This tiff started because of this story by Tom Nelson yesterday, followed by this today. This post is my first involvement as all this happened without my involvement or comment until now. I don’t even care that I wasn’t mentioned, but I do care when I’m libeled.
I have just one thing to say to you, Mr. Zivkovic:
Prove your assertion of “gaming” led to an undeserved win, or retract it and issue an apology.
Perhaps it doesn’t occur to Mr. Zivkovic that Scientific American’s readership is on decline, just like those opinion polls that show people thinking AGW is a serious problem. People are getting turned off to SciAm partly because of ridiculous and hateful things like this being said on the part of the current crop of of writers and editors running SciAm.
And they wonder why people don’t like the magazine like they used to.
==============================================================
About Bora Zivkovic
Born in Belgrade, Yugoslavia (now Serbia), Bora was always interested in animals and nature. His studies in veterinary medicine were interrupted by the 1990s war in the Balkans, when he arrived in the USA. He went to graduate school at North Carolina State University where he studied how bird brains measure time of day (circadian rhythms) and time of year (photoperiodism). He started ‘A Blog Around The Clock’ in 2004. He teaches introductory biology to non-traditional students at North Carolina Wesleyan College, organizes the annual ScienceOnline conference, and edits Open Laboratory – the annual anthology of the best writing on science blogs.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Hey, don’t knock The Enquirer. They were the ones that first reported on John Edwards’ affair while campaigning for President. Meaning they’ve proven themselves to be more accurate in their reporting than SciAm.
Well I haven’t been a 50 year SciAm subscriber; but pretty darn close,, and in addition, I have paid for a gift subscription for a long time fishing guide, for almost as long.
I cancelled MY subscription a couple of years ago, because of the blatant political and propaganda bias that has become a standard fixture of both the editorial staff, and some of the regular writers. There’s one chap whose name appeared in these pages not so long ago, and I can’t stand to even look at his smug photo in SA.
As for our birdbrain expert; practicing in front of a mirror , convinced me, that there is only one way to duplicate his presumably self selected photographic image; a lifetime of sneering will do it.
I actually continue to pay for the gift susbscription, for my friend. When it stops he will know I bought the farm; but then his opinion of the SA BS, is not reportable in a family forum like WUWT.
I subscribed to SciAm since the early 1970’s.
I dumped SciAm right after the Lomborg character assassination issue in January 2002. It was a canonical jump-the-shark moment for the publication, and a crystal clear testament to how much damage Lomborg’s book had done to the environmentalist cult. I had no idea scientists could behave like such scumbags. Those 4 scumbags were Stephen Schneider, John Holdren, John Bongaarts and Thomas Lovejoy.
I have glanced at the covers over the last decade, and now rank its content on par with the magazines that cover soap operas.
I am not surprised to find that many here have cancelled their SA subscriptions for the same reason as I did. I was a lifelong reader, up until about 5 years ago, and I could not see the value anymore. To me the content went ‘sciencey’, written for junior high students, but not me. I felt that this was a relflection in the decline in our eductional standards. Thankfully I can use the ‘net to educate myself now.
“Prove your assertion of “gaming” led to an undeserved win, or retract it and issue an apology.”
Oh, no! Another legal threat.
😉
It was back in the eighties that I realized SciAm was politically bankrupt.
I remember the issue. The cover said “Reagan’s Star wars – Will it Work? How Much Will It Cost?”
I realized that without reading the article the answers were “Not in a million years” and “More money than you can imagine”. Once you can predict the outcome of an article solely on the basis of the politics of the magazine you know you are no longer dealing with science.
Anthony,
I’m unclear as to whether you’ve notified Zivkovic directly. I would if it were me, and I’d also make it clear that you’re perfectly willing to sue in the absence of an unambiguous, very public apology. You imply it, but I’d go the step further. He deserves to be embarrassed to the very extent possible. Just disgusting, that kind of baseless attack.
From SciAm’s About: Borat – “He went to graduate school at North Carolina State University where he studied how bird brains measure time of day …”
Seriously, NCSU offers a graduate course in how Gore, Mann, Jones, Hansen, (GW climatologists et.al) read sun dials? Talk about your no brainer, EZ A course.
