Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings.

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 1:20am:

Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings.

What science has he denied. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 5:52pm:

AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 1:20am: Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings. What science has he denied. ;)

You may want to consider looking into the matter. Scientific American Magazine isn't that porn mag with the cracked spine and pages stuck together that you keep under your bed. These are serious-minded professionals.

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 1:20am:

Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings.

here:
https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/scientific-american-endorses-joe-biden/

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 8:59pm:

lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 5:52pm: AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 1:20am: Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings. What science has he denied. ;) You may want to consider looking into the matter. Scientific American Magazine isn't that porn mag with the cracked spine and pages stuck together that you keep under your bed. These are serious-minded professionals.

Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag. But perhaps you can show the current "scientific" credentials. ;D

No wonder people are pissing on 'experts'

Because people are idiots?

No. Because 'experts' are guns for hire.

Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire?

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 9:42pm:

Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag.

Oh? Go back to your crusty porn mag, lee. The Scientific Revolution was a long, long time ago and you and yours can't go back no matter how hard you try.

J
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:08pm:

Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire?

They are not trading on being 'experts'.

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:

J Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 10:08pm: Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire? They are not trading on being 'experts'.

So why do you classify someone whos worked for many years in a field gotten qualifications in that area as an 'expert'


Plus the amount of confidence those idiots on Sky talk with, it seems l;ike they think they are experts

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 9:42pm:

AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 8:59pm: lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 5:52pm: AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 1:20am: Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings. What science has he denied. ;) You may want to consider looking into the matter. Scientific American Magazine isn't that porn mag with the cracked spine and pages stuck together that you keep under your bed. These are serious-minded professionals. Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag. But perhaps you can show the current "scientific" credentials. ;D

And boom there we have it.

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:12pm:

lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 9:42pm: Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag. Oh? Go back to your crusty porn mag, lee. The Scientific Revolution was a long, long time ago and you and yours can't go back no matter how hard you try.

So no evidence for their expertise then? Why am I not surprised. You do know science is an ongoing venture? It doesn't stagnate.

Perhaps you could point out where they are "right" about their scientific conclusions that they draw. ;)

Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 8:41am:

lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 9:42pm: AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 8:59pm: lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 5:52pm: AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 1:20am: Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings. What science has he denied. ;) j You may want to consider looking into the matter. Scientific American Magazine isn't that porn mag with the cracked spine and pages stuck together that you keep under your bed. These are serious-minded professionals. Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag. But perhaps you can show the current "scientific" credentials. ;D And boom there we have it.

Boom goes BH. He just doesn't know what he means. Perhaps you can show where SA is "right" on their purported "science". ;)

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since.

In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck

A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 12:15am:

it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia.

Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

AiA wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 8:59pm:

lee wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 5:52pm: AiA wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 1:20am: Scientific American Magazine has made the first political endorsement in its 175 year history. Donald Trump's deadly science denial and propensity for lying is so unconscionable that anyone with a meaningful concept of truth must now speak out against the very idea of such a deeply ignorant and dishonest person holding power over other living beings. What science has he denied. ;) You may want to consider looking into the matter. Scientific American Magazine isn't that porn mag with the cracked spine and pages stuck together that you keep under your bed. These are serious-minded professionals.

Bah Humbug. They are just as corrupt for the $$$ and propaganda frenzy as Time Magazine, Unicef and many other great established and dusty Propaganda machines.
Just like that crap military propaganda movie The Hurt Locker beating anti-Military movie Avatar for the Bush cause in the Middle-East. Thankfully Cameron was pleased his Ex beat him rather than anyone else. Keeping it humble.
Even during Hillary's campaign all female leading role models (like Rey from Star Wars) were removed from all Art related movie and entertainment merchandise and promotions, while leading Female role models in movies and TV series in 'Political or Legal' roles were pumped out - the Media was grooming the Public to vote for Hillary.

Considering I've never given a rats about Trump. I can't help finding myself disturbed by the sudden vicious attack on Trump right from the start he was asked by 65,000 Americans to run for President. The Media onslaught has been constant and with its many Political allies like Pelosi and media-savvy Harris trying to make dents on Trump's shield. Somehow they all fall short of their 'bullying' attempts on Trump. Clinton failed. Pelosi failed. Harris will fail because she will fail to replace Biden who will be in her way. Strike 3 - the Democrats are out!

Even the 'death threat' of more riots, lootings, murders, etc on the streets by the Democrat backed Lefties and BLMs - if Trump wins a 2nd Term shows what we are dealing with here. My money is on the little red devil Harkonnen Trump, with horns like the thorns of a rose.

Politics getting involved with so called science.

Real science has nothing to do with politics.

