Dear liberal, non-thinking, Scientific American editors:

I get so tired of your constant political non-science, especially in the March, 2010 issue.   Jeffrey Sachs can’t seem to understand the climate debate log jam…….Stan Wullschleger and Maya Strahl’s article on climate change:  a controlled experiment, is replete with “could’s” and “maybe’s” and “what-if’s” and many fantastic predictions for the future.  It is hard to know where to start with you idiots.  That’s right, IDIOTS!  If you weren’t so political in your views you could print the reasons why there is a climate debate log jam.  But, alas, you are so far left-wing that you can’t see the forest for the trees.  You are ingenuous, hypocritical and downright liars.  There is more methane from termites than there is from humans,  the sea levels have not changed an iota, water vapor is the largest greenhouse gas and NOBODY seems to want to talk about it, and volcanoes produce most of the carbon dioxide on earth.  Our Sun is the biggest weather predictor.  The amount of sunspots or the lack thereof makes our Earth warmer or colder……as if you IDIOTS haven’t noticed!  Greenland was much warmer 1000 years ago……hard data from ice cores.  Wullschleger noted several times how more carbon dioxide makes trees and plants grow more and guess what, the more they grow, the more we get oxygen from them.  Isn’t that what we want?  And again, haven’t you noticed that about every 20,000 years Earth goes into an ice age and then warms up and then goes back into an ice age.  20,000 years ago humans were numerically not enough on Earth to influence anything but the lifespan of a fly.  Our current non-warming has nothing to do with the combustion engine nor bovine flatulence but it has a lot to do with how idiotic you appear.  Scientific American used to be known for trusted science but you idiots have thrown that down the drain.

Richard Hauley DMD

slcdentist@aol.com 

        

To the Editors of Scientific American:

"THERE IS SOMETHING FASCINATING ABOUT SCIENCE.  ONE GETS SUCH WHOLESALE RETURNS OF CONJECTURE OUT OF SUCH A TRIFLING INVESTMNET OF FACT" - Mark Twain

In response to your December, 2007 editorial, indeed, talk is cheap!  The inconvenient truth is that the editors of Scientific American should change the name of the magazine to Political Science American.  For the past 15 years you have ignored true science and have gone the way of politics, innuendo, half truths and political bigotry.  Yes, global warming is happening but you steadfastly entrench yoursleves in spewing the mantra that man is the cause.  Man is not the cause, and you refuse to publish all the great science on how the mean solar radiation from the sun is increasing.  When the sun increases its sunspots, you get increased global warming.  Never since recorded time has the sun increased its sunspots as much as the last century.  However, since 1880, the mean temperature has only increased 1/2 degree Celsius, from the data at giss.nasa.gov.  And Antarctica in the same time frame has become colder from the same data.  Carbon dioxide is the product of increased temperature, not the other way around.  Humans produce less than 5% of the carbon dioxide.  Volcanoes and decaying plants produce most of the carbon dioxide on the earth.  Termintes produce more methane than humans than humans produce carbon dioxide and methane is definitely a more potent greehouse gas than carbon dioxide.  The total weight of termintes exceeds the total weight of all humans on the earth.  But, carbon dioxide is irrelevant!  Water vapor and its increasing amount in the atmosphere is the largest greenhouse gas on this earth.  As the sun increases its temperature, water vapor from the oceans is increased, and water vapor has the greatest effect on our weather and the global warming porblem.  You cry that the ice is melting and that New York City will be inundated due to the rising sea levels.  The biggest predictor from solid science that I have found is that the sea level will rise no more than 1/2 inch in 100 years!  There is simply too much ocean water on earth to be affected by ice melt.  New Yorkers would disagree with you on global warming after the 15 feet of snowfall they received last winter.  The biggest problem with melting ice is the possible change to the system of ocean currents that bring warmth to Europe.  The continued melting could bring a cold snap to the northern latitudes and throw us into the reverse problem, as described in the November Scientific American of 2004.  And Greenland was much warmer 1000 years ago than now and we know that from the ice cores that have been taken.  The measures you urge has little basis in fact or science.  Groups with other agendas are hiding behind this global warming movement that appears high-minded.  It is time for you to stop spewing hot air, get back to good science or change the name of your magazine.  INDEED, TALK IS CHEAP!