Have any of the anti-greens on this list read
C&EN vol. 81, #50, 12/15/2003, pp.27-37?
--
Yes, and surprise was that our leftist rag did not conclude by recommending

Have any of the anti-greens on this list read
C&EN vol. 81, #50, 12/15/2003, pp.27-37?

pgalimatias@hotmail.com (Pelerin Galimatias) wrote:

Have any of the anti-greens on this list read
C&EN vol. 81, #50, 12/15/2003, pp.27-37?

C&EN has become nearly as biased as mainstream media. In discussion
of current topics it is more political (and politically correct) than
scientific. I would discontinue my subscription if I could.

It is an unfortunate problem with a lot of large organizations such as

It is an unfortunate problem with a lot of large organizations such as
AMA, AARP and ABA. Most of which do not reflect the opinion of the
majority of their members. C&EN has been more concerned with women
and minority chemists then the general plight of chemists (poor)
themselves.
Frank

frank.logullo@dol.net (Frank Logullo) wrote:



It is an unfortunate problem with a lot of large organizations such as
AMA, AARP and ABA. Most of which do not reflect the opinion of the
majority of their members. C&EN has been more concerned with women
and minority chemists then the general plight of chemists (poor)
themselves.
Frank



Yes. C&EN's bias does seem to be relatively new, commencing at
roughly the same time that Jacobs took the helm. Prior to that it
seemed to be a reasonably respectable and scientifically based
publication.

Real address contains worldnet instead of spamnet

Sclerotic would be a better one word description before Jacobs took
over. We can argue about her editoral positions elsewhere.

josh halpern

Yes. C&EN's bias does seem to be relatively new, commencing at
roughly the same time that Jacobs took the helm. Prior to that it
seemed to be a reasonably respectable and scientifically based
publication.

Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:


Sclerotic would be a better one word description before Jacobs took over. We can argue about her editoral positions elsewhere.




Call it what you will. I would prefer objectivity over activism in a
supposedly scientific trade journal.

Same thing, in fact, that I'd prefer in the mainstream media ... but I don't see that happening anytime soon.


Welllll, I don't quite see things the way you do, but as I said that is

Then you should start by admitting that C&E News was lame on every
ground before Jacobs took over. Compared to Physics Today it still is
as a scientific trade journal (IMHO), but, of course, chemistry has a
real industry to follow which sets other constraints.

Welllll, I don't quite see things the way you do, but as I said that is
for a different time and place. To pretend that the balance of evidence
and expertise on climate change is evenly balanced is hiding from
reality. I will limit myself here to pointing to the latest American
Geophysical Union statement (the place where real climate science
expertise is)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

Welllll, I don't quite see things the way you do, but as I said that is
for a different time and place. To pretend that the balance of evidence
and expertise on climate change is evenly balanced is hiding from
reality. I will limit myself here to pointing to the latest American
Geophysical Union statement (the place where real climate science
expertise is)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html

josh halpern

Thanks for the reference--the 2 articles go together.

Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:


Then you should start by admitting that C&E News was lame on every
ground before Jacobs took over. Compared to Physics Today it still is
as a scientific trade journal (IMHO), but, of course, chemistry has a
real industry to follow which sets other constraints.



C&EN often had trouble with the finer points of the science they were
reporting. That was because the reporters were journalists first and
scientists second (or third or twenty-seventh...) It was definitely
not to be confused with a primary reference. But that was not its
purpose. Its purpose was timely communication of current events
related to chemistry and chemists.

Welllll, I don't quite see things the way you do, but as I said that is
for a different time and place. To pretend that the balance of evidence
and expertise on climate change is evenly balanced is hiding from
reality. I will limit myself here to pointing to the latest American
Geophysical Union statement (the place where real climate science
expertise is)
http://www.agu.org/sci_soc/policy/climate_change_position.html



Regardless of the state of beliefs regarding climate change, what is
it doing in C&EN? What next, a discussion of how bras denigrate
women?

And some discussion of gender disparity in chemistry jobs falls within the realm of the mag's charter. But incessant harping on this issue, to the exclusion of (or great preponderance relative to) more general employment issues facing the membership as a whole, falls within the realm of bias.

IMHO, it is doing a lot better job of that now under Jacobs than before
her.

If nothing else climate change is relevant to the many of the divisions
including Environmental Chemistry, Fuel Chemistry, Geochemistry,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Petroleum Chemistry and maybe a
few more.

Given enrollment in graduate programs gender disparity in the next
twenty years will be too few men.

Josh Halpern <j.halpern@incoming.verizon.net> wrote:



IMHO, it is doing a lot better job of that now under Jacobs than before
her.



Then it's a matter of opinion, and mine would be 180 degrees in the
opposite direction. Perhaps I'm just growing more tech savvy with
age, but I'm catching more and more errors as time goes on.

If nothing else climate change is relevant to the many of the divisions
including Environmental Chemistry, Fuel Chemistry, Geochemistry,
Industrial and Engineering Chemistry, Petroleum Chemistry and maybe a
few more.



Peripherally. Try hard enough and you can relate just about anything
to chemistry. I'm sure lots of women (and men) chemists are
interested in the sociology of bras (alluding to my prev. ex.) That
doesn't make it an appropriate topic for C&EN.

Given enrollment in graduate programs gender disparity in the next
twenty years will be too few men.



Well, how about Chinese men ....

Merry Christmas