|The fall of Scientific American magazine - from RCP article|
Posted by: LateForLunch ® |
Author Profile Mail author Edit
The author elucidates the central issues. As is normal for anti-conservative-fanatics the ACFs who bought and now control SA magazine and website, they are busy substituting factual information for WHAT THEY AND THEIR PROXIES SAY about factual information. IOW, they present highly-biased, unscientific (often laughably absurd) statements as factual without substantiation (i.e., lying, obfuscating, prevaricating) believing that because the magazine has a history of being objective, it will inoculate them from detection or criticism for their mendacity.
So once again, ACFs are doing EXACTLY THE OPPOSITE of what they claim - presenting non-scientific information to Americans claiming that it is scientific.
In addition to what the author pointed out, I have often encountered hard science articles with tangential/peripheral connections to "controversial" topics like AGW, bend over backward to avoid even a remote contradiction of AGW dicta so their article conforms to the demands of the AGW-proponent publishers.
I have known this for years and have had to read over every article thoroughly to verify that it's not contaminated by unscientific Bravo Sierra. But it's nice to see that the rest of the world is getting hip to the truth about the falsity of Unscientific American.
Modified by LateForLunch at Wed, Oct 25, 2023, 19:42:19
|Post Reply | Recommend | Alert||View All||Previous | Next | Current page|
|Replies to this message|