Sign up to receive Alan's newsletter by email.

Speaking engagements

  • Invite Alan Korwin to speak at your event! Thought-provoking, entertaining, freedom-oriented topics -- your guests will thank you for the excitement -- long after the applause ends!


Is Science Over?

A funny thing happened on the way to Science Newsiness

The lamestream media told you:

Nothing, but do notice:
I’ve been reading Science News, a formerly fine science magazine, since childhood.

It has become a nouveau tabloid with “we thought we were right but now we really know” dominating stories that used to report on the world of scientific discovery and advancement. Editorship was just assumed by a former PBS employee. What affect might that have, I wonder, none?

The cover used to say The Weekly Newsmagazine of Science, it is now Society for Science & the Public, with other changes to its description. The material is getting so vapid it's becoming hard to endure. Some employed scientists actually tested whether you can blow on dropped food to see if the 5-second rule is real, and this got reported.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Can you spot any patterns in the stories appearing in the current issue of Science News, by Nancy, Lisa, Carolyn, Aimee, Tina, Susan, Aimee, Laurel, Carolyn, Carolyn, Emily, Laurel, Maria, Maria, Emily, Laura, Laurel, Carolyn, Ashley, Carolyn... Dan and Bruce.

Some topics: Bogs on the Brink (carbon stores); Discussing what matters when facts are not enough (new editor’s comment); Fresh water maxed out on phosphorous; Lent story debunked; Penguins can track Antarctic changes; Hunting threatens orangutans; Too much sugar; Consumer goods pollute urban air; Americans might welcome space aliens; New mother depression gets attention... just the first half. OK, there were stories about the cosmos, anti-matter, biology, a little more, but puhleeeze.

The new editor’s opening editorial is almost a screed against questioning established scientific consensus. “When people challenge the scientific consensus on issues (she names three) it’s no surprise that one of the first inclinations of journalists and scientists has been to think, hey, these doubters just don’t know the facts.” Give them more data and they’ll get it she explains.

“But there’s considerable evidence that more data isn’t better when it comes to science skeptics,” editor Nancy Shute says. She denigrates the effort of skeptics to build a case using facts. The bubble-centric ivory-tower hubris is stunning.

I plan to keep my subscription for a while, but it looks like I may need a different source. I gave up Scientific American, when it became a politicized editorial, and featured digitally manipulated images of a person’s face on its cover, to argue that race doesn’t exist.

When science cannot brook skepticism, in a magazine continuously reporting it was wrong about prior “science,” the nation, not just science, is in danger of extinction.

Death by Hurricane! 

Media has it all wrong

Hurricanes don't pose the risk you think they do

Deaths attributed to evacuations

The lamestream media told you:

Hurricane is coming -- prepare to die! Death and destruction, run, hide, evacuate, certain death will find you, it’s not safe, evacuate, listen to authorities, do what you are told, mandatory evacuation means what it says, do not remain in your home, leave, do not expect the state to come and help you, the hurricane will kill you (repeat for days).

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Five minutes from any lamestream station during pre-hurricane time will give you everything they have, typically, familiar from the last time they “reported.

The actual causes of death from hurricanes have less to do with the weather than the “news” media leads you to believe. More proof the "news" has left the building. We don't get news in America any longer. In the absence of facts, the public believes hell will come down and cause death. The truth is more specific. Knowing it (“an informed public,” as the Founders intended) can save your life.

Cause of death from Atlantic hurricanes, 1963 - 2012

6% Vehicle accident during evac
9% Evac incident without vehicle
4% Cardiovascular failure during evac
3% Vehicle hits tree
15% Vehicle accident unrelated to evac or tree
4% Fall
6% Electrocution
6% Carbon-monoxide poisoning
4% Fire in residence with open flame
4% Tree incident (no vehicle)
39% Cardiovascular failure not during evac

Hundreds of deaths could not be categorized.
Bulletin of the American Meteorological Soc. 2015

Apologies in advance if this report reduces your confidence in hurricane reporting from the lamestream stations, or your willingness to bow down to government dictates when the rain’s a comin’.

They do sound convincing though, don't they, all breathless and sincere. Chances are they know not what they do.

Climate Change Noise Missing

Public Baffled, Scientists Not So Much

The lamestream media told you:


The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

A near total lack of reports linking climate change to Hurricane Harvey (can you remember back that far?) has no environmentalists shouting about censorship or biased reporting.

