Rubber Meeting the Road

I've spent years and months un-subscribing to scientific journals that I have read since high school. First to go was New Scientist because of their four year old approach to science and drinking gallons of Global Warming kool-aid. Second, and they don't even know it yet, was Scientific American for their reasonless worship at the Global Warming altar and their profligacy in corrupting the peer review process to get the global warming idiots carefully crafted web of lies published.

So, my subscription to Science News is about to expire and I am going to let it. Not only did they publish the global warming crap, abetting the corruption of the peer review process, but they were suspiciously silent on the East Anglia email scandal that pretty much shut down the Copenhagen Shindig this past week. Silent as in nothing in their e-mails that I get for daily references to reading material. Nothing in their year end issue that, of all things, exposes the bad science behind fMRI. The editor-in-chief even wrote a whole column about how he felt so compelled to "expose" the bad science behind it.

Now, forgive my incredulity, but isn't the Global Warming scandal just a little more important that some stupid asshole neurologist with a God Complex fibbing on images he and no one else really understand?

The editor, Tom Siegfreid wrote:

Issue after issue, year after year, Science News reports on the latest discoveries presented by scientists in journals, at conferences or by other means, such as website preprint servers. Much care is takento select science that is properly conducted and soundly analyzed. But it is the very nature of science that many reports from the frontiers of research will later turn out to have been mistaken.

There's no avoiding that problem. It is neither feasible nor desirable to withhold coverage of hat scientists think they are finding until later work verifies the initial reports. That would be as silly as a sports magazine refusing to divulge scores of games until after the season, then waiting until November to announce the winner of the World Series. Science is an ongoing process, and timeliness in reporting the steps in that process is what distinguishes newsmagazines from textbooks...

Not only did they print the Global Warming kool-aid by the gallon, they have been exceptionally silent since the "reveal" on Russian Servers a month ago. These guys were the first to come out and berate the North Korean Stem Cell scientist who was found to have faked most of his data and paid volunteers for their eggs. They are all ready to jump on some functional MRI thing that NO ONE HAS EVEN DISCUSSED, and remain SILENT on Climategate.

Way to go, Science News. I was just going to silently refuse to renew my subscription, but the last 2009 edition forced me to be a bit more vocal. You, along with New Scientist, and Scientific American not only drank the Global Warming Kool-Aid, you all show signs of having helped make it.

If this is science, someone get me The Vatican, because I think I've found a way for religion and science to co-exist with the seal of approval by Richard Dawkins.