8
Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 8:40am:

Frank wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 10:16pm: J Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 10:08pm: Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire? They are not trading on being 'experts'. So why do you classify someone whos worked for many years in a field gotten qualifications in that area as an 'expert'

Depends on what he's talking about, what he is saying, who is paying him and what the contrary views are. (Very significant considerations when the expertupuse is based on modeling with lots of assumptions.)

Most experts are such in very narrow fields of specialisations. The further they stray from those narrow fields the less expertise and authority they have.

Frank wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 4:15pm:

8 Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 18th, 2020 at 8:40am: Frank wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 10:16pm: J Prime Minister for Canyons wrote on Sep 17th, 2020 at 10:08pm: Oh reqally, cause somehow the non experts on say Sky arent guns for hire? They are not trading on being 'experts'. So why do you classify someone whos worked for many years in a field gotten qualifications in that area as an 'expert' Depends on what he's talking about, what he is saying, who is paying him and what the contrary views are. (Very significant considerations when the expertupuse is based on modeling with lots of assumptions.) Most experts are such in very narrow fields of specialisations. The further they stray from those narrow fields the less expertise and authority they have.

Well I'm glad we live in the outer rim of the Milky Way. We wouldn't want a narrow field of specialisation like a Neanderthal that close to the action.

AiA wrote on Sep 19^th, 2020 at 2:23am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 12:15am: it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia. Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers.

I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 20^th, 2020 at 1:03am:

AiA wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 2:23am: Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 12:15am: it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia. Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers. I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned.

Your idiocy still surprises me, Mortie.  This journal is at apex of academic publishing. Do you know what that means? Data. Hard data. The thing that scares people like you.

Morty has a point. When a Scientific Magazine gets 'political' - you know its just another corrupt well bought magazine.

AiA wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:28am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 20th, 2020 at 1:03am: AiA wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 2:23am: Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 12:15am: it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia. Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers. I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned. Your idiocy still surprises me, Mortie.  This journal is at apex of academic publishing. Do you know what that means? Data. Hard data. The thing that scares people like you.

So what is this alleged "hard data" re Trump? ;)

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 5:52pm:

What science has he denied. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 9:42pm:

Scientific American used to be a scientific magazine. Now it is just a leftist rag. But perhaps you can show the current "scientific" credentials. ;D

lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 11:37am:

So no evidence for their expertise then? Why am I not surprised. You do know science is an ongoing venture? It doesn't stagnate. Perhaps you could point out where they are "right" about their scientific conclusions that they draw. ;)

lee wrote on Sep 18^th, 2020 at 11:39am:

Boom goes BH. He just doesn't know what he means. Perhaps you can show where SA is "right" on their purported "science". ;)

lee wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 1:26pm:

So what is this alleged "hard data" re Trump? ;)

Did you look up what "sealioning" is lee?  ;)

Poor petal. Did you have something you wanted to say?

You mean your trolling of me? Yes I did.😂😂😂😂🤣🤣

But I notice you didn't attempt any rebuttal, petal. Why is that? Upon what data did SA rely?🙃

AiA wrote on Sep 21^st, 2020 at 12:28am:

Mortdooley wrote on Sep 20th, 2020 at 1:03am: AiA wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 2:23am: Mortdooley wrote on Sep 19th, 2020 at 12:15am: it was sold to the Holtzbrinck group of Germany, which has owned it since. In the fall of 2008, Scientific American was put under the control of Nature Publishing Group, a division of Holtzbrinck A German company now owns it, maybe they didn't like Trump telling Comrade Merkel it was time for her to pay their fair share for defense from their own trading partner, Russia. Mortie and his tribe think they can bring us to a time before the Scientific Revolution. Sorry. Too late. All you can do is build a tribe of like-minded science-deniers. I really don't think the Scientific German magazine has any business taking a political position in an American election! Maybe we should hear from Popular Mechanics next, they may be still American owned. Your idiocy still surprises me, Mortie.  This journal is at apex of academic publishing. Do you know what that means? Data. Hard data. The thing that scares people like you.

What did you think when the NYPD union endorsed Trump?

Frank wrote on Sep 17^th, 2020 at 10:16pm:

They are not trading on being 'experts'.

This is demonstrably true.

What they are, in fact, "trading on", is whipping up gullible people with opinions dressed up as fact.

That so many fall for it says a lot about the ability (or more correctly the lack of ability) for many people to think critically.

It's made Murdoch a very wealthy man. And one who wields far too much influence in so-called "Western Democracies".

On modeling

For those unfamiliar with the complexity of any topic, modelling gives a reassuring level of precision. The outputs are clean and precise. Graphs can demonstrate an unerring prediction of the future and all can be reassured about the correctness of their policies.