This may be due to the fact that the “green” movement has learned the public doesn’t believe linking individual weather events to master environmental edicts qualifies as science, or that the case for climate change, also called global warming, climate disruption, carbon footprint and eco terrorism -- may have hockey-stick sized holes. (Recent hurricanes have had global alarmism shouting.)

A recently published report (Science News, Vol. 191, No. 9, p. 19) notes, “The world’s more than 100 million lakes are often overlooked in climate simulations. That’s surprising, because lakes are far easier to measure than oceans.” After a landmark study was published in 2015, scientists were shocked to find, “the picture is far more complicated,” than they expected. Although lakes experienced the same weather, some warmed faster, or slower, for reasons they could not explain or understand. “Such variability makes it hard to pin down what to expect in the future,” according to an aquatic biologist at Washington State U.

It seems that climate changes, because that’s what climate does. Human understanding of the phenomena is in its infancy, and calls for massive upheaval of humanity, to avoid massive upheaval of humanity, may be premature. Especially since some of the world's largest industrialists are excluded from current plans (communist China, India, more), and the developed world tasked with the invented burdens. Control of the purse strings and people on the receiving end of life style changes requires more care and thought that it may have received previously, according to leading experts. Changing our climate, if this is even possible, should not be handled with the alacrity we are all-of-a-sudden using to replace our monuments, according to leading experts.

Scientists March for Earth Day

"We're not political!" they say.


The lamestream media told you:

Earth Day is a glorious event that celebrates our stewardship of the planet and recognizes all the obligations we have to treat our Earth mother properly. All laws needed to control our effect on the planet should be passed without delay.

Scientists marched this year in the parades in a coordinated effort, and promoted the thought that because they pursue science, they are not political and so, presumably, "you can trust us."

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Scientists aren’t being very scientific
if they’re holding themselves out to be non-political.

Everything in the public domain is political.

Any group operating on tens of billions of taxpayer dollars,
and constantly in need of more, is as political as it gets.
Read that again.

They’re holding up pictures of DNA and vaccines? Good. How about spy satellites, nukes and labs for weaponized anthrax. It’s proof they’re not only political, they’re underhanded and deceptive, with a hidden agenda and a phony narrative. Your friend the atom. Thalidomide. The coming Ice Age. The absolute trash that passes for science lately is preposterous. "Scientific surveys" are the worst. Some "science" is even done now by voting (Pluto anyone?). It’s the real reason certain “research” funds have been cut off by Congress -- to prevent taxpayer funding of political agendas disguised as science. Government “scientists” conducted human sterilization and eugenics experiments on people -- and were only stopped when forced to by outrage and new law. All sorts of law has been enacted to prevent so-called “science” from committing atrocities.

Now don’t take this the wrong way. Like anything, there are two sides to the coin, and obviously, the wonders of modern science and technology are fabulous. Hey -- we're on computers, right? Just don’t get snowed by this white-lab-coat holier-than-thou can-do-no-wrong all-the-answers mythology.

Science is just as messed up as police, doctors, the post office and your co-workers, and for the same reason -- because they’re people. The fact that their IQs may be high is no reason to place them on a pedestal above every human frailty everyone else has. If anything, this march showed they may be worse off than many of us, believing their own fairy tales. Don’t you know Sheldon Cooper?

Everyone wants clean land, air and water, but not everyone is good with the socialist controls packaged as environmental controls and stuffed in the same wheelbarrow.


Is Science Now Decided By Voting?

Note: This is not satire, just bizarre

New Continent "Discovered" on Earth (near New Zealand)

Only if science promo effort successful

Media has relinquished its roll of calling BS on BS

The lamestream media told you:

Science News is reporting "a long-hidden continent called Zealandia" but since no scientists are "officially" in charge of "rubber-stamp" naming new continents, a team of geologists is pitching the case for a new continent in a science journal, GSA Today. Zealandia is around 1.892 million square miles of continental crust, according to the report, about the size of the Indian subcontinent. But it's 94% underwater, surrounding New Zealand. So who knew.

"If we could pull the plug on the world's oceans," one researcher named Mortimer said, it would be clear this is a continent. The editors note "the landmass faces an uphill battle for continental status, though." I'm not making this up. Maybe if outside dark money funding poured in, the uphill battle could be more easily won. [OK, that was satire.] The main advocates say they'll just have to start using the name "and hope it catches on." A Vermont scientist notes how this illustrates "the large and obvious can be overlooked in science." And in journalism. The case for Zealandia has been built for more than a decade. For now Earth still has seven continents.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Science traditionally requires experiment, observation, evidence, reproducible results, double-blind testing, formulation and testing of hypothesis, all generally under the pseudo-defined scientific method -- not voting in an opinion poll and campaigning for favored terms, definitions and results. Doing so should disqualify a person from using the label "scientist," but since no scientists are "officially" in charge of "rubber-stamp" naming new scientists, the term can get used with some slacktivism.

