Scientific American, a once highly-respected scientific journal that has now descended into the muck and mire of pop science, has been banging the global warming drum as loudly and as often as anyone.
Maybe they better bang it even more loudly and even more often, because their latest reader survey shows that their readers aren’t buying it.
Source: Scientific American
This post was last modified on November 9, 2010
View Comments (11)
I feel bad that both Sci-Am and National Geo have become advocates. It reduces the weight of any and all of their articles.
By letting editorial policy bleed into their articles they end up becoming just another voice in an already too loud chorus of institutions proselytizing an agenda for their own good (selling articles based upon panic).
It's too bad that they are sacrificing their long-term credibility for such a weak agenda.
All's they can understand is pandering to populist science. That's what they should change their name to.
Populist Science. It says it all about their respect for the scientific method.
Very true Perlcat.
I guess it reflects their subscriber bases - as printed media become more and more irrelevant these magazines need to sell to a broader and broader base in order to stay in business. This broadening of the base means they need to shift their intended audiences resulting in the disenfranchisement of their traditional (more conservative?) subscribers. The comments in the forum appear to reflect this.
Another unintended consequence of a government subsidy? You bet (hey - the internet ain't free!). However, as most printed media outlets (NYT, Time, Newsweek, etc.) seem to champion government hand-outs, I say let them be hoisted on their own petard.
Finally - do you know the fastest way to go out of business? To have an ever increasing market share of a declining market!
I don't think it reflects their subscriber base as much as it reflects what they think of their subscriber base. It doesn't have to be declining, but they make it so by publishing garbage.
A better understanding of their subscribers would take actual science, and that's not their strong suit...
That's it! The Scientific American is settled about global warming.
I'm very proud of the readers who took that survey! Soon to be ex-readers, I imagine.
I used to subscribe years ago, but when they started drinking massive quantities of Kool-Aid and spouting that global wormening $hit, I cancelled, and told them why in a "letter to the editor." Don't know if they printed it or not, but they still send me "please come back" letters asking me to re-subscribe. I simply return the material marked "global warming is a hoax" in thick black Sharpie ink. The appropriately provided Business Reply Mail envelope ensures that they get to pay the postage.....heh!
Scientific American is neither.
I am utterly surprised anyone reads that rag anymore given their politically based publicized views of "climate science".
They are charlatans, just like 80 or so percent of the scientists out there(that 80% who get their paychecks from the G by doing ridiculous and moronic studies, and who put thermometers on top of blacktopped roofs, etc.
OK, so Scientific American has gone PC and is just another rag. Are we surprised? Not really, the F'ing Libtards have infected a goodly portion of the print and broadcast media, in addition to academia.
Only people in California buy that shit! A bunch of rich, sterile, buffoons that will believe anything that comes out of a movie star's mouth. Dumbass mf'ers!