Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out

“Laura Helmuth (@laurahelmuth.bsky.social):

“I apologize to younger voters that my Gen X is so full of fucking fascists”

“Solidarity to everybody whose meanest, dumbest, most bigoted high-school classmates are celebrating early results because fuck them to the moon and back”

“Every four years I remember why I left Indiana (where I grew up) and remember why I respect the people who stayed and are trying to make it less racist and sexist. The moral arc of the universe isn’t going to bend itself”

For some reason, she doesn’t seem to want people to see what she said.

About Tony Heller

Just having fun
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

6 Responses to Scientific American Editor In Chief Speaks Out

  1. willys36 says:

    Who is this woman? What a filthy mouth. I pray she has nothing to do with ‘educating’ our youth.

  2. gelcarrion0t says:

    She certainly needs her foul mouth washed out with soap, her mother failed her.

  3. James says:

    Ah yes yet another lefty person of “Tolerance and Diversity” being anything but.

  4. Michael 2 says:

    I was banned from unScientific unAmerican some years ago for pointing out that Michael Mann’s generous offer of data and a simple climate model was deterministic and therefore not useful; everyone with a functional computer will get exactly the same output and it means what the programmer wishes it to mean.

    • willys36 says:

      I spent a lot of my petroleum engineering career using numerical predictive models to design reservoir response and oil recovery to underground steam injection. The one fact that became apparent early on is how easy it is to formulate the model to yield any result you desire. The huge challenge is to get the model to predict the truth. Later in my career I was tasked with peer reviewing technical papers on reservoir simulation studies. I summarily rejected any paper which made a raw prediction without a history match. Any numerical simulator that doesn’t accurately match historical performance is total fiction. My rule of thumb, and my career depended on accurate predictions, was a simulator could be trusted to predict one or two years into the future if it successfully history matched 4 or 5 years of a comparable project.

      If these climate models can’t match the earth’s record from the little ice age to the present, they are less than useless.

Leave a Reply to Michael 2Cancel reply