The planet Pluto, you may recall, was voted out of our solar system by a slim majority of a small number of voting astrophysicists who couldn't agree on the science of the matter. The vote was 237 for removal out 424 voting, or 55.9%, in what now passes for science. The "news" media dutifully carried the story, giving "scientists" credibility, while sacrificing what little credibility the media had left.

Scientists today, some so bereft of reason and viable subject matter they are literally contemplating their navels, are getting funding for studies and work no rational person would ever justify, and publishing results scientists themselves are starting to question. Sometimes. Naming continents no one can see is a candidate for an award that has yet to be named. No indication of funding for this ten-year and ongoing expense was revealed in the report, but surely someone paid for it, or real work sat idle. Like serving fries with that burger.

How Hot Is Habitable?

Unresolved: The bulk of the science community, flooded with taxpayer cash for any study or activity remotely related to global warming/climate change/climate disruption/carbon pollution (the name is in flux), generally predict disaster for humanity if our planet's average temperature varies by fractions or a few degrees in the course of a century.

Astrophysicists, searching for and finding exoplanets in the "Goldilocks Zone," worlds unfathomably far away but believed to be just massive enough and just distant enough from their suns to be within a range that could support life, don't parse out habitability to fractions of a degree. Is human life so fragile that our Goldilocks Zone is vanishingly small, but worlds elsewhere can be declared habitable from thousands of light years away?

Should the alarmism infecting the new field of "climate science" apply to analysis of distant planets too? Or does it have anything to do with keeping funding flowing, changing our lifestyles to pre-ordained standards described by people with low esteem for American values, as so many people claim—who are then ridiculed and dismissed as deniers by people in white jackets?

California to Repeal Laws of Physics

Those people really are fruits and nuts

"Zero-Emission Car" Lunacy, Discrimination Against "Low Income" People

The lamestream media told you:

Six laws and a dozen other regulations have been passed in Calif. recently, representing a more than $2 billion financial commitment to "clean" transportation... Tax concessions are a cornerstone of the government’s goal of rendering the internal combustion engine irrelevant by 2050... drivers are also offered an $8,000 grant towards an electric car... "Electric vehicles (EVs), generate fewer global warming emissions than gas-powered cars, and don't produce tailpipe pollution (hence the term: “zero emission vehicle”)," according to the Union of Concerned Scientists. A series of mandates, kickbacks, tax breaks and required "incentives" will force manufacturers to comply with state government climate-warming initiatives.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

All-electric, plug-in hybrid cars use energy of course -- which they get from the power plant that makes the juice you get from the wall or hard-to-find charge stations that makes the car work. Reporters and legislators don't seem to understand this simple rule of physics: "Electric cars need electricity."

Even if the plant uses hydro, wave, geothermal, wind, solar or magic power, the power must be transmitted, which creates loss. Then it must be stored in the vehicle, which creates loss. The vehicle must convert the stored energy to dynamic motive force, which creates loss. When you add up the losses, and compare it to using fuel directly -- well, no one knows whether it is efficient because no one has done such enormously complex studies. They just want to promote things that are "green." Turns you green with envy. The cars have no emissions. The power plants do.

Recalling the summer, and the winter, when the power grid teeters on the brink of collapse, communities suffer brownouts, smart meters are used to cut power to neighborhoods, curious minds want to know how the nation's fleet of cars will run off power plants on the electric grid. It sure won't be from the nuclear plants we aren't building, or from coal-fired plants the current administration has convinced democrats are evil. When asked, technical experts at a huge tech firm based in San Francisco (I asked, I was there), said you will charge you car at night, when demand is low. I typical fuel my vehicle in daylight, when fuel is low. And you?

The article never makes clear who exactly is making the $2 billion commitment.

Government Weather Forecast Tells Nothing, Carefully

The lamestream media told you:

Caleb Jones (Associated Press) Officials with the National Weather Service’s Central Pacific Hurricane Center said Thursday there is about a 40 percent chance the season will be above normal, a 40 percent chance it will be normal and a 20 percent chance it will be below normal.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Is it actually possible the AP reporter who reported this report couldn't tell this reports nothing? There is no way to tell if this report is accurate -- even after the fact. If storms are at, above or below average the report will be correct. It is framed so that it cannot be wroPublishng. It is probably the worst example of a report detail, or maybe best that is worthless ever created, tied with who knows how many other government reports. But this one stands out thanks to the math.

