A third says a mass ocean extinction could arrive in just a few centuries.
Another claims air pollution from forest fires in the western United States could triple by 2100. One study suggests Arctic rainfall will become dominant in the 2060s, decades earlier than expected. “Use of ‘too hot’ climate models exaggerates impacts of global warming,” is the headline on a new story in Science from Paul Voosen, who writes: Today the publication is acknowledging something that passionate global warmists on the left would prefer that it didn’t. Is it possible the magazine’s editors are beginning to take the professor’s critique to heart? For the AAAS to omit any mention of nuclear power in its resource for journalists on climate change is deeply irresponsible and can only be explained by the fact that nuclear power fell out of fashion among left-wing and Green political factions more than 40 years ago. This is despite the fact that nuclear energy is currently the carbon-free source that exceeds every one of these alternatives in US energy consumption. This includes the following articles on energy: “Wind energy in the United States” “Biomass energy in the United States” “Hydropower in the United States” “Renewable energy in the United States” “Geothermal energy in the United States” “Solar energy in the United States” Notice anything missing? There is nothing on nuclear energy in the United States. SciLine, the AAAS resource for journalists touted in your fundraising message, includes a webpage with primers on climate change.
Yet Science magazine has decided, without debate or data, to advocate the latter. If we want to increase the number of African Americans in physics, it matters a great deal whether we should try to fix the nation’s high schools or accuse physics professors of white supremacy. And though the journal is supposedly committed to empirical tests, no data were presented that might speak to alternative explanations, such as that the cause of the under-representation lies in the pipeline of prepared and interested students.
But the six articles in the issue assume as dogma that the underrepresentation is caused by “white privilege”: that “the dominant culture has discouraged diversity,” and “white people use their membership in a dominant group to assert political, cultural, and economic power over those outside that group.” Though Science is ordinarily committed to open debate on scientific controversies, no disagreements with this conspiracy theory were expressed. This situation is lamentable and worthy of understanding. An example is the recent special section on the underrepresentation of African Americans among physics majors, graduate students, and faculty members. Science magazine appears to have adopted wokeism as its official editorial policy and the only kind of opinion that may be expressed in the magazine.