#cmonman

Scientific American endorses Biden – first time in 175 years

Wow. Scientific American has endorsed Joe Biden. This is the first time the magazine has backed a presidential candidate in 175 years. We think it may live to regret its move. The magazine has merely exposed the deep partisan bias and confirmed again how much of scientific academia and media leans left. Why?

The editors closed with,

It’s time to move Trump out and elect Biden, who has a record of following the data and being guided by science.”

If we listened to Joe Biden’s ‘Moses and the 10 Commandments’ speech the other day, it was full of unsubstantiated hyperbole about the risks of higher incidences of floods, hurricanes and wildfires if Trump is reelected despite the fact that under the current administration, harmful GHG emissions have fallen by the largest absolute number ever in 2019 according to the IEA.

For a magazine that rests its laurels on “following the data” and “being guided by the science”, perhaps it missed the UNIPCC’s March 2018 report on weather extremes (with respect to anthropogenic induced global warming) which noted:

…There is low confidence in observed trends in small-scale phenomena such as tornadoes and hail because of data inhomogeneities and inadequacies in monitoring systems…in some regions droughts have become less frequent, less intense, or shorter, for example, in central North America and northwestern Australia. There is limited to medium evidence available to assess climate-driven observed changes in the magnitude and frequency of floods…low confidence for the attribution of any detectable changes in tropical cyclone activity to anthropogenic influences..low confidence in projections of changes in extreme winds.. low confidence in projections of changes in monsoons…low confidence in wave height projections…overall low confidence because of inconsistent projections of drought changes…low confidence in projected future changes in dust storms…low confidence in projections of an anthropogenic effect on phenomena such as shallow landslides.

Perhaps the editors missed the questionnaire posted by the UN Interacademy Council committee on its website which invited interested parties to respond to the scientific processes at the IPCC during the compilation of the gold standard climate bibles? These were some of the responses;

some of the lead authors…are clearly not qualified to be lead authors.” (p.16)

There are far too many politically correct appointments, so that developing country scientists are appointed who have insufficient scientific competence to do anything useful. This is reasonable if it is regarded as a learning experience, but in my chapter…we had half of the [lead authors] who were not competent.” (p. 138)

The whole process…[is] flawed by an excessive concern for geographical balance. All decisions are political before being scientific.” (p. 554)

half of the authors are there for simply representing different parts of the world.” (p. 296)

Lest anyone think that people from less affluent countries were being unjustly stereotyped,

The team members from the developing countries (including myself) were made to feel welcome and accepted as part of the team. In reality, we were out of our intellectual depth as meaningful contributors to the process.” (p.330)

The founders of Scientific American must be rolling over in their graves. If their scientific rigour is as sound as their endorsement then Trump has even more chances to secure reelection.

This should be seen as a rejection of Trump not an endorsement for Biden.