Scientific American attempts to explain logic behind adopting political phrase & fails spectacularly!
Shortly after the new administration took over in January, Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer suggested that Biden consider declaring an emergency on climate change, even though a hard look at the data revealed:
- Predictions of extreme global warming have failed to materialize (e.g., Predictions of “snowfall being a thing of the past” morph into Glacier National Park removing its “Gone by 2020″ signs)
- Climate models are flawed and cannot realistically predict the climate decades in the future.
- Alternative energy sources (e.g., lithium batteries, solar panels) have serious limitations and produce significant hazardous waste.
Notwithstanding, the dutiful media continues its frenzy to drive the narrative. When it comes to matters involving science and technology, however, this is both aggravating and dangerous.
Scientific American, a previously venerated scientific publication, has decided it will magnify the “climate emergency” message that the politicos in Washington want to spread. Out of the nearly 7 million scientists in the United States, it cherry-picked 13,000 to assert that they all agree: “We Are Living in a Climate Emergency, and We’re Going to Say So::
Scientific American has agreed with major news outlets worldwide to start using the term “climate emergency” in its coverage of climate change. An official statement about this decision, and the impact we hope it can have throughout the media landscape, is below.
This idea is not a journalistic fancy. We are on solid scientific ground. In January Scientific American published an article about a study entitled “World Scientists’ Warning of a Climate Emergency.” At the time, more than 11,000 scientists from 153 countries had signed a report to signify their agreement that the world is facing a climate emergency that requires bold action.
As of April 9 another 2,100 had signed on. As our article said, “the adverse effects of climate change are much more severe than expected and now threaten both the biosphere and humanity…. Every effort must be made to reduce emissions and increase removal of atmospheric carbon in order to restore the melting Arctic and end the deadly cycle of damage that the current climate is delivering.” Our article also noted that as of January, “1,859 jurisdictions in 33 countries have issued climate emergency declarations covering more than 820 million people.”
This is not science. It is consensus-based on political pressure. It is especially appalling because the vast majority of journalists reporting this news have had very limited exposure to rigorous coursework in biology, physics, geology, statistics, chemistry, or any other scientific or technical discipline.
- A climate emergency is not a hurricane, which is a regional weather event.
- A climate emergency isn’t triggered by politicians funded by alternative energy companies, who decide to cut off fossil fuel production.
- A climate emergency isn’t caused by globalist bureaucrats wanting to divert money into their coffers and those of their politically connected cronies.
We have seen actual climate emergencies:
- A climate emergency is a major volcanic eruption that substantially lowers global temperatures, especially after a prolonged period.
- A climate emergency is a major impact event that alters the atmosphere around the world.
- A climate emergency is a substantial change in solar radiation levels that affect Earth.
To continue with this banality, Scientific American explains: Why “emergency”? Because words matter.
Yes, for scientists, the correct use of technical terms does matter. Unfortunately, the publishers of this nonsense have decided to misuse terms to create fear, allowing for enacted policies that are not based on science, logic, or reason.
But, perhaps, the most chilling piece of this nonsense comes toward the end of the article:
“The media’s response to COVID-19 provides a useful model.” Guided by science, journalists have described the pandemic as an emergency, chronicled its devasting impacts, called out disinformation and told audiences how to protect themselves (with masks and social distancing, for example).
Scientific American got that half right: The media provided a wonderful model…. of what not to do. And while there are dozens of different reasons to decry the media’s handling of COVID19 coverage, its hysteria-level description of the 1-in-1-million clotting problems with the Johnson & Johnson vaccine will result in further vaccine hesitancy is merely the latest example.
The term “common sense” means sound and prudent judgment based on a simple perception of the situation or facts.
Based on the available data, we live in a common-sense emergency, and I’m going to say so.
Bonus: There is also consensus!
"has agreed with major news outlets worldwide" – coordinate political propaganda https://t.co/0PTLVGa25f
— Legal Insurrection (@LegInsurrection) April 13, 2021
.@SciAm folks desperately need some adult supervision: "We Are Living in a Climate Emergency…sudden, record-setting cold snap cuts power to the entire state of Texas…The planet is heating up way too fast"
— Tom Nelson (@tan123) April 13, 2021
Can you please provide the mathematical formula you’re using to ascertain that current climate variation now constitutes an “emergency”? Also appreciated would be any math you’re using to pinpoint the percentage of humanity’s impact on said variation.
Thanks in advance.
— Tom Elliott (@tomselliott) April 13, 2021
It was your decision ~20 years ago to be a policy advocate rather than an objective source on this topic that made me reluctantly end my subscription. I still miss the magazine you used to be, and I wish I regretted my decision.
— Tim Hamilton (@TSHamiltonAstro) April 13, 2021
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.