I actually stopped subscribing some time ago, but this would be enough to justify it all over again. Over at the magazine Popular Science, they’ve taken to shaming volunteers on Wikipedia if they don’t “toe the line” on climate change. First, what Wikipedia says about volunteer contributions, bolding mine:
Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles, except in limited cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism. Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or, if they choose to, with their real identity.
Hold that thought…
Now look what Popular Science’s Dan Nosowitz has written:
“Meet The Climate Change Denier Who Became The Voice Of Hurricane Sandy On Wikipedia”
But for days, the internet’s most authoritative article on a major tropical storm system in 2012 was written by a man with no meteorological training who thinks climate change is unproven and fought to remove any mention of it.
Nosowitz’ bio on PopSci:
Dan Nosowitz is the assistant editor for PopSci.com. He has previously written for Fast Company, SmartPlanet, and Splitsider, and got his start at the gadget blog Gizmodo. He is also the founder and editorial director of Oh Em Gee., a pop culture criticism collective based in Montreal. Dan holds an undergraduate degree in English literature from McGill University. You can follow him on Twitter.Pot, kettle, and all that.
Maybe he’ll provide some balance to the mess that climate change is on Wikipedia by telling his readers about the abuses and suspension of climate activist William Connolley on Wikipedia.
Oh, and where the hell is my flying car?
h/t to Verity Jones
I stopped my subscription 6 years ago (after 20 years) because it became obvious that they had taken on a bias that should have caused them to change the name to “Political Science”. Too bad, they were great. 🙁
You’d probably approve of Dan’s other Sandy story.
http://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-11/dictionary-hurricane-sandy-superstorm
[sunshinehours1 says:
November 3, 2012 at 2:55 pm]
Apparently there is very very very good business in the use of science to terrify people (little boys and girls included) about their food, water, electricity, crops and cattle.
“In the end, science offers us the only way out of politics. And if we allow science to become politicized, then we are lost. We will enter the Internet version of the dark ages, an era of shifting fears and wild prejudices, transmitted to people who don’t know any better. That’s not a good future for the human race. That’s our past.”
—Michael Crichton, “Environmentalism as Religion,” (A lecture at the Commonwealth Club, San Francisco, CA, September 15, 2003).
I stopped subscribing to PopSci when I graduated high school. That’s not a criticism of PopSci. They serve a certain audience well.
I canceled my subscription several months ago, after they gave one of the global warming zealots from Grit free reign. But look at the bright side: With Nosowitz on the staff, more of those fascinating alien abduction articles can’t be far off.
Along with several colleagues with terminal degrees (PhDs and MDs in psychotherapy with records of publication in literature) I have for several years now been banned from editing Wikipedia articles on the subject of the Shakespearean authorship question, a topic I have studied for more than twenty years and on which I am a world recognized expert (featured, for instance, in this recent documentary: http://www.amazon.com/Last-Will-Testament/dp/B009VB7XM2). Those responsible for these bannings have no expertise beyond the fact that they have become Grand Poohbahs in the Wikipedia establishment, which functions something like the house that Kafka built. As Adam Gopnick wrote in the New Yorker, Wkipedia (without any help from external pressure) is useless on topics on which “one side is wrong but doesn’t know it.”
Many ‘science’ writers for the populace are those students who didn’t/couldn’t complete a university program in chemistry/physics/biology/geology etc., and ended up completing a program in communications where they are indoctrinated with much of this pc groupthink.
That article, or post, or whatever it is is one of the most repulsive, disgusting examples I’ve yet seen of unnecessary, unwarranted slander and defamation. Nosowitz is a real piece of work, and a shining example of why I won’t ever, EVER pick up a copy of PopSci for any reason whatsoever.
Seriously. It wouldn’t even matter if there was a right or wrong and which side either of these two men were on. Nosowitz should be, at the very least, severely reprimanded, probably discharged, and realistically should be explaining to a judge why he felt the need to write that piece of crap article, trashing a volunteer who is clearly very knowledgeable and passionate.
Disgusting. Foul. Ignorant little man, Nosowitz. I’m certain he wouldn’t know “Science” if it fell out of the sky onto his head.
We expect trash from Popular Science. It is after all the science version of a supermarket tabloid. It’s when Nature, Science, Physics Today et al descend to this level that we have a big problem. And we do.
