from the quill of “ANTISTHENES”
The Scientific American used to be a good, informative popular science magazine. For example, in February 1861 it wrote: “A vegetable powder, under the name of ‘Persian Insect Powder‘ has lately been introduced into the drug market, for the extermination of insects, vegetable parasites,&c. Until recently, the botanical source of this powder has not been known, except to its maker. For a number of years it was erroneously considered to be a native of Persia, but it has been traced beyond question by Dr. Koch, as having its origin in the Caucasian provinces, and to the contused blossoms and flowers of Pyretheum roseum and Pyretheum carneum.” Since then we knew.
Unfortunately, that was long time ago and the SciAm slid down the path of political correctness even faster than Melbourne’s The Age. [Well, perhaps that’s obvious; The Age just follows the fads.] So in the SciAm of February 2011 we read Francesca Grifo (The Bright Side of Gridlock) complaining about recently elected American politicians who “have shown little understanding of, or respect for, the enterprise of science”. And, shock horror, “a number of the Republicans … have expressed scepticism about climate change”. Unelect them! Those unspeakable “sc…cs” are planning to haul before the House of Representatives “the climate scientists to defend their work”. And you may ask what is the bright side from the headline? This is not a joke, she really wrote it – “Such hearings could backfire, however, by giving scientists a forum for making their voices heard. A calm, well-reasoned argument, based on firm evidence, could do much to persuade people that climate science is solid and all but universally accepted by legitimate researchers.”
Ninety percent of the world media is not a big enough forum? And if they had firm evidence, would they have to rename a global warming a climate change? And call carbon dioxide carbon? Even a person who has no knowledge of basic science ought to be suspicious by the obvious lies those warm-mongers peddle.
What is really at stake are millions of dollars fleeced from the taxpayers and channelled through venal and cowardly politicians to venal and dishonest “scientists”. Luckily Ms. Grifo sees another silver lining – Obama’s executive power. On many issues he can overrule the elected representatives. I think you get the drift.
SciAm also features something called Quotable, two quotes per issue. In order to keep on the most correct side, they are from Putin and Obama respectively.