I am a life long reader and subscriber to Popular Science. In the past, it is has always been a source to me (and others of like mind) of great information about the interesting, exciting and positive aspects of scientific and technological advancement in our country and in the world, all presented in an easy to understand layman’s format.

However, recently, your magazine has, disturbingly, taken a distinctly liberal political turn in the type and kinds of articles its staff chooses to fill the page of the publication with. It seems to me that PS has lost its objectivity and embraced “junk science” as the basic premise behind many editorial decisions and articles.

One of the most striking indications of this left turn is the apparent total acceptance of the “man-made global warming” or “man-made global climate change” hysteria, which, fanned by a left-wing, agenda driven media, is sweeping our population. Many of these environmentalist minded citizens are poorly educated in science and have little idea of the scientific approach to analyzing an apparent problem. To them “green” is the fad of the day and is driven by perceived guilt over the evil they have been told they have done simply by embracing technological advancement. Their ignorance is their excuse… but what is yours?

All of these changes to the slant of your publication comes, ironically, just at the time when many real and intellectually honest scientists are starting jump off the “man-made global climate change” bandwagon. I am speaking of award winning scientists like top geophysicist and French Socialist Dr. Claude Allegre, who was once a true believer in the pseudo religion of man-made global warming (now called “climate change” to hedge all bets).

Allegre, who has written 11 books and received numerous scientific awards including the Goldschmidt Medal from the Geochemical Society of the United States, was one of the first scientists to sound the global warming alarm over 20 years ago. He changed from being an apostle of “man-made” climate change to a skeptic in 2006 and now considers the cause of climate change to be “unknown” from a scientific point of view. He accuses the prophets of doom, who push “man-made” global warming” of being motivated more by money and political power than by any true concern for the planet or its people.

Another “convert” from the “people are causing climate change” chorus is geologist Bruno Wiskel, builder of the famous Kyoto House to honor the UN sanctioned Kyoto Protocol of 1997. Once a strong supporter of the Kyoto concept of man-made climate change, after carefully examining the science behind the treaty, Wiskel’s intellectual honesty forced him to reverse his scientific views completely. He became such a strong skeptic, that he recently wrote a book titled “The Emperor's New Climate: Debunking the Myth of Global Warming.”

Another skeptic is Astrophysicist Dr. Nir Shaviv, one of Israel's top young award winning scientists, who believes "Solar activity can explain a large part of the 20th-century global warming".

Then there is mathematician & engineer Dr. David Evans, who did carbon accounting for the Australian Government and who said “When I started that job in 1999, the evidence that carbon emissions caused global warming seemed pretty conclusive, but since then new evidence has weakened the case that carbon emissions are the main cause. I am now skeptical.”

Evans’ opinion of the current mixing of politics and science concluded “Unfortunately politics and science have become even more entangled. The science of global warming has become a partisan political issue, so positions become more entrenched. Politicians and the public prefer simple and less-nuanced messages. At the moment the political climate strongly supports carbon emissions as the cause of global warming, to the point of sometimes rubbishing or silencing critics.”

Climate researcher Dr. Tad Murty, former Senior Research Scientist for Fisheries and Oceans in Canada, also reversed himself from a believer in man-made climate change to a skeptic. “I started with a firm belief about global warming, until I started working on it myself.”

Murty was one of the 60 scientists who wrote an April 6, 2006 letter to Canadian prime minister Stephen Harper, urging him withdrawal of from Kyoto. The letter stated, in part, "If, back in the mid-1990s, we knew what we know today about climate, Kyoto would almost certainly not exist, because we would have concluded it was not necessary.”

There are many, many more scientists I could cite. They number in the thousands and the number is growing. The point is, man-made global climate change does not have the unanimous agreement of the scientific community and is far from a proven concept, regardless of popular political and environmental hysteria, that is mainly fuelled by a leftist media.

This leads me to ask the editors of Popular Science: Why do you stuff your magazine with articles that assume man-made global climate change is a proven, unquestionable fact? What has happened to your scientific objectivity? Why aren’t there articles expressing the alternative view?

To read Popular Science today, one would think that man-made global climate change is a given that no one of any stature in scientific circles objects to. As I have pointed out already, this is blatantly untrue. So, my final question to you is: Are you still a magazine of science and technology or have you become just another contemptible echo of political correctness? From what I’ve seen recently, I am saddened to suspect that the latter may be true.

Larry Schlesinger
St. Louis, MO

Larry,

I will not argue that anything you have just stated is false. It was rather enlightening to read your response. I am glad to finally see such a detailed view from this side of the issue. I do, however, have a few questions:

The people you have noted to be skeptics are at this point merely as stated: "skeptics." So, since "man-made global climate change" has not been totally debunked yet, why not respond with solutions? Sometimes it's not a bad idea to respond to an apparent problem attentively.

