Comments

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