Tired of Scientific American misinfo \ disinfo...

I don't subscribe, but am given the previous months every month and have read it routinely for several years. The more I try to become a less gullible sheep the more I can see this magazine is going the way of MSM...

The inside cover of the May 2011 Scientific American has an ad for GOLDMAN SACHS

Page 12 "Trust Me, I'm a Scientist"
First paragraph belittles 'normal' folks who disagree with doctors\scientists, stating that although half of Americans believe or are unsure about the vaccine-autism link, scientists can change their mind at any time on what is good or bad for you, so just go with it.

Oh and those of you who don't believe in the flu PANDEMIC! PANDEMIC! PANDEMIC! are simply trying to cope with emotions of fear and hopelessness...

Page 16 "Warning Flooding Ahead"
"Human-induced climate change is bringing on more extreme weather. After years of research, scientists have begun to detect a human fingerprint in many extreme weather patterns". The models used predictions of concentrations of greenhouse gases over a 50 year period, and I don't think those models included undersea volcanoes, point being NOBODY knows how many there are = any human greenhouse emissions models will be FLAWED!

I could have sworn before climategate it was called global warming right? I guess a ski resort in Utah re-opening in June is bad for the global warming business this year.


Page 18 "When Cars Are Greener Than People"
When scientists crunched numbers they found that four men running released more CO2 than if they drove a hybrid car for 5km. Right... To bad most people don't consider the production end of that eco-friendly car. Where did all the parts come from just to make the electronics? Hybrid cars consume huge amounts of rare earth metals that come from far away places, which in turn takes lots of fossil fuels to ship everything to one location, and even more to ship it to a consumer.

Page 20 "Cancer Testing? There's an App for that"
Really? Cell phones are now officially in the same category as lead and chloroform as a carcinogen. I'm sure if you have cancer, it will love you waving a 4w radiation wand over it...

Page 22 "The Newest Nuclear Plants: As Always, Safety Is A Balancing Act"
There are plans for 14 new nuclear reactors in the US, stating they will be safer than the Fukushima Daiichi plant with passive (non-human interface) safety features, but says nothing about the bad GE engineering. It goes on to say it really breaks down to an "acceptable balance between safety and cost", and ending with "What risk are you willing to tolerate?"

Page 23 talks about the new plans for a new Chernobyl sarcophagus, and how it was the worst nuclear accident ever to occur in history... I wonder if they want people to think Fukushima isn't going to get any worse...

Some more vaccine promoting acticles and some more climate change articles, VERY LITTLE actual science.

Should be called "Speculative and Biased Pseudoscience for Some Americans"

I used to subscribe and read when I had the time, they used to be a lot better 10 years ago. I now only read Nature or Science.

Well, you are very observant... but the name change on 'global warming' to 'climate change' was a pretty solidly ongoing process from before the release of those e-mails... many of the models predicted extremes in weather with the overall trend to a warmer climate, but the global warming name was more of a MSM (and government with some scientists) fear-mongering title from at least back in the 90's. And all models are flawed, but they get better all of the time (or, at least, more complicated and detailed.)

But as far as your title goes, they pretty much had to sell out to stay in publication... American's are getting dumber and dumber ;-) and the less sensationalistic a publication becomes the less people end up reading it... they need to turn a profit and the editors/executives decided that was they way keep going for a little while.

Thanks for sharing the details. Nice presentation! I see the magazine in different places from time to time, often wondering, because of it seemingly popular influence, of it's direction by TPTB.

reply to post by richierich931


the only "vaccine-autism link"was roundly shown to be complete nonsense quite a while ago now.

The 'junk science' was the huckster telling you there was a link when there wasnt.

I could have sworn before climategate it was called global warming right? I guess a ski resort in Utah re-opening in June is bad for the global warming business this year.

No. "Climate Change' has been the preferred terminology outside of the MSM in the states for years now because it more accurately describes the effects of the rising of the temperature of the earth. Seems quite a few idiotic americans thought it meant the local WEATHER would be warmer, since most Americans dont know the difference between WEATHER and CLIMATE because they cut funding in the schools so long ago.

If you researched even a tiny bit about 'climate gate' you would discover a handful of carefully edited emails in a larger body of work full of actual science and evidence that an intelligent person would find quite compelling.

I subscribe to SA because my girlfriend had a lot of old issues and I found them pretty interesting at first. However, from the first time I saw one I knew right away that it was for compartmentalized people. I continue to subscribe not because I believe in everything they push but because it's kind of nice to see first-hand what disinfo the people are being fed so that I can avoid it. It's kind of like television, I don't have it but it's interesting to put on every once in a while and see how bad the conditioning has become.

I thought SA kinda went south when "The Amateur Scientist" got very simple and then, I think went away(I quit reading it). It was great during the 60s and 70s. I think "Nature" and "Physics Today" have replaced it for serious readers.

Degrees are purchased on line today. The State employee with the math PhD who did the California EPA study for diesel engines got his degree for $2K, from a diploma mill in EU. The State says his study holds up, even though some real PhD holders from the UC system and other universities have found many holes in the collection and processing of his data.

So, for me, a trail of letters behind your name is worthless today, unless you have a proven track record in your field. Scientific opinions and degrees can be purchased for very little money today.

The last time I picked up a SA, I 'picked up' on a line of publication that was supporting mainstream corporate agendas too. I haven't read it since. I used to read it all the time.



Interesting you say that Goldman Sachs has an ad there. I've recently seen their ads everywhere. They must be shelling out a good bit for a PR campaign right now. What I've seen of it, so far, is stupid. Basically they are saying they are the ones that invest in business, without them there would be no business, because THEY are the ones that invest. bleh

reply to post by incrediblelousminds


This guy is always worth checking out, Ben Goldacre has a site called Bad science that highlights medias misrepresentations of science stories.


www.badscience.net...

It's sad that people would rather hear the scare stories from the MSM than take a look at the real facts.

thank you for this