The Death Of Science And ‘Scientific American’
The great legacy publication, Scientific American, is dead. It’s still in print, but it is no longer either scientific or American. In an article described by a friend as, “a hailstorm of impenetrable academic verbiage, dictated by a Ph.D. trying to out-preen the race and climate-change virtue signalers,” the publication has stepped through the woke looking-glass and emerged as self-parody.
How else can one explain “Climate Anxiety Is an Overwhelmingly White Phenomenon”?
The nonsensical article’s apparent points are that:
“climate anxiety [is] just code for white people wishing to hold onto their way of life or get ‘back to normal,’ to the comforts of their privilege,” and “Climate anxiety can operate like white fragility, sucking up all the oxygen in the room and devoting resources toward appeasing the dominant group.”
It’s easy to write this off as the ravings of the Woke lunatic fringe, but to paraphrase Hannibal Lecter, the pathology on display here is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying, for it is classic Marshall McLuhan insidiously at play in the service of cultural Marxism:
The medium is the message because it is the medium that shapes and controls the scale and form of human association and action. The content or uses of such media are as diverse as they are ineffectual in shaping the form of human association. Indeed, it is only too typical that the “content” of any medium blinds us to the character of the medium.
Alas, the medium is indeed the message, and the message is grim for both science and America. The content isn’t the problem nearly as much as where it has been published.
This is Scientific American, a publication of such heft and import that it has been the poster child, for 175 years, for shaping and controlling the scale and form of human association and action in the realm of objective reality and inquiry.
Science is foundational to human existence. It explains who we are and our place in the universe. It adheres to the strictest of laws: physics, mathematics, chemistry.
All are disciplines that have but one specific answer to every question. There is right and there is wrong. Such things, however, cannot be permitted to exist in a Marxist society.
Scientific American is the publication that offered accessibly, and often essential, insight into fundamental elements of science and its impact on society.
This is the publication that tried to answer what people were exposed to in the 9/11 collapse of the WTC, analyzed freezing ions in 1988, and how mammals make milk from blood in 1957.
Peruse the archive back to 1875 and be astonished at what the magazine covered in even the most obscure realms of real science – and why it mattered to human beings.
Gone now. Swept away. The virus of wokism has infiltrated one of the great publications. Here’s how it breaks down.
Readers of this website have been provided actual science by real Americans, demonstrating “climate change” to be a richly-funded, dark money hoax with no basis in science.
Therefore, “climate anxiety” is itself the fruit of the poisonous tree, a derivative fiction inculcated in the minds of those predisposed to fear.
Thus, climate anxiety as a supplanter of racial injustice is a fictional derivative of fiction, a concept rivaled only by Goldman Sachs’ collateralized toxic mortgage obligations.
Think carefully about this. Scientific American – the longest-running scientific publication in the world — now publishes Marxist fairy tales. The medium is indeed terrifying now the message.
Scientific American didn’t just step through the looking-glass. It stepped through fifteen of them and emerged from the rear end of a Christopher Nolan film. And it took science with it.
See more here: climatechangedispatch.com
Please Donate Below To Support Our Ongoing Work To Defend The Scientific Method
PRINCIPIA SCIENTIFIC INTERNATIONAL, legally registered in the UK as a company 
incorporated for charitable purposes. Head Office: 27 Old Gloucester Street, London WC1N 3AX.
Trackback from your site.
Doug Harrison
| #
How are the mighty fallen. Shame upon shame upon shame to all involved in this dangerous farce where truth is distorted into such deplorable ravings.
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Superstition and half-baked theory dominate the atmospheric sciences. Currently meteorological theories on atmospheric flow and storms maintain three superstitious and half-baked notions:
1) Convection. This is the strange belief that evaporation produces air that is buoyant enough to power strong updrafts in the atmosphere (included in this is the strange belief that H2O in the atmosphere becomes gaseous at temperatures/pressures that have never been detected in a laboratory);
2) Dry layer capping. This is a superstition that imagines dry layers having structural properties that explain the how/why convection does not constantly produce storms and uplift;
3) Latent heat. This is the notion that phase changes from a gaseous phase of H2O (which purported to exist despite never having been detected and being inconsistent with what is indicated in the H2O phase table) to a liquid phase releases “latent heat” which itself has never been confirmed/verified.
In accordance with which, the current meteorological paradigm assumes hurricanes are caused by warm water. Actually the energy of hurricanes and all storms comes from jet streams and is delivered through vortices in the form of low pressure. Wind shear at low altitudes is the most important predictor of severe weather. This is because wind shear is the mechanism underlying growth of the vortices that are the transport mechanism of the low pressure energy. Warm moist air/water is not the source of the energy of storms, it’s the target of vortice growth.
The ‘Missing Link’ of Meteorology’s Theory of Storms
http://www.thunderbolts.info/forum/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=10&t=16329
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
Where I live tornadoes are rare but they do occur. Several years ago one past close to where I live and you could follow its path. Because the area is hilly the tornado hopped and there were areas where the tops of trees were sheared off while the brush in the area below was unaffected. This would confirm that they have defined edges or boundaries.
My only direct experience is with a straight wind that knocked over for thirty foot pines in my yard but did not disturb trash cans 30 ft away. It too appears to have a defined hard edge even though there is no circular motion.
I am of the belief that this is not the behavior of a plasma but that of a colloid which can act as both a solid and a liquid, which would support Dr. Pollack’s hypothesis that water is a liquid crystal with a hard shell and a liquid center.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Hi Herb,
Herb: Where I live tornadoes are rare . . . they have defined edges or boundaries.
