Why I no longer subscribe to Scientific American...

Why I no longer subscribe to Scientific American...  This is an excerpt from a piece by the scientist  Dr. Tim Ball (personal web site), writing on Watts Up With That?

There was a time when Scientific American (SA) occupied a unique niche on the newsstands. It was a magazine about science for the public. It was genuine science usually written by scientists, not a popular pseudo-science magazine like all the others. It was interesting because most people did not understand much of what was written. People that knew about the topic realized it was a very broad overview, but realized it was for public consumption. They published fascinating articles drawing issues to public attention without political bias. Three I recall that were valuable in the climate debate were; John Eddy’s article on the missing sunspots; Stommel and Stommel’s piece on 1816, the year with no summer; and an early article about the influence on ocean temperature measurements of the switch from leather to metal buckets and then engine intakes.

Now, SA is a sensationalist, biased, apologist outlet for the IPCC global warming science. It appears the transition was driven, even before the full impact of the internet, by declining sales. Now, in my opinion, SA is no different from any of the other pseudo-science sensationalist magazines. Coincident with the shift was a decline in contributions from scientists and an increase in articles by professional (?) journalists. With climate articles, the majority came from scientists directly involved in the IPCC deception. Doom and gloom and sensationalism sells and even better if it fits the political bias of those involved in producing the magazine.

It's also why I won't be renewing my subscription to Science News, which I've subscribed to since the '70s.  The sad truth is that these days I find better science reporting and analysis on blogs than in professionally edited magazines.  The truth stands a much better chance of emerging from those who write from interest than it does from those who write for the commercial opportunity.  It's a different example of the same thing that's happened to newspapers and magazines reporting on politics...

Paradise ponders...

Paradise ponders...  Slept in late this morning – didn't wake up until 6 am, though I did get up around 2 am to let Mo'i out.  Our old guy is almost 17 years old now, and still doing ok.  We've got him on antibiotics now, because we discovered that he had a urinary tract infection – and those seem to be making a difference.  He's actually going walkabout around the back yard now, which he hasn't been doing for several months.  Yesterday at his dinner time he was jumping up on my leg to get at the food; apparently his arthritis isn't bothering him as much, either.  Maybe the warmer temps?  That old fellow is on antibiotics, arthritis pain meds, high blood pressure meds, and thyroid meds.  The difference before and after meds is still completely amazing to us – a year ago we thought he wasn't long for this world; he looked terrible and clearly felt terrible.  Once we got the meds figured out, he's still with us, and doing just fine.

Had Debbie's patented baked Ora King salmon yesterday.  Damn, that is fine fish!  This morning she made another chocolate sheet cake.  Just what we need lying about the house :)