Tag: false science

I think I am done reading Popular Science

And that’s because they have shut down their commenting. From the idiotic excuse making bullshit post:

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

It wasn’t a decision we made lightly. As the news arm of a 141-year-old science and technology magazine, we are as committed to fostering lively, intellectual debate as we are to spreading the word of science far and wide. The problem is when trolls and spambots overwhelm the former, diminishing our ability to do the latter.

So, the reasons they are shutting down the comment section is because comments are bad for science? I personally think the problem is that the place seems to be inundated by idiotic leftists that put ideology before science or logic, and when they got hammered, they decided the way to go was to shut down the ability to point out they were shills.

I have to admit I read PopSci mostly for the comments. They were often instructive and some of the epic idiotic exchanges made for a good laugh. Especially considering how low science this publication really was. Just like I quit reading Scientific American when it became a shill for the left, I now will be dropping PopSci, which seems to think that silencing the people that call out their bullshit is “sciency”.

Seriously, let me quote these morons again:

Comments can be bad for science. That’s why, here at PopularScience.com, we’re shutting them off.

I don’t think even the Catholic church said anything this stupid back in the Dark Age when they suppressed science. Only cowards that know they can’t win an argument feel that the right thing to do is deny those opposing them a voice. Good luck with this policy bozos.

Unsettling The Science

Anthropogenic Global Warning is one of those topics that I usually avoid, not because it is not timely or important, but because my science expertise has always been wanting, that,  and I figured that those experts in the field should know better than I. But it always bothered me when I heard things like the science is already settled and those  that deny AGW are anti science, discounting the need for not only further study but further scrutiny.

Well, it looks like another Indian left the reservation:

David Evans is a scientist. He has also worked in the heart of the AGW machine.  He consulted full-time for the Australian Greenhouse Office (now the Department of Climate Change) from 1999 to 2005, and part-time 2008 to 2010, modeling Australia’s carbon in plants, debris, mulch, soils, and forestry and agricultural products. He has six university degrees, including a PhD in Electrical Engineering from Stanford University. The other day he said:

“The debate about global warming has reached ridiculous proportions and is full of micro-thin half-truths and misunderstandings. I am a scientist who was on the carbon gravy train, understands the evidence, was once an alarmist, but am now a skeptic.”

The entire article is interesting because it talks about the science behind the modeling and how this science has been co opted for political purposes.


Not one prone to wag my finger with pronouncements of phonies, charlatans, and imposters, but it has always been clear that money can buy expertise. As any defense attorney can attest, finding a so called expert in any field willing to say anything on the witness stand, and have the pedigree and credentials to back it up is very easy depending on the money involved. So it really is not a stretch to think that oil companies can find “experts” to provide a voice for their self interests. Ditto that with universities willing to accept grant money from organizations positing a certain premise, then having the studies support said premise, astonishing.


In science, empirical evidence always trumps theory, no matter how much you are in love with the theory.

And this is where we are today, still gathering empirical evidence.

I’m not prepared to say that AGW is all a bunch of horse poop as I believe that it is impossible for the growing population and it’s resultant pollution to not have a material effect on the planet. But for all those global warming converts who accuse me of living in the dark ages and being anti science, can we at least admit that, aside from greenhouse gases are increasing, that  the science is still ongoing, so at this point, very little is actually settled?