• "Spreading the ideas of freedom loving people on matters regarding high finance, politics, constructionist Constitution, and mental masturbation of all types"

Scientific American Magazine Backs Biden

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,342
Likes
21,989
Location
Plague world — still
#1
Scientific American backs Biden for its first presidential endorsement in 175 years
South China Morning Post

Political American.JPG

In an urgent and impassioned editorial first published online Tuesday, the editorial board endorsed former vice president Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, calling him the candidate “who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.”

Scientific American’s 1,400-word editorial is as much an endorsement of Biden as it is a catalogue of Trump’s hostility to science throughout his term.


OK, that's it, I'm cancelling my subscription. I'm gonna subscribe to the Flat Earth magazine instead.

BF
 

the_shootist

Old Pasty White Guy
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
May 31, 2015
Messages
49,784
Likes
87,252
Location
Earth
#3
Scientific American backs Biden for its first presidential endorsement in 175 years
South China Morning Post


In an urgent and impassioned editorial first published online Tuesday, the editorial board endorsed former vice president Joe Biden, the Democratic nominee, calling him the candidate “who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment.”

Scientific American’s 1,400-word editorial is as much an endorsement of Biden as it is a catalogue of Trump’s hostility to science throughout his term.


OK, that's it, I'm cancelling my subscription. I'm gonna subscribe to the Flat Earth magazine instead.

BF
My response to this article is....SO WHAT? Does anyone read this liberal rag any more? It's changed from what it used to be. It's being headed up now by a former Washington Post feminazi editor....surprise!!!!
 

Cigarlover

Midas Member
Midas Member
Midas Supporter
Joined
Dec 18, 2011
Messages
8,752
Likes
17,681
#5
Is there any real science anymore? Seems to me all we have is a bunch of people who are trying to get their next grant and will to say whatever he grentor wants them to say.
 

<SLV>

Platinum Bling
Sr Site Supporter
Platinum Bling
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
5,121
Likes
7,564
#7
1600272407158.png


1600272474294.png
 

Bottom Feeder

Hypophthalmichthys molitrix
Midas Member
Midas Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 31, 2010
Messages
11,342
Likes
21,989
Location
Plague world — still
#9
You do realize that in the 1920s that SAm recommended that Dr. Goddard rocket reasarch not be financially supported because rockets would not work in space, because there is "no air to push against" in space.
You sure, EB?

I have it that it was the New York Times that scoffed at that:

New York Times editorial
On January 13, 1920, the day after its front-page story about Goddard's rocket, an unsigned New York Times editorial, in a section entitled "Topics of the Times", scoffed at the proposal.

After the rocket quits our air and really starts on its longer journey, its flight would be neither accelerated nor maintained by the explosion of the charges it then might have left. To claim that it would be is to deny a fundamental law of dynamics, and only Dr. Einstein and his chosen dozen, so few and fit, are licensed to do that. ... Of course, [Goddard] only seems to lack the knowledge ladled out daily in high schools.
Forty-nine years after its editorial mocking Goddard, on July 17, 1969—the day after the launch of Apollo 11—The New York Times published a short item under the headline "A Correction." The three-paragraph statement summarized its 1920 editorial and concluded:

Further investigation and experimentation have confirmed the findings of Isaac Newton in the 17th Century and it is now definitely established that a rocket can function in a vacuum as well as in an atmosphere. The Times regrets the error.
BF

ask @coopersmith
 

Ebie

Midas Member
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 9, 2010
Messages
8,161
Likes
2,515
#10
You sure, EB?
I have it that it was the New York Times that scoffed at that:
New York Times editorial
On January 13, 1920, the day after its front-page story about Goddard's rocket, an unsigned New York Times editorial, in a section entitled "Topics of the Times", scoffed at the proposal.
Forty-nine years after its editorial mocking Goddard, on July 17, 1969—the day after the launch of Apollo 11—The New York Times published a short item under the headline "A Correction." The three-paragraph statement summarized its 1920 editorial and concluded:
BF
@coopersmith
I heard that Sci Am also said the same.
But I looked online and could not find confirmation.
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
8,671
Likes
9,165
#12
Their finding will be for whoever pays them the most or gives them power and control.
 

GOLDZILLA

Harvurd Koleej Jeenyus
Midas Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2010
Messages
8,671
Likes
9,165
#15
Also political based, as most academics have tds and will ree if they say anything to the contrary.
 

TomD

It blowed up, y'all
Platinum Bling
Site Supporter ++
Joined
Mar 30, 2010
Messages
4,807
Likes
7,688
Location
Florida Panhandle
#17
I subscribed to Scientific Am for decades but gave up on them around 10 years ago when their leftward bias became blatant shortly after changing their Chief editor. I remember the column that was the last straw, it was titled something very close to "The Future is Socialism and the Argument is Over". Yeah? Really?

Since then I don't give a flying f**k what they think.

Before then it was a science magazine, after it was a hard core leftist political magazine. I remember an earlier article on the 1987 supernova (not talking Chevy here) that I still think is the best science article ever written but it was a science mag then.
 
Last edited: