Scientific American: Glaciers Were Smaller Before They Were Bigger Before They Were Smaller

Not unexpectedly, Scientific American has gone full-moron with just 4 scientific stories in the Top 10 science stories of 2011.

Of those 4, one is a paid-up baseless list of conjectures about climate change, officially making Scientific American now worse than “New Scientist”.

Incredibly though, it’s the same Scientific American that just allowed a blog post describing vast increases in Alpine glaciers during the Little Ice Age, thereby undermining the magazine’s own scream-in-panic policy on climate change.

I guess it’s just another case of “stopped clock“. In fact, I’m quite happy of having unsubscribed from what appears to have become just another general-interest magazine.

5 Replies to “Scientific American: Glaciers Were Smaller Before They Were Bigger Before They Were Smaller”

  1. Ross-did you ever check where that “majority of scientists” claim comes from? Not such a majority and certainly not a random sample. All based on who published the most in peer review journals. And the “survey” had two questions. Not really science or consensus. Yet it makes for great propaganda.

  2. “Anyone who thinks the overall global trends of glacier loss is not directly related to global warming is an oxymoron.”

    Are they oxymorons or just clearly confused? Get it? Oxymoron, clearly confused? OMG that was seriously funny.

  3. Anyone who thinks the overall global trends of glacier loss is not directly related to global warming is an oxymoron.

    Climate always changed – well eh naturally. This time around we are CHANGING IT!

    Better or worse. Majority of scientists are telling us for the worse. Who are you going believe.

    A sensationalist blogger or the scientists by majority

Leave a Reply - Lascia un commento

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