Name: Scientific American Colludes with Other Major Media to Normalize ‘Climate Emergency’ Terminology
Brand: legalinsurrection.com
SKU: legalinsurrection-com-94
Availability: OnlineOnly

critic

Scientific American Colludes with Other Major Media to Normalize ‘Climate Emergency’ Terminology

preview

Most ReadShortly after the new administration took over in January, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Biden consider declaring an emergency on climate change, even though aNotwithstanding, the dutiful media continues its frenzy to drive the narrative.&nbsp; When it comes to matters involving science and technology, however, this is both aggravating and dangerous.Scientific American, a previously venerated scientific publication, has decided it will magnify the “climate emergency” message that the politicos in Washington want to spread.&nbsp; Out of the nearly 7 million scientists in the United States, it cherry-picked 13,000 to assert that they all agree: :Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action.As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity…. Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”This is not science. It is consensus-based on political pressure. It is especially appalling because the vast majority of journalists reporting this news have had very limited exposure to rigorous coursework in biology, physics, geology, statistics, chemistry, or any other scientific or technical discipline.We have seen actual climate emergencies:To continue with this banality, Scientific American explains: Why “emergency”? Because words matter.Yes, for scientists, the correct use of technical terms does matter. Unfortunately, the publishers of this nonsense have decided to misuse terms to create fear, allowing for enacted policies that are not based on science, logic, or reason.But, perhaps, the most chilling piece of this nonsense comes toward the :“The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model.” Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).Scientific American got that half right: The media provided a wonderful model…. of what not to do. And while there are dozens of different reasons to decry the media’s handling of COVID19 coverage, its of the 1-in-1-million clotting problems with the Johnson &amp; Johnson vaccine will result in further vaccine hesitancy is merely the latest example.The term “common sense” means sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.Based on the available data, we live in a common-sense emergency, and I’m going to say so.Bonus: There is also consensus!"has agreed with major news outlets worldwide" – coordinate political propaganda— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection). folks desperately need some adult supervision: "We Are Living in a Climate Emergency…sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas…The planet is heating up way too fast"— Tom Nelson (@tan123)Can you please provide the mathematical formula you’re using to ascertain that current climate variation now constitutes an “emergency”? Also appreciated would be any math you’re using to pinpoint the percentage of humanity’s impact on said variation.Thanks in advance.— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott)It was your decision ~20 years ago to be a policy advocate rather than an objective source on this topic that made me reluctantly end my subscription. I still miss the magazine you used to be, and I wish I regretted my decision.— Tim Hamilton (@TSHamiltonAstro)Donations tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law., ,Tags:, ,|“The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model.”Heh. Saw that coming. It’s just beginning. Joe Biden has already laid the foundation for using the “public health emergency” approach to gun control; it’s not a matter of “if” but rather of “when”.|Scientific American hasn’t been scientific in many years. They’ve guaranteed their own irrelevance.|“Can you please provide the mathematical formula you’re using…”Math is raycisssssss!!!!|We have 10 years left to save the planet!!1!!|I’ve never been able to understand a single article in Scientific American.The trouble with climate science is that they have no adult peer review. The reviewers are climate scientists instead of experts in the tools they are using.|I repeat myself….One of the first things one should learn in their training to become a scientist is how skepticism is essential. Since the results obtained in today’s research is the foundation for tomorrow’s work, every effort must be made to ensure the experiments were created properly, data interpreted correctly, etc. Real scientists seek criticisms, flaws in their work and so forth, in an effort to produce the best work possible. In climate research this is simply not allowed and those who do are labeled “deniers”, are threatened with job loss, and so forth. Why?When errors are found in data and they need to be corrected the corrections never all go in the same direction. Errors are random and adjustments end up being random except in the realm of global warming where historic temperatures are always adjusted in the direction that supports global warming. Why?When a problem is identified a scientist always seeks to determine what the optimal situation should be. In global warming research there has, to my knowledge, been no credible attempt to determine the “safe” level of CO2 in the atmosphere, how “safe” is defined, the costs of obtaining a “safe level of CO2 so it could be compared to the costs associated with doing nothing, etc. Without knowing what a “safe” level is, we will never know when our goal has been reached and we are finished. Why has none of this been done?The list goes on showing how global warming supporters are conducting science in a way never before conducted. Scientists are not questioning this because to do so will bring ruin to themselves. Meanwhile, supporting global warming will bring a struggling scientist funding and notoriety. It is a modern day form of Lysenkoism.Corruption in science, fear mongering, political issues over riding work, and political correctness run amok were the reasons why I left research years ago. It hurts to see something I loved so much being destroyed for short term personal gains for a select few.