The Science of Silence

Michael Shermer was once a regular in the pages of Scientific American, penning his Skeptic column every month from 2001 until 2018, when things began to turn sour. As James B. Meigs reports in the latest City Journal, the veteran journalist was fired for daring to question “truths” deeply cherished by the Left. As he discovered, modern journalists must never, ever report facts when they run counter to the narrative, a lesson Australia’s climate hacks took to heart long ago. Meigs writes:

…As Shermer observed, many science journalists see their role not as neutral reporters but as advocates for noble causes. This is especially true in reporting about the climate. Many publications now have reporters on a permanent “climate beat,” and several nonprofit organizations offer grants to help fund climate coverage.

Climate science is an important field, worthy of thoughtful, balanced coverage. Unfortunately, too many climate reporters seem especially prone to common fallacies, including base-rate neglect, and to hyping tenuous data…

As to what Scientific America now regards as a red-hot story, read the guff behind the headline below: