While a lot of media have lost their collective minds about politics, Scientific American sticks with reality. I'm really proud to write for this magazine, and of my editors including Laura.
Scientific American endorses Kamala Harris for president. www.scientificamerican.com/article/vote... 🧪
Kamala Harris has plans to improve health, boost the economy and mitigate climate change. Donald Trump has threats and a dangerous record
Sorry, I swear I'm on the team and want to make progress... But 50% emissions reduction by 2030 is not in accord with the Paris agreement - not for the richest country in the world with the most historical emissions... Not science-based. Better than the alternative. But it's not good Enough.
Anytime a leader in the scientific publications community can loudly proclaim its adherence to objective reality at volume loud enough that others may hear is a good thing.
Superficially, I hate that SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN is making a political endorsement, but seeing how Trump and his cronies treated the science around COVID, I support this.
I quote Carl Sagan in almost everything, but this is definitely a case of Science being a candle in the dark. It's what will save us, in the end, if we choose to be saved.
I still don't think she's the ideal option for science and climate, but I'll take what I can get after the last eight years.