How much did this 40/40/20 result cost the tax payers, and how many "scientists" did it take to screw in this light bulb? In fairness, they did say Pacific hurricanes (technically cyclones) will be average, and predict between four and seven. Who's counting, who's accountable and is there any accounting if the count is off? Does it matter if a tax-funded bureau guesses there will be X storms and there aren't? How much does that cost?

Solar Plane IS HEAVY

The lamestream media told you:

The solar plane "Solar Impulse" is flying entirely around the world without a single drop of fuel! It is a glorious day for this miraculous feat of fuel-free engineering and human accomplishment, leaving the climate-change disgusting and ugly world of fossil fuel and CO2 destruction of the environment behind!

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

The solar plane is actually a battery-powered plane.

The splendiferous idyllic image of a plane that runs completely on sunlight is magnificent and simply glorious. How illustrious the accomplishments of humanity to create a solar plane, how Earth-saving, how pure! How Disney! How inaccurate.

Recall for a moment that this story is brought to you by the same "news" people who paint the world as liberal left as they can, for every other topic you care about, right? Guns, politics, environment, healthcare, immigration, why would this suddenly be different? Before you get carried away on the wings of an angel, add this to the mix:

The plane appears to be 100% solar charged, this is true, a stunning piece of engineering, because how much power can you get into heavy batteries before you can't lift them off the ground. But you don't just put this thing out in sunshine and fly around. It's not that kind of solar plane.

The flight path of the battery-powered solar plane is calculated to rise and fall so gravity, air current, exposure, temperatures, air density and scores of other factors will allow it to fly at all, and complete its amazing circumnavigation quest. Proof of principle, engineering marvel, all that. Don't get me wrong -- the science kid in me is in awe, mesmerized, this is wonderful. But the over-the-top save the-the-world global-savior blush on this is pure reporter lefty hype.

It is the four ten-horsepower motors that get the plane's 5,070 pounds off the ground. It is definitely the batteries, not the sun, that fly it at night. All the "I want a clean future" promotion on the website is sweet, and it's obvious what the social direction of all this is. The planet's self-anointed stewards are rushing off headlong to a brave new world the old world won't recognize, or exercise much control over, for better or worse.

If you add in the gargantuan fossil-fuel needs for building and supporting this monumental and wonderful experiment, no self-respecting environmentally sensitive individual could support it (fuel needs are not calculated, disregarded totally). From fabricating the materials, to the power for the global computing network (and everything else!) in development, to the non-stop transportation needs of the staff, the banking, lawyering, to the energy just in so-called "news" coverage, there's enough Arab oil here to light global cities.

And it's all to fly one plane one time to say look, we did it, and gloat forever -- we burned all that oil, nuked all that uranium, put out all that CO2 (desperately needed for plant life, but don't mention that), every day for years, just so we could fly with no CO2 (kinda sorta). Which is a great thing, if all you see is the small picture. How much CO2 did that take? They don't know, or care, pay no attention to the man behind the curtain (or their electric bills, now THAT would be something). And the loony idea that we're flying purely solar planes now. The massive teams use more oil on one day aloft than a real plane might use flying around the world. But we are advancing a brave new world. Thank God for that.

WAYBACK MACHINE report on: Al Gore's inconvenient Noble Prize

The lamestream media told you:

"Arctic ice could be gone in as little as seven years." -Al Gore, accepting the Nobel Prize in 2007.

The Uninvited Ombudsman notes however that:

Both poles are still there, and there is some evidence that north polar ice is growing, but Nobel Prizes are forever, so Al Gore is safe, but we'll keep watching of course.

Dr. Peiser's study that shows increases in north pole size cited above comes from a research institute whose stated purpose is to challenge global warming alarmism, dubious claims, economic demands and other recent climate extremism. It's a terrible job, but someone has to do it. Al Gore and his millions of followers certainly can't be left out on their own, seven years later.

Read what people are saying about Page Nine, or tell Alan yourself.

See the archives below, or click through to an index of Page Nine posts at

About the Author

  • Freelance writer Alan Korwin is a founder and past president of the Arizona Book Publishing Association. With his wife Cheryl he operates Bloomfield Press, the largest producer and distributor of gun-law books in the country. Here writing as "The Uninvited Ombudsman," Alan covers the day's stories as they ought to read. Read more.

Recent Comments

Read the last 100 comments on one handy page here!