Skip to main content

Misreading Climate Change on Scientific American

This article was published in Scientific American’s former blog network and reflects the views of the author, not necessarily those of Scientific American


We appreciate the attention that the November feature article "Climate Heretic," by Michael Lemonick, is receiving. But some have misread Scientific American's intent.

For instance, two sites, Climate Progress and FAIR, accuse Scientific American of having "jumped the shark" on climate.


On supporting science journalism

If you're enjoying this article, consider supporting our award-winning journalism by subscribing. By purchasing a subscription you are helping to ensure the future of impactful stories about the discoveries and ideas shaping our world today.


In actuality, Scientific American reports on climate-related science in depth in nearly every issue and frequently online. You can see a sample list of past print and online-only articles at "Want to Learn More about Climate Change?," including coverage of carbon and climate back to 1959. Climate is the issue of our time. We covered the debate surrounding Judith Curry as a news event in this topic area—and as a way to foster discussion of climate issues in general. As is clear in the article, the vast majority of the scientific community—and Curry herself—believe the evidence supports the reality of anthropogenic climate change.

(For further background, Michael Lemonick has also posted "Why I Wrote about Judith Curry" at Climate Central.)

Climate Progress and FAIR also have criticized a related reader poll about climate change: Consumer media outlets frequently conduct reader polls about content, and Scientific American is no exception. The October issue, for instance, included a poll on the public’s attitudes about science. We learned that respondents were "more convinced" about the reality of climate change today than they were a year ago. Such polls are surely not "scientific," and nobody claims they are, but their interactive nature promotes audience engagement. It's unfortunate—although in hindsight not surprising—that certain people would take the opportunity to manipulate the results by repeat voting.

Last, both sites have noted a Shell poll with advertisement, and speculated about its significance. Advertisements are handled by the ad-sales department without the editorial board’s input or consent.

 

Mariette DiChristina, Steering Group chair, is dean and professor of the practice in journalism at the Boston University College of Communication. She was formerly editor in chief of Scientific American and executive vice president, Magazines, for Springer Nature.

More by Mariette DiChristina