Nov 14, 2019 05:12 AM
https://www.acsh.org/news/2019/11/12/wok...dren-14395
EXCERPT: What should we make of a scientific journal that has decided that being culturally "woke" is more important than presenting evidence-based reports and opinions? Alas, this is what has become of The Lancet. For decades, The Lancet was seen as one of the world's preeminent biomedical journals ... But something has changed, and the journal now regularly publishes bad research and bizarre opinions.
The latest example is The Lancet's decision to publish a review of a theatrical performance called Lungs, which is about climate change. (Why a biomedical journal is publishing theatrical reviews at all is a legitimate question in itself.) The very first paragraph is already full of misinformation: "With industrialisation, deforestation, and large-scale agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions have risen to record levels." [Emphasis added]
No, large-scale agriculture reduces greenhouse gas emissions. (It also uses less water and causes less soil erosion.) While an individual organic farm produces fewer emissions than a conventional farm, organic farms are less efficient. That means more land has to be converted to agriculture, which means that organic causes a net increase in emissions. [...] So, not only are net emissions greater with organic farming, there's also the added bonus of producing less food.
Then, comes the real showstopper: "Knowing the carbon footprint of a child throughout its life—described in the play as 10 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide—is it acceptable to have a child? ..." The Lancet thinks that it's reasonable to ponder one's pollution sins before having children. [...] Unsurprisingly, the article also gives a nod to Extinction Rebellion, a group of activists ... I described previously, "preventing people from going to work, spraying graffiti, smashing glass doors, protesting naked, and gluing themselves to street furniture."
Instead of being an anomaly, The Lancet has demonstrated a long track record of sheer weirdness. [...] it was The Lancet that kicked off the "vaccine-autism" nonsense by publishing Andrew Wakefield's (now known to be) fraudulent paper in 1998. But that was just the beginning. Here's a list of bizarre things The Lancet has published, keeping in mind these examples are from just the last few years... (MORE - details)
EXCERPT: What should we make of a scientific journal that has decided that being culturally "woke" is more important than presenting evidence-based reports and opinions? Alas, this is what has become of The Lancet. For decades, The Lancet was seen as one of the world's preeminent biomedical journals ... But something has changed, and the journal now regularly publishes bad research and bizarre opinions.
The latest example is The Lancet's decision to publish a review of a theatrical performance called Lungs, which is about climate change. (Why a biomedical journal is publishing theatrical reviews at all is a legitimate question in itself.) The very first paragraph is already full of misinformation: "With industrialisation, deforestation, and large-scale agriculture, greenhouse gas emissions have risen to record levels." [Emphasis added]
No, large-scale agriculture reduces greenhouse gas emissions. (It also uses less water and causes less soil erosion.) While an individual organic farm produces fewer emissions than a conventional farm, organic farms are less efficient. That means more land has to be converted to agriculture, which means that organic causes a net increase in emissions. [...] So, not only are net emissions greater with organic farming, there's also the added bonus of producing less food.
Then, comes the real showstopper: "Knowing the carbon footprint of a child throughout its life—described in the play as 10 000 tonnes of carbon dioxide—is it acceptable to have a child? ..." The Lancet thinks that it's reasonable to ponder one's pollution sins before having children. [...] Unsurprisingly, the article also gives a nod to Extinction Rebellion, a group of activists ... I described previously, "preventing people from going to work, spraying graffiti, smashing glass doors, protesting naked, and gluing themselves to street furniture."
Instead of being an anomaly, The Lancet has demonstrated a long track record of sheer weirdness. [...] it was The Lancet that kicked off the "vaccine-autism" nonsense by publishing Andrew Wakefield's (now known to be) fraudulent paper in 1998. But that was just the beginning. Here's a list of bizarre things The Lancet has published, keeping in mind these examples are from just the last few years... (MORE - details)