Dear Scientific American… (An Open Letter)

Dear Scientific American

(editors@sciam.com, subscriptions@sciam.com)

Subject: Subscription renewal: please stay away from this climate contrarian (or worse)

Thank you for asking me to fork another $43.75 to get 12 more issues starting from July or August 2010.

I am afraid I am not the kind of subscriber you may want to consort with.

You see, I am one of those despicable people “standing up and exposing the science, the costs and the hysteria behind global warming alarmism“. In your definition, I am one of the “contrarians, naysayers and denialists.

And it gets worse. Some time ago I published a paid article on an online magazine that received (I think, or maybe suspect) some money from Exxon. The shock, the horror, etc etc doo bee doo bee doo.

Please spare yourself from having your articles read by these deceitful, amateurish, intellectually dishonest eyes of mine and just leave me alone.

many thanks
regards
maurizio morabito

0 Replies to “Dear Scientific American… (An Open Letter)”

  1. Bravo! It’s really just a political rag. That’s why they like AGW. It has nothing to do with science, as this mock interview with a Climatologist demonstrates.
    RE: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Vostok-ice-core-petit.png
    Bullseye: What caused the CO2 to increase 80ppm 340,000 years ago?
    Climatologist: We don’t know
    Bullseye: What caused the CO2 to increase 80ppm 240,000 years ago?
    Climatologist: We don’t know
    Bullseye: What caused the CO2 to increase 80ppm 140,000 years ago?
    Climatologist: We don’t know
    Bullseye: What caused the CO2 to increase 80ppm 10,000 years ago?
    Climatologist: We don’t know
    Bullseye: What caused the CO2 to increase 100 years ago?
    Climatologist (shrilly, drooling, deranged eyes): IT’S YOUR SUV!!! GOVERNMENTS MUST ACT IMMEDIATELY BEFORE THE WORLD ENDS!!! WE’RE GOING TO EXPLODE PEOPLE WHO DISAGREE!!! OOOOOOH, THE HUMANITYYYYYYYYY!!!!
    From their failures to explain past CO2 increases, I think it’s fair to say the climatologist don’t know shit. So how can an ostensbly scientific magazone back this religious hysteria? The Enquirer is more scientific.

  2. Science, Nature, New Scientist and SciAm all appear unscientifically “warmist” rather than objective.

    Accuweather’s global warming site appears one of the most balanced “mainstream” sites, though with apparent political warmist tendencies.

  3. I canceled my subscription of 15+ years right after the Lomborg issue was published, and recycled all of my old issues. SciAm used to be a fun read. Every recent SciAm article I read on-line concerning renewable energy is full of errors.

  4. I canceled my on-line subscription to SA, for exactly the same reason, and using similar language.

    It would be interesting to see the evolution of SA subscriptions, over time.

    With the economy, falling public support for AGW, and increasingly strident editorial content, I wonder when the lights come on, and old fashioned capitalist survival mode kicks in.

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.