Scientific American

Scientific American is a popular U.S.-based magazine covering science for a lay readership. The quality of its climate coverage, formerly excellent, became uneven after the departure of editor-in-chief John Rennie in 2009.

Leadership
From 1994 to June 2009, the magazine's editor-in-chief was John Rennie. Mariette DiChristina, who became acting editor upon Rennie's departure, was offically appointed editor in December 2009. .

Coverage of climate change
Scientific American had some excellent coverage of climate change under Rennie, who holds a bachelor's degree in biology. But in 2010, concerns about quality mounted.

A strong science background was not among the qualities editor-in-chief DiChristina said she looked for in science journalists, in an October 2010 article : ...I’m looking for...someone who is comfortable with the material. They don’t need a science degree. I don’t have one. Perhaps the most critical quality of an editor is sheer enthusiasm. We always want that senior-level editor...who can take a car wreck of an article and can figure out the narrative line. We also want someone who is comfortable with expressing themselves in visual terms. ...

Narrative vs. informative
Also in October 2010, the "narrative-friendly" title and framing of a profile of climate communication contrarian Judith Curry painted Curry as a heretic against a scientific orthodoxy, sidestepping the reasons why her writings have attracted concern. Jim Naureckas of FAIR was struck by the article's truth-agnostic tone: "the article seems to leave the impression that the truth on climate change is somewhere in the middle", adding,
 * "Climate scientists feel embattled by a politically motivated witch hunt, and in that charged environment, what Curry has tried to do naturally feels like treason--especially since the skeptics have latched onto her as proof they have been right all along. But Curry and the skeptics have their own cause for grievance. They feel they have all been lumped together as crackpots, no matter how worthy their arguments."

Naureckas continued, "So, there are "worthy...arguments" against the idea that human alteration of the atmosphere is causing the planet to warm up? If so, Scientific American is sitting on the scientific scoop of the decade."

Unscientific polls
Naureckas also noted the irony of a science magazine featuring a pair of decidedly unscientific polls - one tied to the Curry profile, and an equally shoddy "'Energy Poll' conducted 'in association with' the Shell oil company" - pointing out that "taking money for science journalism from a company with a critical interest in denying science is inherently problematic" and noting that the quality slide was seen as early as October 2009, in an article on ways to pump more oil, in which climate went unmentioned; its author was an oil company executive. .

Subsequent misuse of SciAm poll in Congressional testimony
In November 2010 Congressional testimony, climate denier Pat Michaels "who recently said Big Oil funds some 40% of his work, based a key part of his testimony on the ‘results’ of an online poll by Scientific American that was gamed by the deniers themselves". . To her credit, editor-in-chief DiChristina responded: "...I personally deplore such misrepresentations of science and was dismayed to see Scientific American’s good name put to that purpose."

External resources

 * Scientific American website