5 ms·
Scientific American has been in decline since their 2003 hit pieces against environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg. All ad-hominem attacks, no science or logic. Sadly
by RachelF 5y ago
Scientific American has been in decline since their 2003 hit pieces against environmentalist Bjorn Lomberg. All ad-hominem attacks, no science or logic.
Sadly this has infected other publications: Last week The Economist did not do an official obituary of E.O. Wilson, they did a drag queen instead. Wilson was relegated to a four paragraph notice in the science section.
Wilson was badly attacked by Marxists in the 1970's for his book on ants, Sociobiology.
- boppo1 5y agoWhat were their gripes with Lomberg?
- akvadrako 5y agoProbably that his research shows there are more effective ways to spend resources than reducing CO2.
- collyw 5y agoI listened to him recently and he seems to be looking at the climate problem in exactly the way that we should be - taking a step back, looking at the big picture, what works and what doesn't, instead of focusing on one aspect hysterically over everything else.
- sofixa 5y agoI think there's a significant difference between a hit piece with personal attacks and not dedicating "enough" ( for you) material to a person.
- slavik81 5y agoThe Economist obituaries are often of unexpected people. That's part of the charm. You never know who you'll find on the last page. One of my favourites was about the guy who played The Creature from The Black Lagoon. I wouldn't read too much into their choice.