M says: November 3, 2012 at 1:20 pm
Wily is no longer topic banned for CC articles. Only the sceptics who were banned remain banned :o)
My experience recently at Wikipedia was horrible. I copied Leroux’ threatened biography to my User area, as I’d done with Tim Ball’s deleted bio a year ago. I thought my User space would be a safe space with quiet, ongoing accessibility, and time to reconsider, for Leroux as it was for Ball. This time however all hell was let loose. WMC is not able to delete articles but he sure works together with people who while claiming to have little to do with him, work to the same goose-step. IRWolfie was on the case within hours of my getting congrats for standing up to WP vandalism from two other contributors. Trouble is, I am not familiar with the appropriate WP strategies whereas IRW and WMC are. Thus they could work fast, tire me out, and drive me to say things they could label as offensive, simply because I was unfamiliar and tired. Then they could threaten me with expulsion. Well IRW says he did not threaten me with expulsion but that is sure what it looked like. Oh yes, it was because with all his rapid pursuit of me, I felt harrassed and said so to another WP contributor. Africangenesis, the only decent skeptic editor in question, got banned indefinitely from climate science editing. I got worn out.
Now I see that my WP User Leroux bio has been completely deleted, and with it, the Talk page has also disappeared into the Great Blue Yonder. I’m mighty glad I’ve still got my own wiki, http://climatewiki.org.uk I saved all relevant pages as text files and I have uploaded the deleted Talk page from my WP sandbox bio, so that people can see firsthand some of the sniping that went on, that finally drove me to duck for cover. The Leroux bio I uploaded here (without reformatting)
If anyone here would like to help with Climate Wiki, and help it grow into a real project, please email me and I’ll enable you to edit. It’s still at the beginning and I only have limited time and energy. Unlike WP, this wiki is strictly climate skeptics only.
I was surprised to hear PopSci still existed…thought this dead tree business had gone down with the rest of the content dinosaurs.
Gizmodo is an entertaining site but their content is pretty thin on facts so if this “experience” got him the job at PopSci, in lieu of scientific credentials, even more reason to avoid it.
ps Studying Leroux now, I have the feeling that he of all people might understand the dynamics of Superstorm Sandy. I think his Mobile Polar High concept has a great deal going for it.
pps err…. might
understandhave understood…. apologies LerouxI subscribed to Popular Science for the past 2 years. I did not renew for the same reasons as drWilliams (above @ur momisugly 3:19 pm). During those 2 years there were exactly 2 interesting and reasonably balanced articles: 1. An interview/profile of Felisa Wolfe-Simon (and NASA) who claimed DNA based on arsenic and 2. An interview/profile of Rossi and his LENR. Two articles of interest minus dozens of biased puff pieces = GOODBYE!
Actually, your flying car is not far from you. moller.com has details.
I used to love The Economist, and National Geographic. I’ve dropped those because of the “green tails” added to any random article. Two years ago the boy next door asked me to subscribe to a magazine for a school fundraiser, and I chose Popular Science. I will not be renewing.
…PS hasn’t been the same since “Say, Smokey!” went away. Best PS do-it-yourself, EVAH, was “PS Builds a Laser….and so can you!” http://www.popsci.com/archive-viewer?id=MyYDAAAAMBAJ&pg=230&query=ruby%20laser
The ads in the back were always a scream! X-Ray Glasses etc. I’ve glanced at the modern day Pop Sci but have lost my interest, too much inaccuracy (which is quite a slam for a magazine that broke “polywater”!)
“Dan holds an undergraduate degree in English literature from McGill University. ”
[+emphasis]
Anyone know just exactly what an “undergraduate degree” is? Seems that the terms ‘undergraduate’ and ‘degree’ would be mutually exclusive. Is it like an AA?
sunshinehours1 says: @ur momisugly November 3, 2012 at 2:55 pm
Why did I stop reading Popular Science – Editors who brag about their sons homicidal fantasies about killing SUV drivers:
“DURING A RECENT FAMILY DRIVE out of town, my 13-year-old son,
Rex, launched into a diatribe from the backseat, blasting the environ-
mental myopia of every lone driver spewing unnecessary CO2 behind
the wheel of a hulking SUV. (He actually wanted me to bump them off
the road, thus ensuring that he won’t join their ranks until long after he
turns 16.) “Don’t they realize that if this keeps up, Manhattan is going to be
under water before long?” he demanded”
http://www.scribd.com/doc/37904427/Popular-Science-2010-10
________________________________________________
This underlines one of my recent thoughts. It is only a matter of time before these types of kids grow up and make their “thoughts” a reality. Animal ‘rights’ activism is an excellent example of what happens when this type of thinking is encouraged in the young.
