3 thoughts on “Scientific American visits the climate change deniers conference, discovers Polar Bears lead to Fascism

  1. tommoriarty

    Once upon a time, Scientific American used to be a decent scientific “journal” for the lay person. Today it is often just a political instrument. The video you presented simply highlights that point.

    See here for an example of Scientific American hyperbole when it comes to global warming.

    While you are at it, you can take a look at this if you are terribly worried about polar bears. I recommend the graph far down on this page listing eleven *real* journal articles that all indicate that the holocene (our current interglacial) was warmer in the past.

    Finally, check out the links on this page. Especially look at the up to date global, northern, and southern sea area plots

    Best regards,

  2. Getting upset that Scientific American points out the irrationality of this particular brand of climate change contrarianism is like getting upset that their columnists regularly denounce the privileging of Intelligent Design in America’s classrooms.

    And as for “Today it is often just a political instrument,” I invite all three people reading this comment thread to visit your blog and decide whether or not this is the pot calling the kettle black.

    (I find it particularly interesting, for example, how many people on your side of the debate are so focused on Al Gore… I sometimes wonder if he hadn’t become the poster boy for climate change whether or not the dwindling opposition to recognizing it and doing something about it wouldn’t be less vociferous than it is.)

    On the other hand, I do find the policy debates inspired by people like Bjorn Lomborg (the “Skeptical Environmentalist”) to be quite refreshing — but he wasn’t even in attendance at that conference.



  3. tommoriarty

    Hi Christopher,

    Thanks for your response. You asked why people focus on Al Gore. That is simply because Gore has inserted himself into the center of this controversy. It is clear that “people on your side” also are focused on him, as evidenced by his Nobel Prize and Academy Award for his book and movie.

    I noticed in your sidebar that you are an editor at Scientific American. As such, you should appreciate the importance of providing references for scientific claims. One of the things that disturbs me about “An Inconvenient Truth” is that it is a 300 page book that claims to have a scientific basis, but does not provide a single reference (other than acknowledging the copyrights of the photographers). It doesn’t even provide a table of content or an index!

    Like you, I find Lomborg to be a voice of reason. My point about Scientific American being a political instrument is nicely illustrated by Scientific American’s treatment of Lomborg.

    Best regards,
    Tom Moriarty

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s