3 thoughts on “Michael Mann, Meteorological Soc. Prez back Popular Science move to silence skeptics”
If they had just said, we are cutting comments because we get too much spam, I don’t think we would be complaining.
When I was a kid in the 1970s I used to love Popular science. They had a new gadget section which was cool and they always had some article about some fantastical thing we would all have in the future, – sometimes with pics of live demo projects. There was the hovercraft car, ceramic engines for normal cars, Airplanes that could get anywhere on earth in 2 hours, fusion energy just around the corner with the pros and conds with different reactors. A lot of this stuff was impractical, but it was a fun read.
Then in the 1980’s something happened and every issue seemed to be about some dubious environmental threat. Instead of hearing about airplane/cars we were now told how global warming would kill us. Admiddedly the issue with about a dozen windmill designs was interesting, but the quality just wasn’t there any more. I had a subscription from 8 to 18 (the last renew I renewed for 7 years, otherwise I would have stopped it earlier) and looking at the magazine lately not much has changed.
They need to change the name from Popular Science to Popular Consensus, if they don’t like people debating the science that Popular Science has deemed proven.
Popular Science give themselves away with this para on removing comments
“And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock
………………………………………………………………………^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
website devoted to championing science.”
doctrine?
The foolish editors re just going to lose traffic over this. At this point people expect to be able to discuss articles after they read them, so they’ll go elsewhere — even if they go elsewhere to discuss articles in Popular Science.
Smarter folks would write more convincing articles so thoughtful people would agree with them (if agreement is so important).
Leave a Reply
Discover more from JunkScience.com
Subscribe now to keep reading and get access to the full archive.
If they had just said, we are cutting comments because we get too much spam, I don’t think we would be complaining.
When I was a kid in the 1970s I used to love Popular science. They had a new gadget section which was cool and they always had some article about some fantastical thing we would all have in the future, – sometimes with pics of live demo projects. There was the hovercraft car, ceramic engines for normal cars, Airplanes that could get anywhere on earth in 2 hours, fusion energy just around the corner with the pros and conds with different reactors. A lot of this stuff was impractical, but it was a fun read.
Then in the 1980’s something happened and every issue seemed to be about some dubious environmental threat. Instead of hearing about airplane/cars we were now told how global warming would kill us. Admiddedly the issue with about a dozen windmill designs was interesting, but the quality just wasn’t there any more. I had a subscription from 8 to 18 (the last renew I renewed for 7 years, otherwise I would have stopped it earlier) and looking at the magazine lately not much has changed.
They need to change the name from Popular Science to Popular Consensus, if they don’t like people debating the science that Popular Science has deemed proven.
Popular Science give themselves away with this para on removing comments
“And because comments sections tend to be a grotesque reflection of the media culture surrounding them, the cynical work of undermining bedrock
………………………………………………………………………^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
scientific doctrine is now being done beneath our own stories, within a
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
website devoted to championing science.”
doctrine?
The foolish editors re just going to lose traffic over this. At this point people expect to be able to discuss articles after they read them, so they’ll go elsewhere — even if they go elsewhere to discuss articles in Popular Science.
Smarter folks would write more convincing articles so thoughtful people would agree with them (if agreement is so important).