These outputs provide a false precision that hides the making of the sausage and the, often, hundreds of assumptions that must be made to generate a precise estimate. What you get out of the model is only as good as what you put in and there is often little scrutiny of what gets put in.

An over reliance on models ends up hiding the key determinants of a decision’s outcome rather than illuminating them.  Remember we were told at the start of the pandemic that 50,000 to 150,000 Australians could die. These predictions have proven to be widely inaccurate. At the time they were made in good faith but the assumptions do not appear to have been updated based on the information we now have on the virus.

We have seen the same saga occur over other contentious policy issues, such as climate change. Climate change modelling regularly forecasts armageddon-like outcomes if there is no action taken to try to change the temperature of the globe. These models of global climate have to make gigantic assumptions over weather patterns, the role of water vapour and the formation of clouds. It is no surprise then that the models often generate incorrect forecasts.
https://www.spectator.com.au/2020/09/virtual-reality-check/

https://i.imgflip.com/3uod3e.jpg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zlTjBe-Ag&ab_channel=SusanneJonsson

AiA wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 9:43am:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zlTjBe-Ag&ab_channel=SusanneJonsson

Amusing.  But science doesn't know as much and with as much certainty as its political exploiters pretend.

Look back at the COVID predictions around Feb/March. Almost all were wildly exaggerated.
Climate catastrophizing ditto. Nothing ever comes to pass of those wild prognostications. They just frighten the Greta Thunbergs
2KY?
Medical science history is awash with blunders and about-faces. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders invents illnesses every few years and makes others simply disappear, often as a result of changes in the political wind.

What is common to these cases? Modeling (ie lots of assumptions) and statistics (ie creative classifications and accounting).  Not a lot of people argue with solid experimental scientific evidence. All the most heated arguments are about modelling and stats: covid and climate (and now, how to classify terrorism and what the difference between left, right and unaffiliated, peaceful, largely peaceful and violent, organosed or just loosely organised and so on).

Science and politics don't mix.

When you do mix them you end up with an abomination.

A science magazine that commentates on politics is no longer a science magazine.

If Trump didn’t talk 100% bovine excrement SA would not have had to.

Jovial Monk wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 4:24pm:

If Trump didn’t talk 100% bovine excrement SA would not have had to.

So you admit SA is writing crap. ;D ;D ;D ;D

Frank wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 11:23am:

AiA wrote on Sep 25th, 2020 at 9:43am: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zlTjBe-Ag&ab_channel=SusanneJonsson Amusing.  But science doesn't know as much and with as much certainty as its political exploiters pretend. Look back at the COVID predictions around Feb/March. Almost all were wildly exaggerated. Climate catastrophizing ditto. Nothing ever comes to pass of those wild prognostications. They just frighten the Greta Thunbergs 2KY? Medical science history is awash with blunders and about-faces. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders invents illnesses every few years and makes others simply disappear, often as a result of changes in the political wind. What is common to these cases? Modeling (ie lots of assumptions) and statistics (ie creative classifications and accounting).  Not a lot of people argue with solid experimental scientific evidence. All the most heated arguments are about modelling and stats: covid and climate (and now, how to classify terrorism and what the difference between left, right and unaffiliated, peaceful, largely peaceful and violent, organosed or just loosely organised and so on).

Another twat who confuses religion and science ^^^

AiA wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 9:40pm:

Another twat who confuses religion and science ^^^

Nope. That's the CAGW'ers. ;D ;D ;D ;D ;D

https://img.women.com/images/images/000/009/502/large/giphy_%2812%29.gif

8
AiA wrote on Sep 25^th, 2020 at 9:40pm:

Frank wrote on Sep 25th, 2020 at 11:23am: AiA wrote on Sep 25th, 2020 at 9:43am: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-2zlTjBe-Ag&ab_channel=SusanneJonsson Amusing.  But science doesn't know as much and with as much certainty as its political exploiters pretend. Look back at the COVID predictions around Feb/March. Almost all were wildly exaggerated. Climate catastrophizing ditto. Nothing ever comes to pass of those wild prognostications. They just frighten the Greta Thunbergs 2KY? Medical science history is awash with blunders and about-faces. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders invents illnesses every few years and makes others simply disappear, often as a result of changes in the political wind. What is common to these cases? Modeling (ie lots of assumptions) and statistics (ie creative classifications and accounting).  Not a lot of people argue with solid experimental scientific evidence. All the most heated arguments are about modelling and stats: covid and climate (and now, how to classify terrorism and what the difference between left, right and unaffiliated, peaceful, largely peaceful and violent, organosed or just loosely organised and so on). Another twat who confuses religion and science ^^^

How so?

In your own words.