issues. Skeptics need not apply.
intrepid_wanders @ur momisugly July 5, 2011 at 7:47 pm …. LOL! Good find!
There is a blog entry flogging the “ocean acidification” meme in there – it wasn’t too hard to find. The usual tripe about acidification shown by “the models”.
I don’t think this is the right place for what is basically an advertisement for Scientific American.
I didn’t think it was still in business.
I too cancelled my subscription to SA (and Nat Geo Mag) years ago when it became painfully clear to me that they were willing to sully the good name of science for political favors in the form of monitary grants. It is also apparent to me that it will continue until we elect political representatives who are willing to turn off the money spigot that funds the present shameful relationship between research and political idiology.
Just as a newspaper doesn’t run specialized blogs about commas, spaces and periods, SciAm doesn’t need a specialized blog about carbon. It’s part of every sentence.
I’m inclined to think they are avoiding blogging about the climate because they believe like me there’s no obvious science at work in “climate science”. Or worse, if they accept papers from rational interested parties such as Mr. Watts they will also have to accept the dross spewed by Joe Romm.
Unfortunately, SA replaced OMNI as the folk-science rag; a glossy National Enquirer, popularizing and institutionalizing the results of poor methods and even poorer conclusions. My subscription lapsed years ago. Such a shame, when that same magazine basically introduced the layperson to such marvellous concepts as Seafloor Spreading and Plate Tectonics, cornerstones of modern geological theory…and recently nudged by the same CC meme. Balderdash.
If this is an attempt to move back toward actually writing about science, rather than being a megaphone of a propaganda agenda that would be a good thing.
After some 20 years of drivel, I will hold my breath to see if they return to the quality the magazine had in the 1960’s and 1970’s before it got hijacked by lunatics who were more interested in inserting political commentary, in every article.
I supported this magazine for years, buying every copy as soon as it came out until I could no longer justify throwing money down a rat hole and started “proof reading” every edition on the news stand before I put down my money. That lasted about 2 years before I gave up and stopped even picking up the magazine. I glance at an issue about once every 5 years now and so far have never failed to be turned off by their un-ending propaganda before I browse 3 or 4 articles, put the magazine down and sadly walk away yet again.
I loved the magazine in the high times of the race for the moon and read every edition cover to cover and then carefully put it on the stack of other back issues in my closet, so it would be available to re-read if I wanted to look up an old article.
Until they start turning out content of that quality again, they will just be another magazine that chased away its devoted readership as it pursued a new fashionable market niche that was all about selling an agenda rather than writing content worthy of the magazines historical place in market.
Larry
Scientific American isn’t scientific. They stopped being scientists a long time ago. They are propagandists for the C02 cult. I used to read each issue from cover to cover, now I don’t even bother to browse through it. I suspect their coverage of other topics is a biased and nonsensical as their climate change position. Once my subscription is up, SA and I are parting ways for good, They could give it to me for free and I still wouldn’t read it. It’s a shame that a mighty magazine has fallen into such a shambles.
I always found SA topoically and graphically tempting and unreadably pro-CAGW. It has had quite a run with that meme. The thing is there are still lots of other memes that flow through the current sampling including a completely materialistic approach to life, the universe and everything. It has yet to become an ennobling experience – just stuff about stuff all the while playing whack-a-mole with creationists. Boring.
I’m not surprised that most posters here have the same experience as I. SciAm used to be FUN, and informative… getting each issue was exciting and absorbed hours of my time. I read almost every word.
IN my opinion, it wasn’t just climate science, but Junk science in general that turned me right off the rag. Well, that, and the fact that it had whittled down to what, 40 pages?
If I really wanted a religion, there are plenty of churches around. I’m pretty sure I could find something… I do NOT want to join the church of Junk science and socialism masquerading as environmentalism, and refuse to read their church bulletin every month.
poor Bora jumping onto the wrong ship. expect the expected! and what’s this obsession with being “authoritative” rather than themselves?
The Amateur Scientist was a column in the Scientific American, and was the definitive “how-to” resource for citizen-scientists for over 72 years (1928–2001), making it the longest running column in Scientific American’s history.
In 2001, Scientific American came under new management. As part of a “face lift” of the magazine, all of the long-running columns were retired, including “The Amateur Scientist”. March 2001 was the last time the column ran in Scientific American.
—
That was the last scientific issue of ‘Scientific American’, March 2001
You can not be sucessfull in promoting a religon if you include actual, falsifiable, demonstable tests that anyone can perform independantly to verify its claims.
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Amateur_Scientist