|We can’t support the use of Rearden metal. We don’t know if it’s safe.|The Earth is Flat…again…|I have a few issues with this article“Predictions of extreme global warming have failed to materialize (e.g., Predictions of “snowfall being a thing of the past” morph into Glacier National Park removing its “Gone by 2020″ signs)”This is misleading as the glaciers have still declined over the last century. The science changed its position based on the best available evidence that’s how science works. Nor does this change the fact that the glaciers are still in decline.“Climate models are flawed and cannot realistically predict the climate decades in the future.”Actually the climate models have predicted the temperature rises for many years. That’s objective fact. Asserting that they can’t has been proven incorrect. Even the earliest Hansen model has been shown to be pretty accurate and that was made in the 80’s if memory serves. The modern models are likely to be more accurate still.“Alternative energy sources (e.g., lithium batteries, solar panels) have serious limitations and produce significant hazardous waste”Yet the introduction of these technologies has reduced the carbon footprint of many countries where they have been introduced at scale. Clearly there are limitations to all technologies but the comparison needs to be made with existing tech such as oil and gas generation which is for all practical purposes never going to improve whereas solar panels, battery storage is in its infancy and has far greater scope to improve including from a green perspective.|It is 25 years since I read the late great Aaron Wildavsky’s “But Is It True?” and 20 years since I read Bjorn Lomborg’s “The Skeptical Environmentalist”. I learned to always check the actual data before taking any story about the environment or climate at face value. Yesterday, it was a story on our local Ipswich River in Massachusetts being “the 8th Most Endangered River in the United States”. It was pure unadulterated polemical nonsense despite a glossy picture filled report. The report had zero metrics you would need to rank anything. Pathetic.Needless to say I gave up on most Scientific American environmental and energy articles 20 years ago.|So they’re going to devalue the word “emergency” to the point where hospitals will have to stop using the word for where walk-in patients seek care.And since the regime doesn’t like the word “crisis,” I confess I’m not sure what replacement word is available. “Cataclysm,” maybe?|Just so you all know. The average global temp of the earth has not changed one iota in the last 5 years, according the NASA’s GISS data. You can easily check it on their website. What kind of climate emergency is it if temps are stable for 5 years.Also, in the roughly 40 years since they say the climate emergency began, global temps have increased 0.8 C. In the 40 years between 1906 and 1946, temp increase 0.5 C, and no one cared. I guess that 0.3 C change over 40 years really made all the difference.What a joke this ’emergency” is.|The idea of using “climate emergency” sort of loses it’s “shock and awe” when you telegraph it in advance.|Haven’t read Scientific American since they became just another PopSci magazine on the rack parroting all the other popsci magazines sitting next to it. So they can call it whatever they want. Doesn’t bother me in the least as I won’t be reading it.|Great, Leslie, as always. S.A. is w worthless rag.|When do they change their name to Lynch Mob American?|You really need to read a recent SciAm to understand the extent to which they’ve abandoned evidence-based science for trendy politics. If you haven’t seen one lately, I suspect every public library in America has the current issue.Twenty years ago the politics was there, but mostly at the fringes. Ten years ago it was pervasive, yet one could still find some worthwhile articles in it. Today there is nothing at all of the old magazine left.Sort of like what happens to one of those caterpillars after the wasp lays its eggs in it and the wasp larvae proceed to eat their way out.Donations tax deductible to the full extent allowed by law.OUR LAWYERClose WindowFont ResizeA-A+Keyboard NavigationEnable Readable FontContrast ModeChoose Color ButtonblackwhitegreenblueredorangeyellownaviUnderline LinksHighlight LinksClear Selected OptionsGreyscale ImagesInvert ColorsRemove AnimationsRemove StylesLights Off ModeClose WindowX

Most ReadShortly after the new administration took over in January, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Biden consider declaring an emergency on climate change, even though aNotwithstanding, the dutiful media continues its frenzy to drive the narrative.&nbsp; When it comes to matters involving science and technology, however, this is both aggravating and dangerous.Scientific American, a previously venerated scientific publication, has decided it will magnify the “climate emergency” message that the politicos in Washington want to spread.&nbsp; Out of the nearly 7 million...

Scientific American Colludes with Other Major Media to Normalize ‘Climate Emergency’ Terminology

No article scores yet.

CRITIC REVIEWS

PUBLIC REVIEWS