Posted on 09/16/2020 6:22:58 AM PDT by artichokegrower
Scientific American has never endorsed a presidential candidate in its 175-year history. This year we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly.
The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people—because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.
(Excerpt) Read more at scientificamerican.com ...
That was a good one as well.
No surprise here, they endorsed a fossil.
And there, ladies and gentlemen, is why we should hesitate to believe science is “settled”.
14 Sept: Breitbart: Junk Science Founder: Biden Climate Speech ‘One Falsehood After Another’
by Dr. Susan Berry
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/14/junk-science-founder-biden-climate-speech-one-falsehood-after-another/
15 Sept: Breitbart: Millionaire Democrat Donor Says Joe Biden Will Be Good for Wall Street
by John Binder
Michael Novogratz, the former Goldman Sachs executive and hedge fund manager, told CNBC in an interview that while a Biden win against President Donald Trump may initially drag the market down, Wall Street will stand to benefit.
“I think Biden’s going to win. I hope Biden wins,” said Novogratz, who now runs an investment firm. “But if he wins, I think the market will go down, at least initially because he’s going to raise capital gains tax … he’s going to raise corporate taxes some and he’s going to raise personal income tax.”
“I think it’s probably better for the markets [if Biden wins] because the chaos Trump brings every week, every day just gets tiring,” Novogratz said.
Novogratz donated $200,000 to the Biden Action Fund in June.
Despite endorsements from Sens. Bernie Sanders (I-VT) and Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Novogratz said Biden and running mate Sen. Kamala Harris’s (D-CA) platform “sounds a lot more conservative than the Republican team when you’re talking about their plans.”
“There’s going to be so much pressure to start redistributing wealth whether it’s paying for college, paying for loans, if it’s Medicare for All,” Novogratz said. “Those are things the Democrat Party cares about and there’s going to be pressure and maybe we’re not going to get all of those but we’ll be heading in that direction. So I don’t see our deficits miraculously collapsing.”...
This month, Biden touted Wall Street’s support for his plan to abolish America’s suburbs by seizing control of local zoning laws to construct housing developments and multi-family buildings in neighborhoods. Likewise, Wall Street is fully behind Biden’s plan to hugely expand legal immigration levels, beyond already historical highs at 1.2 million green cards and 1.4 million visa workers a year.
The Biden-Harris ticket has elated Wall Street so much that for the first time in a decade, more financial executives are donating to the Democrat candidates than Republicans, the latest Center for Responsive Politics analysis reveals.
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2020/09/15/millionaire-democrat-donor-biden-wall-street/
12 Sept: Manhatan Contrarian: Scientific American Goes Full Anti-Science
by Francis Menton
In recent years Scientific American has somehow gotten itself into the position of defending the truth of many such non-falsifiable claims, but most notably in its strenuous advocacy of climate change alarmism. How to reconcile such advocacy with the use of the term “Scientific” in its title? If you are wondering how that could even be attempted, check out the piece in the current issue by a guy named Mano Singham, with the title and sub-title, “The Idea That a Scientific Theory Can Be ‘Falsified’ Is a Myth; It’s time we abandoned the notion.” Singham is identified as a member of the American Physical Society, and is apparently a retired professor from Case Western Reserve University...
It is beyond explanation how the editors of this once-prestigious publication, with the term “Scientific” in its name, could have so completely lost track of what makes science science. And then to top it off, they call the people who actually understand what science is “anti-science.”
My message to the editors is this: The proponents of climate change alarmism, if they want to make any kind of legitimate claim to the mantle of “science,” need to specify the falsifiable hypothesis that they claim has been established, and also the evidence which, if it emerged, they would agree had falsified the hypothesis. Until they do that, their assertions have no more claim to the label of “established science” than does my hypothesis that my going to bed is what causes the sun to come up the next morning. Those of us who understand what the scientific method is are onto the climate scammers. As for Scientific American, your reputation at this point is beyond rehabilitation.
https://www.manhattancontrarian.com/blog/2020-9-11-scientific-american-goes-anti-science
So... Scientific American is now officially neither?
I just checked out their FB page & the elitist consensus there is that this is a great decision.
SA ceased to be a legitimate science publication 40 years ago.
C’mon, man! That’s not very SCIENCE-tiffic!!!
>>Wonder if these egg head scientists would be so supportive of a total shut down if their taxpayer funded university salaries and benefits were eliminated?
How many of them take money from the Chinese Government?