What's the problem with this "green" trend? (I do agree that it has become a trend). Going "green" in most cases can save people lots of money on daily expenses (such as gasoline). Also, maybe the world needs an excuse to transition away from petroleum fuels... The price at the pump will argue that we're running a bit low.

Finally, I would like to see the scientific fact that has turned these scientists away from the "man-made global climate change" crowd. I am not trying to be rhetorical in any way. If you could respond to this with links to their research, I would appreciate it.

...although, I don't think the world is ready to just forget about such a thing.

Thanks for your response Larry,
Jake Staahl

First: Why is it when people want to denigrate something they call it a liberal agenda?

Second: I am always stunned to hear someone talk as though the global warming was still being debated. It is no longer theory.

Prime Minister Stephen Harper's comments were not that global warming didn't exist, but that the concept of carbon trading is not viable. If you actually listen to the man speak, besides just hearing what you want to hear, you'd notice he takes the issue of global warming very seriously.

The Geochemical Society is a lobby group, so of course they'd award someone's book that backs up their mission.

Dr. Nir Shaviv's position that solar activity accounts for a large part of 20th century global warming doesn't argue against man-made global warming at all, unsurprisingly since the two topics are unrelated but often confused by both the doom sayers and naysayers.

In the end your response is something I see as being very typical of people still clinging to mistaken thought that climate change is still a theory to be proven. Highlighting little bits of statements by some and ignoring the rest of the discussion in a vain attempt to leverage your view.

By the way, I vote conservative.

There certainly is a possibility that the jury is still out on climate change.

However, there are an infinite number of good reasons not to waste oil by burning it when it is so important for so many applications.

It will never be rediculous to use renewable energy where possible, and be as energy efficient as possible everywhere else.

okay, here's what i see in the "green initiative", we need to get off the addiction of gasoline and things like that anyways, so why not do it in a way thats environmentally sound. i mean even if we don't take care of the carbon dioxide buildup we would still be using a cleaner fuel, let the earth heal itself, let's concentrate instead on not destroying our collective minds by using unhealthy fuels. unless you want your grandchildren to live in a bubble... thats fine as well...

I dont have a problem with the green trend, but i do think people are being misguided by it. Why would you build a electric mower for 1500? Have the writers never been in a Home Depot, if they had they would realise they do sell electric mowers and even the old push mower like the one pictured. All for alot less. http://www.homedepot.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/Navigation?Ntk=AllPro...
Why not write a article on the Scotts company and there reason on still selling them. Why its it that popsci then to think that money will fix everything?

It does appear that PopSci has gone for the "green" koolaid. I have to agree that it is a liberal agenda, which the left should own up to. These are the same folks who think the UN should run the world. Imagine how far back that would send humanity! As for articles in the green issue, I was surprised you were showing off a sleeping bag that gave off carbon dioxide on page 24 and as another writer mentioned a $1500 electric mower conversion. I just bought an electric mower for practical reasons for $459. It's a nice mower, which always starts when the family goes to use it. A spare battery was about $90. That's a lot less than the conversion on page 45 and it comes with a 4 year warranty. The hairy plant article on page 41 reminded me a Kurt Vonnegut story, Ice 9, that I read many years ago. It was a story on scientific manipulation gone wild.
How about sticking to the facts and the practical, not unproven pie-in -sky fantasy?

I love how almost every single post questioning global warming attempts to demonize the subject by referring to it as either a political or religious movement.

Here's the news people, nature doesn't care which political party you support, how much you pay for gas, or what faith if any you believe in. Global warming theories will succeed or fail on science alone, public opinion is irrelevant to the truth of the matter.

In an attempt to stem global warming, Al Gore demands that all pesky humans stop breathing in precious oxygen and exhaling filthy carbon dioxide.
In a statement released by Al, all humans are to emit 20% less carbon dioxide by the year 2010, or face mandatory government regulations on breathing. Furthermore - all outside breathing should be outlawed by the year 2030. Al further stated - "Every breath of oxygen you use is one breath of oxygen the polar bear, or the penguin, or the marmot, can't. Also, when you breath out, the carbon dioxide goes right into our atmosphere and causes climate change. - shame on you."

The $1500 mower is solar powered. Totally renewable resource. Electric mowers bought at Home Depot still use energy. They may be worse for the environment than a well-tuned gas-powered mower due to the coal being burned to create the electricity, and the inefficiencies of power transmission.