SciAm has a history of such unwarranted attacks going back at least to 1996, when they did a hack job on Eric Drexler and the Foresight Institute:
http://www.foresight.org/SciAmDebate/SciAmOverview.html
Former subscriber as well
This is the same rag that just called for “effective world government to be imbued with heavy-handed transnational enforcement powers”, so consider the source.
http://blogs.scientificamerican.com/observations/2012/03/17/effective-world-government-will-still-be-needed-to-stave-off-climate-catastrophe/
From the late 1980s to the early-2000s, Scientific American was my favorite magazine. Then the leftist spin drove me away. I dropped my subscription for a year, thought I’d try it again and renewed for a year, then dropped it again and have now stayed unsubscribed for several years. Very sad. I’m not big on print media, but I would still be paying for SciAm if they would have just lost the leftism.
I don’t agree with the previous commenter. I occasionally visit their web site. They still have some good articles, but the global warming mythology ruins it.
I was also a Sci Am subscriber, which I began purchasing it in the mid 1950s when I left High School. In those days, only 3% of my peer group in New Zealand went on from High School to university, but Sci Am and other similar publications fed my mind until I eventually achieved a university qualification. I stopped buying it years ago when I had gained sufficient education and experience to fully understand the ramifications of the scientific method.
It is very sad to see what the shining beacons of my youth have become.
I’ve been a subscriber for 40 years and also would have stopped a few years ago if it were not an annual gift subscription from my father. I think I did detect a dramatic change in January with far fewer pieces trumpeting AGW and attacking deniers. But that bias seems to be on the rise again.
I first noticed the politicization of SA when they started to take a stance on nuclear disarmament. Since then I have seen it become increasingly a vehicle for its contributors and editors to indulge their person opinions. I don’t trust the science in it anymore – “figures don’t lie but liars figure”. If I see any new treatment of science there, I need to verify its accuracy and completeness elsewhere.
“more soylent green!” mentioned that he also dropped the Discovery magazine because of same reasons. I canceled my subscription of National Geographic and two Finnish science magazines because of same reasons. I still get phone calls from magazine salesmen who ask if I’d like to renew my subscription and I make a point of telling them why I refuse to read the pseudoscientific magazines.
Scientific American – Total circulation (2012) 476,867.
They could probably double that number by posting their articles here. Of course, we do have standards…
I have subscribed to Scientific American for a number of decades. For general science it is a fine publication. However it may have become more political with the Global Warming debate. Nonetheless it has always been a left wing rag on their key agenda areas. I recall writing letters to their editors in the early 1980s about their all too often anti-Reagan rants. Generally it is widely acknowledged that in the area of defense and political theory their articles where silly and infantile. Nothing has changed much in that respect.
“He teaches introductory biology to non-traditional students ….”
Apparently he doesn’t want them make reading WUWT a tradition..
http://tomnelson.blogspot.com/2012/07/warmist-american-blog-editor-bora.html
gives “Service Unavailable – Error 503”
Hmmm. “Bird brains” his field of expertise. Does he spend his time studying himself?
Many years ago, I subscribed to SciAm, and thought it was a GREAT magazine. Then a very good magazine. Then a good one. Then, a decade or more ago, there was some egregiously inaccurate political article of some sort on a topic I was reasonably familiar (I forget the details, possibly gun control), with that I said to myself,”self, what if they are ALL this bad, and I just don’t know enough to see it?” I didn’t renew my subscription, and never looked back.
I would notify him with a certified letter. Also, if people rewteet it they also have a problem.
so he needs to inform those who follow him
This looks like a major event coming maybe first time we can really nail em
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/nz/news/article.cfm?c_id=1&objectid=10819971
BTW the Romans had a hell of time trying to educate the Balkans its was their worst nightmare considered mostly ignorant savages
“Scientific American” has been neither since 1986 when Holtzbrinck bought it.
The magazine grew ill when the Amateur Scientist column vanished, and then worsened when Mathematical Games/Metamagical Themas ended. The coffin lid slammed closed with its 2002 ad hominem attack on Bjorn Lomborg. RIP, SciAm 1845-2002.
Wow, I gave up on that rag around 1988-89.
Honestly, “gaming the award” is only saying you were able to get a disproportionate number of your fans to vote, as compared to other blogs. Even asking people to “vote for your favorite blog” would be gaming.
I don’t think there’s anything wrong with gaming a vote. In the real world, if you don’t ask for something, you probably won’t get it.