A generalist and teacher for 33 years, I started with a master's in environmental science from Miami Univ. BTW, Miami was a university when Florida was part of Spain. I like people to get to the truth when it can be done. Much careless error comes from educational and journalistic sources. We can do better. NewTrust seems to address the concerns I have about using robust data to come to intelligent conclusions and form valid opinions. A collective effort is often useful, used cautiously.
This steps up from the cartoon image of Bush who is easily caricatured. It leads on from the popular and simplistic conclusion that Bush was occasionally goofy and incompetent president to the image of a person lacking a full spectrum of intellectual experience.
A review of the headlines with which more involved readers on the topic will be familiar. Gives clear vioce to the opinion that we will be better off under an administration that is more scientifically mainstream. The examples are typical even if they are a short list.
The Stalin comparison will cause bulging veins on some foreheads. Was it Lysenko who kept the Soviet Union's crop science out of the mainstream?
This was beautiful writing. Not overly syrupy or quaint but rich with the feel of the place. I've been there and this tells the story well. The background of loss in human terms and in environmental ones is woven throughout. The optimistic, realist approach of the residents is laid out without fancies.
Packs a lot into a little space but demands a good amount of knowledge on the part of the reader. When they dragged me kicking and screaming into economics classes in grad school 30 years ago, I think these thoughts came (less well formed) to my head as well.
Basic facts are in place but without the more detailed background information the reader may not understand how much the conclusions of the article are opinion and open to question. Administrations have chosen promising people in the past who have surprised us.
This is a little patchy and jumps around a bit. But it covers a huge body of information and introduces a large number characters. Sounds like a movie review, doen't it?
This gives us a quick view of the Dept. of the Interior's inspector general's report of an appointee with a political agenda who muddied the waters of what should have been science-based reporting. We can suspect shenanigans but this gives us access to an elaborate report on them.
This should provide basic information about a significant global problem that will provide a less informed reader the tools to understand its importance and implications. It is also a fun read. The light tone of New Scientist is often a tonic to me.
I never thought Bush was as stupid as the satire said. I, too, felt he lacked "gravitas" (whatever that really is).