It too appears to have a defined hard edge . . .
James: Yeah, and the funny thing is there is no shortage of evidence, going back a long time, that is consistent with there being something structural about the sheath of a tornado/vortice. For example, we’ve known of phenomena whereby a tornado sucks up the contents of a stream-bed as it passes over and carries the contents for miles and dumps it all within an area about as big as a football field. It doesn’t just scatter it in the vicinity of the pond. There is no way this could happen if the sheath of tornadoes/vortices were not structural. And then there is all kinds of other observations similar to what you stated whereby one house is destroyed but a house next door is missed.
Tornadic vortices suck air at high altitude from the location of a storm and jet it into the flow of the jet stream. This is why storms produce low pressure at the location of the storm and why there are updrafts in storms.
Herb: . . . a colloid which can act as both a solid and a liquid, which would support Dr. Pollack’s hypothesis that water is a liquid crystal with a hard shell and a liquid center.
Herb
James: Humans have a strong bias to assume water is simple and well understood, neither of which are the case. Part of our mischaracterization involves the assumption that the phases of H2O are discreet and conform to temperature as is the case with most all other substances. The genuine freezing temperature of water is something like -40C. When it does become solid at 0C it is really kind of an artificial freezing in that it really involves its polarity being reactivated. Or, to be more specific, situational factors that can occur (not always) below zero degrees defeat the factor that is defeating the expression of its polarity in the liquid phase. And a big hint as to what these factors are is the fact that the density of ice is lower than that of liquid water. Actually, that is not a hint, that is it itself.
Anything that reduces the density of liquid water will defeat the situational factor that is defeating the expression of polarity in the liquid phase, not just low temperature. High density is itself the factor that is defeating the expression of its polarity in the liquid phase. Any sitational factor that reduces the density of liquid H2O will cause the expression of its polarity. For the sheath of tornadic vortices the situational factor involve spinning of nanodroplets along wind shear boundaries.
What is happening with water is extremely counterintuitive, until you understand the algorithm. And I am about to start shooting a video that will complete demystify this “algorithm.” Until then, there is one way you can kind of make sense of it and that is to look into non-newtonian fluids. Nonnewtonian fluids are another situation in which the density of water is reduced to reactivate polarity and produce structure.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: I am of the belief that this is not the behavior of a plasma but that of a colloid which can act as both a solid and a liquid, which would support Dr. Pollack’s hypothesis that water is a liquid crystal with a hard shell and a liquid center.
James: This seems like such a random claim. How are we to take this seriously? Is Pollack actually trying to solve known problems or is he just generating random thoughts?
James McGinn / Genius
Reply
Herb Rose
| #
Hi James,
He does experiments where a surface of a container of water will form a layer of fresh water on that surface whicht not only excludes particles but also salt ions. By putting electrodes in the water next to the container and the interior water he gets a current to flow showing there is a potential difference between the two areas even though there is no barrier separating them.
The explanation for this Exclusion Zone is that when the water absorbs IR radiation it causes some molecules to split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions. The protons form hydronium ions while the hydroxyl ions combine with water molecules to form the outer surface. This would produce the nano droplets formed in evaporation and give them a negative outer charge that would cause them to rise in the atmosphere.
You should read his book (The Fourth Phase of Water). There are areas where I disagree with him and I’m sure you would have many differences with him, but it gives experimental evidence on the strange behavior of water that you might find interesting.
Herb
Reply
James McGinn
| #
Herb: He does experiments where a surface of a container of water will form a layer of fresh water on that surface whicht not only excludes particles but also salt ions. By putting electrodes in the water next to the container and the interior water he gets a current to flow showing there is a potential difference between the two areas even though there is no barrier separating them.
James: Right. I know this. Why keep repeating the same mundane obsevation?
Herb: The explanation for this Exclusion Zone is that when the water absorbs IR radiation it causes some molecules to split into hydroxyl and hydrogen ions.
James: Who cares? Anybody can make speculative statements. This is meaningless unless it leads to resolution of the known anomalies of H2O
Herb: The protons form hydronium ions while the hydroxyl ions combine with water molecules to form the outer surface. This would produce the nano droplets formed in evaporation and give them a negative outer charge that would cause them to rise in the atmosphere.
James: Again, who cares? He is just making speculative comments.
Herb: You should read his book (The Fourth Phase of Water).
James: I have read his book. It is a series of mundane observations and speculative comments, as you describe. I don’t see how it has any scientific value at all. He seems mostly clueless that there is a body of science on this in the field of physical chemistry. It too isn’t very good. But Pollack seems to add nothing to the science AFAICT.
There are areas where I disagree with him and I’m sure you would have many differences with him, but it gives experimental evidence on the strange behavior of water that you might find interesting.
James: The origins of Pollack’s thinking are in homeopathy, not physics or chemistry. He is trying to walk a fine line to appear scientific and not get branded in the pseudoscience of homeopathy, a discipline that has a really bad reputation for harboring a lot of obvious nonsense.
James McGinn / Solving Tornadoes
Peter Conant
| #
The Marxist strategy to obtain key positions in gov’t at all levels, news and info media, social media, entertainment, education, sports, medicine, law firms, arts, science, corporations, finance, and religious organizations has been brilliantly executed since the end of WWII! It has now come to fruition. This strategy required relatively few comrades. It just takes one human (a CEO for instance) to determine and implement policy positions impacting literally thousands or even millions of individuals. Undoing this long-term process is unlikely
Reply