This doesn’t make sense. Are you missing a NOT? (e.g. “...as no response would NOT have attainted zero deaths)
>>“The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September.”
Which death was the first one that was Trump’s fault?
Should he have locked down cities in February while Democrat mayors were whooping it up in the streets/public in Houston, New Orleans, San Francisco, New York?
Should he have closed borders in January?
If we don’t stop the initial deaths, then are the first deaths not Trump’s fault?
“His inept response... which cost (caused)...”
Where is the proof of causality? This is not science.
Slow Joe can’t even name the 3 genders.
>>I just checked out their FB page & the elitist consensus there is that this is a great decision.
How many of the bot comments are by Chi-Coms working on their social credit score?
Wikipedia: Scientific American
Publisher: Springer Nature is an American German academic publishing company created by the May 2015 merger of Springer Science+Business Media and Holtzbrinck Publishing Group’s Nature Publishing Group, Palgrave Macmillan, and Macmillan Education. The company made revenues of €1.72 billion in 2019.
15 Sept: The Diplomat: China, EU Leaders Hold ‘Intense’ Virtual Meeting
by Shannon Tiezzi
On Monday, Chinese President Xi Jinping held a virtual meeting with European Council President Charles Michel, European Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, and German Chancellor Angela Merkel...
According to Michel, the meeting addressed “four key topics”: climate change, economic and trade issues, “international affairs and human rights,” and “COVID-19 and economic recovery.”
The video call was a sharply downgraded version of what was once planned as a massive in-person summit to be held in Leipzig, Germany this September, bringing together Xi and the heads of state of all 27 EU member countries. The summit – and a long-dreamed-of bilateral investment treaty between China and the EU, known as the Comprehensive Agreement on Investment (CAI) — was to be the crowning achievement of Germany’s rotating presidency of the Council of the EU. But the in-person summit was cancelled months ago, officially due to the coronavirus pandemic...
The two sides also agreed to set up “high level dialogues” on the environment and climate as well as digital issues. The environment is an issue of much friction between Europe and the United States, as the Trump administration has withdrawn the country from the Paris climate agreement and consistently downplays the threat of climate change. Thus seeking cooperation on climate action is one of Germany’s key priorities for relations with China, according to a top German diplomat for the Asia-Pacific...
In another topic Beijing would be keen to downplay, Michel and von der Leyen also stressed the need for China to provide full cooperation for an international investigation of the origins of the COVID-19 pandemic – a sensitive topic for China, given the virus’ initial emergence in Wuhan...
https://thediplomat.com/2020/09/china-eu-leaders-hold-intense-virtual-meeting/
I cancelled Scientific American years ago.....not worth my time.
>>The implication of the text is that 190,000 fewer, i.e. zero, would have died, except for his “inept response”. But, this is obviously a lie, as no response would have attained zero deaths.
There are thousands who would still be dead by their primary ailment, “with measurable traces of Covid19” be damned.
And think of all of the Americans who did NOT die by medical mishap (a leading of death in America, normally about #3). Staying out of hospitals can save your life.
I stopped subscribing to Scientific American ten years or more ago although I have been a scientists for most of my adult life.
Why are they endorsing anybody?
Corrupt magazine.
***the continuing farce that China is a “climate” leader:
11 Sept: China Dialogue: What are the prospects of an EU–China climate deal?
Ahead of the EU–China leaders’ call on 14 September, the EU is looking to China for strong climate targets
by Byford Tsang, Jennifer Tollmann
Although trade will be the focus of the EU–China leaders’ call on 14 September, it would be a mistake to think climate is off the summit’s agenda or unimportant in the broader relationship...
***Unspoken, but not forgotten in the European debate is growing concern over China’s reawakening coal habit. If China completes all the coal power plants it is currently building and plans to build, the lifetime emissions from these projects would be equal to nearly seven times the EU’s annual emissions...
https://chinadialogue.net/en/climate/what-are-the-prospects-of-an-eu-china-climate-deal/
I don’t know but those publications are joined at the hip with ‘Academia’.
‘Researchers’ who get published garner the most laughably fawning reverence from the goofiest crowd of toadies you ever saw! It hardly even matters WHAT they ‘researched’. They constantly court that kind of thing. Mention of their names and projects in periodicals and other news outlets is a sure way for them to get consideration for grants and funds.
I also don’t trust these people because when their ‘research’ is found to be fraudulent, plagiarized or otherwise irregular, not nearly enough is ever publicized about THAT.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.