I had hoped to head off your erroneous suggestion by including my Democratic affiliation at the time I first notice SciAm's political bias.
Your comment is true but suggests that I was directing my comment toward Democrats rather than toward "Scientific American"'s political bias toward the Democratic Party. Moreover, it was directed at SciAm's choice to put out this hit piece just as we're staring down the barrel of an election. On Tue, Oct 30, 2012 at 5:53 PM, Jed Rothwell <[email protected]> wrote: > James Bowery <[email protected]> wrote: > > "The Scientific American" has been, for at least 25 years, little more >> than "The Scientific Democrat". In other words, it is politics posing as >> science. > > > Let's not suggest that Democrats are more likely to politicize science > than Republicans. The Republicans are leading the charge to teach > Creationism instead of biology, and to deny global warming, the Big Bang > theory and just about everything else that conflicts with Fundamentalist > Christianity. > > Public opinion surveys show that Democrats are more open to things like > evolution than Republicans. > > Old school Republicans, such as Richard Nixon in the 1960s, would never in > a million years have denied that evolution, vaccinations or climate science > are valid. Nixon was more of an environmentalist than Clinton or Obama > could ever afford to be. > > Anyway, the problems with cold fusion are not caused by politicians. They > are caused by academic scientists. Especially people such as Park, Garwin, > the editors of Sci. Am. and now Ouellette -- making a name for herself, > no doubt. > > - Jed > >
