LOS ANGELES, October 24—A study was published in the Journal of Reproductive Medicine claiming that prayers from the USA, Canada, and Australia caused a 100% increase in pregnancy rates among infertility patients in Korea. The surprising results announced by Kwang Cha and associates were widely reported in the news media, including on the ABC news program Good Morning America. However, the study’s credibility was undermined when one of the co-authors, Daniel Wirth, was arrested by the FBI and later pled guilty to fraud. Cha’s other co-author, Columbia University’s Rogerio Lobo, later revealed that he had not participated in the research and withdrew his name from the published findings. Even with one of his co-authors in federal prison and the other disgraced, Korean fertility specialist Kwang Yul Cha stood by the allegedly supernatural study. He eventually filed a defamation lawsuit against Bruce Flamm, a California physician who had published several articles questioning the validity of the Cha/Wirth “pregnancy by prayer” report. The lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court in August 2007, was thrown out of court in April 2008. However, in June 2008 Cha took the case to the California Appellate Court. Today the Court of Appeals “affirmed in full” the Superior Court decision and thus ruled that Superior Court Judge James Dunn had acted appropriately in tossing out the lawsuit.

In response to the ruling, Dr. Flamm issued the following statement: “Today’s ruling is a victory for science and evidence-based medicine. Scientists must be allowed to question bizarre claims. Cha’s mysterious study was designed and allegedly conducted by a man who turned out to be a criminal with a 20-year history of fraud. A criminal who steals the identities of dead children to obtain bank loans and passports is not a trustworthy source of research data. Cha could have simply admitted this obvious fact but instead he hired a team of lawyers to punish me for voicing my opinions. Physicians should debate their opinions in medical journals, not in courts of law. Judges have better things to do with their time and taxpayers have better things to do with their money.”

Dr. Flamm is a physician with Kaiser Permanente and a Clinical Professor of Obstetrics and Gynecology at the University of California. He has been the senior investigator on numerous medical studies and has written several books and book chapters.

For more information contact: Janice Goings: 951-288-0937 jangoings@aol.com

This review contains spoilers.

One might be excused for wondering what, exactly, German director Roland Emmerich has against the United States. After all, his films (such as Independence Day and The Day After Tomorrow) are known for showing American icons such as the White House and the Statue of Liberty being destroyed.

With his new film 2012, Emmerich ups the ante, depicting a global disaster caused by terrestrial instability. John Cusack stars as Jackson Curtis, a Los Angeles writer whose failed novel causes the end of his marriage. Jackson wants to reunite with his family and ends up (almost literally) going to the ends of the earth to save them. At the same time in Washington, DC, the president’s chief science advisor discovers an impending danger in the earth’s unsettled tectonic plates. He butts heads with the chief of staff over when the information should be made public and who they should tell first.

The film tackles a variety of weighty questions, such as: If the end of the world was coming, what would you do? If only the government knew, who should be told? If there was a way that some people could survive, who should decide who lives and who dies?

In the case of a true global catastrophe, is there really any point to announcing it to the world? Put simply, if everyone’s going to die in thirty-six hours and there’s nothing anyone can do, what’s the point in telling people? Assuming you had perfect knowledge, why bother? Some people would panic, others wouldn’t believe it anyway, and still others would try to write and market their book on it overnight.

These are interesting questions, but they unfortunately get lost amid the film’s shouting, explosions, and crashes. About a half dozen subplots appear, several of them awkwardly aborted in the rush to get to the disaster scenes.

Then there are the implausibilities—and I’m not even talking about Los Angeles sliding into the ocean in such a cinematic fashion. Jackson Curtis has more lives than James Bond and Indiana Jones put together: he literally outruns fireballs and earthquakes, saving the day with each step. But my favorite eye-roller is when almost the entire world has been consumed by fire and flood—except, apparently, the parts that allow a last-minute cell phone call so that two lead characters can share one last scene together.

But to criticize a disaster film for being implausible is a bit silly itself. People don’t go to disaster movies to see rich emotional tapestry or Memento-like airtight logic; they go to see stuff get blown up. And on that level, it succeeds.

Destroying the world is not easy, and the filmmakers used a variety of special effect techniques to bring global disaster to the big screen. From a visual effects standpoint alone, 2012 is a remarkable achievement. The actors were often on moving sets—none of that cheesy original Star Trek technique of throwing actors to the floor while shaking the camera to simulate explosion concussions. In many of the scenes, the objects are actually collapsing around the actors while giant gimbals and hydraulic lifts jostle and jolt the sets. Some of the scenes are remarkably effective (a shot of a giant wave overtaking a cruise ship is genuinely chilling, reminding me of The Perfect Storm), while others look like a cartoonish video game.

The film is basically a retelling of the biblical flood story and has nothing to do with the date 2012. It could have been set in 1995 or 2013, but the 2012 angle made a perfect hook for the film: Why not tie it in with the supposed end of the world, allegedly tied to the end of the Mayan calendar in 2012?

