Article Image
News Link • Climate Change

Scientific American Rediscovers Science

• arclein
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..

2 Comments in Response to

Comment by Don Wills
Entered on:

I was a subscriber to Scientific American for 45 years (yes, since I was a teenager). Martin Gardner's columns were the single most important influence in my life on my choice of a career.

Unfortunately, in the 1990's SA got taken over by a politically correct green gang. It was never the same again. About a year ago I got fed up and cancelled my subscription. Just by chance I glanced at the November issue on the newsstand and was intrigued by the possibility that SA editors might actually give equal time to the scientists on the other side of the manmade global warming issue. So I bought and read the issue. I was underwhelmed with their supposed conversion to real scientific discourse. The articles in question are like throwing a bone to the other side, while never actually admitting that the greenies might be wrong. Kind of like have Alan Coombs be the face of the liberals on Fox News - a token of no significance.

Comment by Anonymous
Entered on:

I've been a fan of Scientific American for 24 years, and once appreciated its value as a scientific journal for "the layman".  The last decade or so, however, have seen that value decline to the point that, although I still find SciAm occasionally interesting, I am more often disturbed by the groupthink mentality that has overtaken it.

Join us on our Social Networks:


Share this page with your friends on your favorite social network: