Criticisms of Scientific American editorial on Bush & science

[Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>]

-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 07:30:04 -0700
From: Falk, Donald M. <DFalk () mayerbrownrowe com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Some of this does raise genuine concerns, but to say that UCS "often
tilts left" is like saying MoveOn.org "often disagrees with the
President."  My guess is that the anti-trafficking regs that have been
interpreted in a way that discourages scientific publications will be
straightened out, but that UCS will still be concerned that we are not
doing enough to ensure a free flow of cash, weapons and weapons-related
information to Iran, Cuba, Syria, North Korea, and the other bastions of
free thought and scientific progress on the list.


-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 02:11:41 -0400
From: Andrew Ackerman <amacker () emory edu>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

Declan:

It's a damning argument the SciAm editors make here, as you point out.
But they lost a lot of credibility for hosting a shamefully biased and
arrogant forum in their magazine two years ago: an 11-page response to
Bjørn Lomborg's "The Skeptical Environmentalist." The forum is available
here: <http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000F3D47-C6D2-
1CEB-93F6809EC5880000>. It illustrates the way ideology has created a
debate paralysis on the issue of the environment. This editorial
highlights another node in that kerfuffle. Bush is presented without much
nuance. He's just the worst environmental president ever. I'm not trying
to stand up for Bush's policies, only point out that SciAm editors do
indeed appear to have the bias you suggest.

-Andrew Ackerman




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:57:49 -0400
From: Richard Herrell <rherrell () twmi rr com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>
References: <4091D902.4050704 () well com>

Hi Declan,

Your readers may be interested in Michael Crichton's comments about
Scientific American given in his excellent lecture on the politics and
science entitled "Aliens Cause Global Warming".  He argues that the
magazine is opposed to some scientific inquiry on political grounds, as
he writes:

"Worst of all was the behavior of the Scientific American, which seemed
intent on proving the post-modernist point that it was all about power,
not facts. The Scientific American attacked Lomborg for eleven pages,
yet only came up with nine factual errors despite their assertion that
the book was "rife with careless mistakes." It was a poor display
featuring vicious ad hominem attacks, including comparing him to a
Holocust denier. The issue was captioned: "Science defends itself
against the Skeptical Environmentalist." Really. Science has to defend
itself? Is this what we have come to?

"When Lomborg asked for space to rebut his critics, he was given only a
page and a half. When he said it wasn't enough, he put the critics'
essays on his web page and answered them in detail. Scientific American
threatened copyright infringement and made him take the pages down.

"Further attacks since have made it clear what is going on. Lomborg is
charged with heresy. That's why none of his critics needs to
substantiate their attacks in any detail. That's why the facts don't
matter. That's why they can attack him in the most vicious personal
terms. He's a heretic.

"Of course, any scientist can be charged as Galileo was charged. I just
never thought I'd see the Scientific American in the role of mother church."

http://www.pivot.net/~jpierce/aliens_cause_global_warming.htm

Regards,

Richard Herrell




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Thu, 29 Apr 2004 23:49:23 -0700 (PDT)
From: John Bartley or K7AAY () ARRL NET <johnbartley3 () yahoo com>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Believe that Sceintific Amaerican has a history of bias, as documented
by Dr Jerry Pournelle and others.




-------- Original Message --------
Subject: Re: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased  science
Date: Fri, 30 Apr 2004 11:26:39 -0700
From: David Mercer <radix42 () cox net>
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Declan, if this whole hoorah is, as it appears, because they were ignored by
the administration about global warming, perhaps the following tidbit 
will put
things in perspective.

You have no doubt this year at least seen headlines about the Japanese Earth
Simulator, fastest (still?) single computer on the planet.  Climate models
run on it have been the first to have the resolution for hurricanes to
spontaneously
arise in a computer model from chaotic interactions (in other words, with no
code to simulate them).  No past computer climate models have been this
acurate.

So if this is the first model to ever have "natural" hurricanes, I am 
more than
a bit dubious regarding the global warming predictions of past models. 
It's no
secret that they haven't been able to simulate past weather, but this is a
measure
of how bad the state of the (poor) art that has driven the global warming
outcry
has been.  As Galileo, Einstein and I'm sure many other scientist who were
ridiculed
in the past by the establishment, and later turned out to be correct, would
testify,
consensus among scientists, no matter how prominent, has nothing to do with
truth.

Calls to action with as scant of firm conclusions as are available at 
this time
strikes me as no more than political grandstanding.  Maybe they'll be less
ignored
when the models they're using to cry that the sky is falling are at least
acurate
to model the past.  Premature, macro-economic actions, such as pondered by
Kyoto,
may indeed do more harm than good.  No one knows, and we do indeed need to
find out.

But blind calls for "doing something" at this stage, and self-interested
statements
such as "this input should always be weighed from an objective and
impartial perspective to avoid perilous consequences.... The administration
of George W. Bush has, however, disregarded this principle"
strike me as very disingenious.

Sincerely,

David Mercer
Tucson, AZ



-------- Original Message --------
Subject: RE: [Politech] Scientific American slams Bush for biased science
Date: Sat, 1 May 2004 15:03:54 -0600
From: Jerome Borden <jcborden () earthlink net>
Reply-To: jcborden () earthlink net
To: Declan McCullagh <declan () well com>

Dear Declan,

A couple of thoughts from the "Science Front":

Methane is reputed to be a more potent greenhouse gas than carbon dioxide.
It is also known that termites produce more of it than cows.
Termites thrive in the detritus found in overgrown forests with lots of
dead wood.  So, why is the "Environmental Lobby" so dead set against the
"Healthy Forest Initiative?

Global Warming and carbon dioxide is based on questionable science.  What
happens if hard water is allowed to dry on a surface?  Water Spots.  What
happens if those water spots aren't wiped up right away?  That's right;
bring out the strong vinegar or CLS because normal washing won't hack it.
This is evidence of a very active system that naturally sequesters carbon
dioxide.  Generally, it takes volcanic action to return it to the
atmosphere.

Now, if they are so concerned about global warming and mercury from coal
(By the way, just when did that turn up and is it in all coal supplies?),
why aren't these environmental Cassandras telling us to go Nuclear?
Remember, the original "Hydrogen Economy" was based on the premise of
cheap, plentiful electrical supply produced by thermonuclear energy.
(Then, they found out how incredibly difficult controlled nuclear fusion is
to achieve.)

Yours Truly,
Jerome C. Borden
Layton, UT
Not that far from the source of "Cold Fusion".  [ ; --))


_______________________________________________
Politech mailing list
Archived at http://www.politechbot.com/
Moderated by Declan McCullagh (http://www.mccullagh.org/)