On the Scientific American (SciAm) web site, George Musser has recently posted a blog “Please Stop Talking About the Global Warming Consensus“.
IMNSHO Musser is on the right path to an “undestanding” of the huge issue caused by Holier-Than-Thou attitudes used by environmental activists to effectively undermine their own work and aims (alas, just as by a lot of Anthropogenic Global Warming (AGW)-concerned climate scientists).
The last thing the AGW debate needs now is any hint of debate-stifling.
Anyway, the above reminded me of my main criticism of SciAm: namely, how hard it is to find the magazine putting forward non-conformist scientific views.
One wonders if the Editors are pursuing the misguided goal of trying to prop up Science against the Forces of Obscurantism, and in the process anything not smelling of 100% scientific mainstream is left out in the cold.
If anybody wants to know a couple of articles that should have been on SciAm, here they are:
(1) Terry L. Hunt, “Rethinking the Fall of Easter Island“, American Scientist, September-October 2006
“New evidence points to an alternative explanation for a civilization’s collapse“
(2) Richard Seager, “The Source of Europe’s Mild Climate“, American Scientist, July-August 2006
“The notion that the Gulf Stream is responsible for keeping Europe anomalously warm turns out to be a myth“
Obviously one could simply get a subscription to American Scientist but that’s besides the point. My question is: have the SciAm people (the Editors that is) become simply too buttoned up? Is SciAm in danger of drowning in a sea of “consensus”?