As we’ve repeatedly complained, the obsession with climate change is sucking all the oxygen, attention and money out of the environmental room. And we’ve fingered Scientific American, or Scientific Alarmism, as both a perpetrator and a victim. Since we at CDN believe in evidence rather than just arm-waving, we want to illustrate what we mean based on their daily email newsletter. But first, we ask you to think about science. Specifically, how broad a term it is and how many fields it encompasses. There’s chemistry, physics, biology as very large subdivisions, just for starters. But also astronomy, paleontology, anatomy, geology, and on and on -logy after -logy. And clearly they intersect and overlap including, yes, where climate is concerned. But still, why do we open every single SA email just knowing it will say (Oct. 31) “The toll of climate change on children is enormous” or something comparable? For instance (Nov. 1) “Catastrophic flooding kills at least 95 people in Spain. It’s the “dramatic reality” of climate change, says European Commission president.” Is a well-informed, well-rounded person with limited time and wide horizons really best served by having their daily brief overview of scientific news distorted by this fixation, even when it doesn’t cite a politician as a scientific authority?

We mean it. Here’s Oct. 30: “Global temperatures through September point to 2024 topping 2023 as the hottest year on record. How hot the future gets depends in part on the outcome of the 2024 U.S. presidential election.” (We might mention that they seem to have a surprising amount to say about American politics, as political science takes on a whole new meaning.) Oct. 29: “What Brilliant Fall Leaf Colors Tell Us about Tree Health and Climate”. (Hint: it’s bad, of course.) Oct. 28: “Fast-moving wildfires are the most damaging type of wildfire, and they're happening more often because of climate change.”

What’s more, all these stories take the same view. They give the impression of science as a monolithic hammer for battering deplorables, not an exciting uncertain voyage of discovery in which the challenging of hypotheses is the great game. Oh no. Instead you get “• In his new book, political correspondent Peter Schwartzstein explores how climate change pulls societies apart and feeds violence” (Oct. 24) and “Climate disasters are threatening the stability of state-run insurance plans” (Oct. 16) and blah blah blah.

Of course it’s the same publication that endorsed Joe Biden in 2020 and Kamala Harris in 2024, because they went into the lab to see what was on the slab and found that:

“In the November election, the U.S. faces two futures. In one, the new president offers the country better prospects, relying on science, solid evidence and the willingness to learn from experience. She pushes policies that boost good jobs nationwide by embracing technology and clean energy. She supports education, public health and reproductive rights. She treats the climate crisis as the emergency it is and seeks to mitigate its catastrophic storms, fires and droughts. In the other future, the new president endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies. He ignores the climate crisis in favor of more pollution. He requires that federal officials show personal loyalty to him rather than upholding U.S. laws. He fills positions in federal science and other agencies with unqualified ideologues. He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living.”

So there you have it. Education, public health and “reproductive rights” are key scientific issues. It’s all evidence-based, naturally:

“Scores of studies have shown that people with insurance stay healthier and live longer because they can afford to see doctors for preventive and acute care. Harris supports expansion of Medicaid, the U.S. health-care program for low-income people. States that have expanded this program have seen health gains in their populations, whereas states that continue to restrict eligibility have not.”

And so:

“That is why, for only the second time in our magazine’s 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is Kamala Harris.”

The first time being Joe Biden, that stirring exemplar of um uh gosh what was that about again?

In fairness there have never been candidates with the stature of Harris and Biden. Founded in 1845, Scientific American didn’t, for instance, endorse Abraham Lincoln. Nor did it deign to give the nod to Franklin Roosevelt or Ronald Reagan. But when a giant like Biden shuffles into the room:

“we are compelled to do so. We do not do this lightly. The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people – because he rejects evidence and science. The most devastating example is his dishonest and inept response to the COVID-19 pandemic, which cost more than 190,000 Americans their lives by the middle of September…. we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.”

More equitable? Where’s that on the periodic table?

Anyway, if you subscribe to SA thinking you’re getting geeky enthusiasm for science, you may well be disappointed. If you want woke sludge, though, you’ve found your spot.