New Scientist wants indoctrination, not balance, in climate education

Joke publication (from Jo Nova)

New Scientist (or “Non-scientist” as it should be more accurately called) continues to smear any attempt at balance in climate education with misrepresentations, straw men and half-truths. Citing the Heartland documents, it recycles the same, tired old arguments that we have heard a thousand times before:

Children should be taught honestly what we know about climate change, as well as what we don’t know and where the uncertainties lie. Yet a plan outlined in documents allegedly from Heartland would build a curriculum around statements such as “whether humans are changing the climate is a major scientific controversy”. This is to create controversy where none exists.

There simply is no credible scientific alternative to the theory that humans are warming the atmosphere.

We all acknowledge that humans are warming the atmosphere. The question, and where the doubt lies, is in the magnitude of that warming, in particular relative to natural climate cycles. Why are supposedly intelligent publications incapable of understanding this obvious difference? If that warming is one degree, then this isn’t a problem. As we keep repeating, the catastrophic projections come from multiple positive feedbacks in climate models.

In 2010, a survey of 1372 climate scientists found that 97 per cent of those who publish most frequently in the field were in no doubt. They agreed with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change that human activity had caused most of Earth’s warming over the second half of the 20th century. By comparison with these scientists, the climate expertise of the small group of contrarians was substantially lower (Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, DOI: 10.1073/pnas.1003187107).

Ah yes, science by head count, and the politicised statements of a political organisation, the IPCC.

In the face of such broad agreement, the leaked strategy smacks of tactics used by tobacco companies as the evidence linking smoking to fatal diseases continued to grow. They employed accusations of scientific conspiracy, selective use of evidence and dissenting scientists to contradict public health experts and confuse the public. Oil companies have already used such tactics in the climate change debate. (source)

Smears, smears and more smears. And hints at a scientific conspiracy and selective use of evidence were both clearly exposed in the Climategate emails, but that doesn’t seem to concern the editorial writers today.

Why do they bother? Only total indoctrination will satisfy the headbangers at Non Scientist.


  1. Trying to brainwash everyone into believing their “climate change” bull dust 😦

  2. the problem is it appears to be working…in aus…

  3. The ‘scientific’ journal New Scientist is published by a company by the name of Reed Elsevier, of which Elsevier is a subsidiary company.

    Elsevier proudly boasts on it’s website:
    “We are also proud to announce that many Elsevier Editors and Editorial Board members have served significant roles as authors and reviewers for the 2007 and three previous IPCC reports conducted since 1990.  Rajendra Pachauri, Chair of the IPCC, is an Editorial Board Member of (our) Energy Policy and an Associate Editor for the Encylopedia of Energy.”

    So if you think your reading some independent ‘scientific’ journal, remember it has deep links to the IPCC, the purveyor of all things alarmist!

    • The owners of ‘New Scientist’ – Reed Elsevier, also publish respected medical journals such as ‘The Lancet’.

      However it’s not just journals Reed Elsevier are involved with. They’re also connect with the international arms trade.

      So they really take the slogan, ‘Save the world – kill the humans’ very seriously!

  4. Pete the Geo says:

    Yup, I actually started to call it new climate scientist…then i cancelled my subscription, pity really as it was a good way to keep across developments in other fields of science beyond my speciallity…but I can only take so much alarmist climate guff and hoohaa.

%d bloggers like this: