Not being able to address the point except with a kindergarten rebuttal shows well. Kindergarten maturity.
You literally played the repeat game with me, even though it didn’t even make sense in context. More of that adult in the room mentality I take it.
1 Like
And I take it turning it around on you didn’t sit well.
1 Like
Yep, as soon as I saw environmental damage in the first paragraph I knew it was leftist junk science.
why this all boils down to is smug ass lefties thinking only intellectual types do SA and are the smart ones vs trump bumper sticker yahoos
this “deplorables” mentality cost them one election
lets see if it costs them another
1 Like
I disagree. Science is about “systematic knowledge of the physical or material world gained through observation and experimentation.” Science Definition & Meaning | Dictionary.com
Science should be determined experimentally. Instead Scientific American believes that science is determined by consensus of committees and by computer projections that are inherently impossible to prove experimentally.
For example it criticizes Trump for not creating a federal mask requirement based on computer projection:
. . .if almost everyone in the U.S. wore masks in public, it could save about 66,000 lives by the beginning of December, according to projections from the University of Washington School of Medicine. Such a strategy would hurt no one. It would close no business. It would cost next to nothing . . .
There are two big problems with this argument.
-
Constitutionality: Democrats in congress unanimously voted to impeach the President for “abuse of power”, and even Joe Biden admits that a federally enforced mandate is probably unconstitutional:
But here’s the deal, the federal government — there’s a constitutional issue whether federal government could issue such a mandate. I don’t think constitutionally they could, so I wouldn’t issue a mandate. Biden walks back national mask mandate over ‘constitutional issue’ | Fox News
What Trump has done is to encourage the use of masks while allowing states to set their own rules; doing anything more would simply result another impeachment with charges that Trump is a dictator. In reality there is no difference between Biden and Trump on the mask issue.
-
Projections are wildly inaccurate: The same group that Scientific American cited projected only 60,000 total epidemic deaths back in April, while another university was projecting over 2 million deaths for the US.
IHME Model Revised Again, Cutting Coronavirus Death Projection by Over 35 Percent in Days | National Review
https://www.cato.org/blog/how-one-model-simulated-22-million-us-deaths-covid-19
Scientific American has become a forum for government-subsidized scientists to get more slop added to their troughs. There is no surprise that they endorsed Biden.
2 Likes
So do magazines…mostly Dems.
Let’s look at the authors, shall we?
-
Laura Helmuth - UC Berkley and wrote for the Washington Post - Editor in Chief
-
Curtis Brainard - UC Santa Barbara and Columbia (Journalism) - Managing Editor
Let’s stop looking at the authors, shall we?
2 Likes
Ok.
…
lol… leftists confirming their bias by looking to other leftist displaying their bias. its science i tell you!
2 Likes
They seem to have left out the formulas they used to come up with the same rants any leftists poster in this forum would use.
2 Likes
1 Like
So far I’ve seen a lot of ad hominem attacks against the editors of SA, and against forum members to discredit the endorsement. Not a whole lot that directly addresses the points made in the article.
1 Like
Thank you for addressing a contention the article actually discusses.
Hey…wait a second. Isn’t this what Trump does? It’s everyone’s fault but his that they endorsed Biden over Trump. 
Just one. To address the pretense of “scientific” objectivity.
The endorsement was written by the editors.
The “justification”, as was previously addressed ad nauseum on this forum.
1 Like
I have not read the SA endorsement.
I have occasionally read stuff from Scientific American, but I am not now nor have I ever been a subscriber to their publication.
I am certain their endorsement is targeted to their subscribers and casual readers, not to the general public.
And even if I supported Trump, neither I nor anybody else has any good cause to vilify Scientific American for making an endorsement.
I may accept or reject endorsements that publications and organizations make. But I don’t vilify them for making such endorsements even if I oppose them.
This absolute outpouring of utter hate and personal destruction against any opponent of Trump reeks of a cult of personality mindset and is far more disturbing than any endorsement that might be made for either candidate by any organization or publication.
If you oppose the endorsement, you can do so without attacking SA. Just say you oppose it and move on. That’s it. If you are a subscriber and don’t like it, unsubscribe.
But the level of vitriol I am seeing against SA is disturbing.
8 Likes
■■■■ Scientific American. How about that?
1 Like
I think it is overkill and unnecessary.
My newspapers have made plenty of endorsements over the years that I have opposed.
Never gave me cause for anger or outrage.
1 Like
