« By being born in 1749, he may very well be the earliest born human being ever photographed. | Main | Michael Savage is right and liberalism a mental disease. »

May 27, 2015

Scientific American, let me say it has not always been a tranch of worthless, unreliable, often mendacious pulp.


An important exception should be noted. The front article — in the position where a short story or other fictional item would be placed in the traditional magazine format — was even then, almost invariably, a spray of liberal-sociological hogwash.
But after passing over that, one would generally find, decades later, two or three articles of enduring interest, routinely presenting historical background that does not date. In the 1980s, the publishers realized that there was no longer an intelligent general audience for science, and that the editorial focus would have to be redirected to caressing half-educated, smartass twits. That is now a highly competitive market. Losing the appearances : Essays in Idleness

Posted by gerardvanderleun at May 27, 2015 10:17 AM. This is an entry on the sideblog of American Digest: Check it out.

Your Say

One cannot even find the word "Truth" spelled out in that waste of a tree.

Posted by: Vermont Woodchuck [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2015 11:33 AM

Same with Readers Digest, went way downhill.

RD was a staple in our house when we were kids. Our dad encouraged all of us kids to read by pointing out the jokes at the end of the articles. In moments of boredom we'd grab the RD laying on the coffee table and read some of the funnies and over time started reading the articles which were always slammed with good stuff.

I drifted from the Readers Digest in the late 70's and when our son showed interest in reading at age 3 I revived my subscription only to be horrified with the content. Yeah they still had funnies but the articles were deplorable and swung a certain way. When the subscription ran out I didn't renew.

I picked one up in the dentists office a few years ago and could barely stand it and threw it back down. It had fully changed into being just like everything else out there in Desperationville.

A thing to be shunned, to be banished, to be beaten, to be dragged, to be eviscerated, to be forgotten.

Posted by: ghostsniper [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 27, 2015 3:06 PM

About a year ago I posted a simple comment in Scientific American responding to an article on "climate change". It was only a sentence or two, and it included a graph showing the rise in CO2 overlaid with a graph showing flat temperatures (no global warming) for 17 years.

My comment was deleted with a warning to desist from "name calling". I had certainly not done that, so I tried to re-post the chart again.

I was BANNED by SciAm!! They said it was for "repeated name-calling". I really could not believe it. My comment was entirely technical.

Since then, I've read about others who have been banned for no reason other than disagreeing with the "dangerous man-made global warming" narrative.

Shades of Nazi Germany! If it hadn't happened to me, I would probably be skeptical if someone else told me the same thing.

Since then I've noticed that is a pattern: since the promoters of the "carbon" scare cannot win a science debate, they simply censor out any other point of view. I don't know the answer, or if there is one. I just know that SciAm BANNED me for posting some facts they disagreed with.

Posted by: Smokey [TypeKey Profile Page] at May 28, 2015 5:21 PM

Post a comment

Remember Me?

(you may use HTML tags for style)