Add Comment

FORMATTING HELP

All Comments Hide marked as read Mark all as read

  • Posted by dansail 3 years, 7 months ago
    I'm quite surprised The Scientific American actually published the Opinion that it is. Since when does The Scientific American get so embroiled with mixing politics and science? All this crazy fringe vitriol just makes The Scientific American look fringe. That little disclaimer sentence in micro-print doesn't help their position one whit.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by mccannon01 3 years, 7 months ago
      I stopped subscribing to SA many years ago because I could see it morphing into something less scientific and more left wing political shill. I'll pick one up on the newsstand from time to time only to discover it's getting worse. This opinion article only underscores the fact I've made the correct decision to spend my money elsewhere. It's a shame that a publication touting itself as "scientific", that actually was scientific in earlier times, now wastes so much ink and paper selling politics.
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by strugatsky 3 years, 7 months ago
    I wonder what part of their degrees is due to Affirmative Action? Clearly, “scientist” is a self-anointed title for these vitriolic rejects.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by freedomforall 3 years, 7 months ago
    500 women scientists?
    "for women, minorities, immigrants, people with disabilities, and LGBTQIA"
    They are admittedly biased against heterosexuals, natural born Americans, productive people, and they admit to being misandrists.
    Their name is a facade covering their political bias.
    Scientific method be damned, what they care about is political power and government grants for themselves, and they are willing smear anyone who gets in their way.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
    • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 7 months ago
      Tut, tut! It's just that these special 500 lady scientists merely do not like man-made climate change disclaimers who therefore prove themselves to be xenophobic, homophobic, claustrophobic, coasterphobic, pogonophobic, coulrophobic, phasmophobic, arachnophobic, samhaimnophobic, kinemortophobic, misogynist, racist, ableist, sexist, flatulent, anti-science and anti-snowflake.
      (Psst! Those extras are actual phobias picked from a list)..
      Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
      • Posted by lrshultis 3 years, 7 months ago
        you left out the one that I somewhat have.
        hippopotomonstrosesquippedaliophobia
        Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
        • Posted by $ allosaur 3 years, 7 months ago
          It is in the list for "fear of long words" and there were too many phobia words to include.
          Like my last two phobias. Samhain being an ancient name for Halloween, the phobia is, of course, the fear of it; and lastly beginning with a "k" is a fear of zombies.
          Reminds me~I do believe The Walking Dead on AMC starts up again this month.
          Reply | Mark as read | Parent | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by evlwhtguy 3 years, 7 months ago
    I cant believe that screed was published in a magazine that purports to be science based. There is an incredible amount of things that have to be assumed are gospel in order to go along with the article...Trump is a xenophobic, homophobic, misogynistic, racist, ableist, traitor, criminal, oppressor, and anti-science...you name it. There has been no proof to any of these allegations. It is also interesting that any policy of Trumps is "Controversial". They say this like it actually means something....Climate change theory itself is "controversial" so what??? It is obvious that the high priests of Climate change do not like apostasy and will immediately pounce on any of their own who stray and rip them to shreds.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by $ Abaco 3 years, 7 months ago
    30 years ago I used to watch Nye on a local show up in Seattle. He'd do all kinds of gags like smash pumpkins and crush cans. He's an idiot and doesn't know crap about science. He just wears a bow tie and sport coat and has strong opinions. I saw him at the beginning of his career for what he is - a clown.

    They used to do a skit on his show called "High-Fiving White Guys" that was pretty funny, though.
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  
  • Posted by walkabout 3 years, 7 months ago
    There are lots of types of graduate programs -- many, if not most, are not "science." My guess is these 4 women (who apparently can't count) are not trained in science as the author (or authors) of this piece clearly does not maintain the skepticism that is the first hallmark of SCIENCE. Until there is a data set that adequately details the various variables we sample and report when we talk about weather and climate we won't know if the climate is changing, let alone if humans are the primary (or any) component of that change. Every century or so the earth experiences a volcano that "changes climate" for several years -- generally not to the betterment of the human race (1773; 1815; 1883) Greater and lesser (Mt. Saint Helens, Pinatubo ) and ongoing eruptions(Mayon, Etna). which have as much impact as the brief time period the climate changers have claimed the sky is falling. Warm and cold periods predating the industrial revolution (medieval warm period; Mini- Ice Age) point out how myopic the changers are. Yes, climate is in constant flux. Yes. man's actions are important (the clean air act positively impacted air quality in the U.S. -- a similar act in China, Mexico and India would have positive regional impacts also -- but those societies have not decided the health of their citizens outweighs the costs of reducing the speed at which carbon products are cycled through the air. I'm not a big fan of Mr. Nye (and know he is not a "scientist" technically as engineers like him are trained in the scientific method as a functional process, not necessarily as a philosophical process, but if he is supporting NASA, I'ma all for that. As a Scientist I do object to some (any) group claiming to speak on my behalf. Whatever weather/climate changes we face in the near term (the next few hundred years) Scientist will help us understand the etiology or the changes and assist in developing adaptations to those changes (or the human race will become extinct and the earth will move into its next phase). It seem to me the last reckoning of those "changes" was a list that did not include a lot of actual climatologists or even meteorologists. As the local weather channel can't tell me very accurately what it is going to happen next Wednesday, I'm not going to put too much stock in what they predict for a hundred years from now. I have been very disappointed at Science News for their anti-scientific buy-in to the climate change hoax/boondoggle.
    ,
    Reply | Mark as read | Best of... | Permalink  

FORMATTING HELP

  • Comment hidden. Undo