Police: Animal-rights activists vandalized executive’s home
Unfortunately this type of thing escalates…
Hooded vandal hurled bricks through their windows
And escalates.
Animal Rights Extremist Camille Marino Calls for Violence
PETA is alleged to contribute to
So what does that have to do with CAGW?
Earth Liberation Front: Arsonists For Global Warming
The University of Colorado….
The real crime is the adults who go free after egging these young people on to committing nasty crimes in their stead. Instead of contributing to society these young people will spend a long time in jail.
Actual law: http://www.fbi.gov/about-us/investigate/civilrights/federal-statutes
What a terrible waste of young lives these people are promoting. It makes me sick.
Gail Combs,
Glad to see you posting again! I was getting concerned. Now, I’m relieved. So keep commenting, OK? Your posts are always worthwhile reading.
Now if we could just get Smokey to come back, it would be a perfect world. ☺
The Register online tech mag in the UK is another CAGW disaster zone these days. andrew orlowski – who used to bring a sceptic’s eye to the subject – rarely gets to deal with the topic nowadays.
instead, the SF editor for 4 yrs, rik myslewski has stuff such as:
1 Nov: Register: Businessweek: ‘It’s Global Warming, Stupid’
Sandy’s climate change supersizing is controversial ‘only among the stupid’
By Rik Myslewski in San Francisco
We can argue the effects of global warming until we’re blue in the face, citing statistical uncertainties, the cost of mitigation, imperfect climate modeling methods, and many more reasonable causes for caution. But there’s enough evidence to indicate that something unsettling is afoot – and remember, the affects of climate change can be serious: warming seas will crimp your supply of fish and chips and crippling droughts will raise the price of your bacon sarnies.
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2012/11/01/its_climate_change_stupid/
some previous “work” from myslewski:
US climate-change skeptics LOSING SUPPORT
Most Americans now believe in human-caused global warming
20 Oct 2012 00:28
Last month ties for WARMEST September on RECORD
‘Is it hot in here, baby, or it just you?’
15 Oct 2012 23:33
US trounces UK in climate scepticism jibber-jabber
Surprise! Conservative opinion pieces less balanced than liberal ones
6 Oct 2012
UK ice boffin: ‘Arctic melt equivalent to 20 years of CO2’
Older, more stable ice melting as well
7 Sep 2012
and, when myslewski isn’t writing this rubbish, Register is giving space to an aussie with no scientific credentials whatsoever, richard chirgwin:
Climate denier bloggers sniff out new conspiracy
Moon landing faked ∴ climate science faked ∴ study of conspiracy believers faked
By Richard Chirgwin 7 Sept 2012
embarrassing stuff.
One day Anthony, you will wake up and realize that the trend in mainstream media is not an accident of stupidity. Then you can start to learn what is really behind the disinformation and corruption in the popular media. There is lots of documentation of it. It’s an ugly picture but we have to look at it directly before we can contend with it. Good luck.
Repeating a lie over and over does not make it true. Printing that lie, over and over, does not make it true. I am sick of these self-appointed “smart-people”, trying to tell me that human beings are all so powerful that we can change the Earth. Their hubris is as boundless as the universe itself. Human’s are merely fleas on this world and nothing more.
Yes, we should take care of our home because it provides so much for us. But, the unelected, unwanted, and zealot climate change “politburo” has no authority to tell us how to live our lives.
Those of you who refuse to be “shee-ple” keep fighting the good fight, stand up and speak what you know to be true, that human kind has about as much control over the climate as we have the ability to stop the sun from rising.
You acolytes of climate change, stop pretending you are the smartest people in the room, because you are not. Climate changes has failed peer review over and over again. Your entire belief system is based on flawed science. Maybe if the “settled science” was actually based on finds that were based in the scientific method, more of us “flat-earthers” would by into the doom and gloom your shovel day and day out.
There is nothing worse than a zealot who uses demagoguery and intimidation to further their cause. Your faith in human kind is misplaced as is your belief that human kind is the center of the universe. You have replaced the church of the dark ages who were wrong when they believed that the Earth was the center of everything, you believe that humans are the center of everything. News flash, the Earth was here long before us, and will be here long after it decides to replace with a new version of flea, just like it shrugged off the dinos, it will shrug us off, regardless of our feeble attempts to “protect” it.
It would be nice if I could actually spell. Don’t you hate that? Type up a nice comment, proof read it, post it, then read it again and find not one, not two, but several typos…. ARRGHHH!!!!
Indeed Lucy Skywalker!
But good things will come from Connolley’s totalitarism… Fighting back!