Not surprisingly, Columbia Pictures is taking full advantage of the New Agey 2012 doomsday discussion/panic/concern to help promote the film. Over the past year or so, many people have suggested that the year 2012 will bring some sort of significant change, either catastrophic disaster (as in the film) or perhaps a new age of enlightenment (as in what did not happen with the so-called Harmonic Convergence in 1987). The link between global catastrophe and Mayan calendar-based prophecy is tenuous at best. Some ads for the 2012 film begin with the phrase “The Mayans warned us,” though of course the Mayans did not “warn” anyone—they simply had a calendar system that happens to “end” in 2012, much as our Gregorian calendar “ends” on December 31. The Mayans never said the world would end that year and have shown irritation and contempt for the way that their culture has been co-opted into pop-culture notions and Hollywood blockbuster film promotions.

New Age and doomsday authors have been cranking out 2012-themed books at an amazing pace over the past six months; there are literally tens of thousands of such titles in print, with more hitting bookstores every day. It seems that anyone with access to a keyboard and an opinion on 2012 (or prophecy in general) is out there trying to cash in. It will be interesting to see how many of these books will be for sale on Amazon.com for even one cent on January 1, 2013.

I interviewed the director and cast of 2012 for LiveScience.com; you can see the videos of the interviews online at http://www.newsarama.com/common/media/video/player.php?videoRef=NA_091028_2012-Emmerich#playerTop. Of particular interest to Skeptical Inquirer readers is my interview with Chiwetel Ejiofor, in which he discusses how his character struggles to maintain scientific integrity in the face of political influences. After the Bush administration’s well-publicized antiscience stance and overt attempts to bend scientific research for political ends, this point seems especially relevant.

Though 2012 is not a great film, it does have some interesting pro-science aspects that skeptics should take note of. While John Cusack is the lead star, the hero of the film is really a black scientist, Adrian Helmsley (Chiwetel Ejiofor). Helmsley is the president’s chief science advisor, and it is he who first discovers the impending danger. The film somewhat realistically portrays the difficulties of scientific uncertainty—how sure do you have to be to sound the alarm? This is not an academic question but arises in discussions of scientific prediction on a wide range of topics, from asteroid impacts to global warming.

Not only is the scientist the hero, he is also the film’s major moral compass. There are no evil, white lab-coated scientists in 2012; there are only scientists (and a few nerds thrown in for good measure) doing their best to save humanity. 2012 is a completely humanistic disaster film; the catastrophes are not the work of either angry gods or magic spells but nature itself. The film shows prayer failing miserably to stop the destruction—even the Pope in the Vatican gets smacked away (Emmerich told me he originally wanted to show Mecca being destroyed but didn’t want to risk a fatwa). In the end it is science—hardworking, unglamorous science—that saves the day.

These are wonderful, humanistic, pro-science depictions that I’d hope to see in more films; it’s a shame to see them buried amid so many CGI disasters and explosions in 2012.

In early September, I became aware of something that shocked me as both a skeptic and physics teacher: Edmund Scientific, one of the oldest and most respected outlets for selling science equipment for educational use, has gone over to the dark side. They are actively marketing and selling paranormal woo-woo on their Web site.

The item that attracted my attention was their self-proclaimed EMF Ghost Meter, which is nothing more than a standard EMF (electromagnetic field) detector that detects low-frequency EMFs such as radio and microwaves. I have no beef with Edmund selling EMF detectors (I even have one in my classroom), but what galls me is that they are actually marketing this device by calling it a ghost detector, implicitly giving credence to pseudoscientific flummery. As they say on their Web site: “The preferred unit of paranormal investigators, this Ghost Meter can be used by laymen with professional results. The unit responds instantaneously to EMF fluctuations and spikes in energy with a detecting range of 50 to 1,000 Hz. The VLF range is 1,000 to 20,000 Hz. An easy-to-read LED display and silent on/off push switch make for seamless, simple operation.”

Such devices are often used by so-called ghost hunters as they bumble around in the dark, freaking themselves out at every cool draft of wind and creaky sound. In reality, there is absolutely no reason to think that EMF meters are detecting any kind of “ghostly entities,” as a simple application of Occam’s Razor often shows that what the meters are actually detecting is the low-frequency EM waves given off by nearby lighting fixtures, electrical lines, or even the other equipment carried by the ghost hunters themselves.

But it gets worse. In addition to their Ghost Meter, Edmund is now selling what they call a 3-in-1 Paranormal Research Instrument, which is an EMF meter, a digital temperature sensor, and a flashlight. I suppose Edmund also wants to tap into the gullible “cool breezes and drafts are evidence for a ghost” market along their journey down the paranormal rabbit hole. Edmund has gone even further by selling what it calls a Remote Viewing DVD, which claims the customer can “learn the history and latest applications of this amazing field of ‘intuitive science’ and discover for yourself how to devleop [sic] and use your own RV-ESP skills.”

I recently checked the Edmund Web site, and all of these items are now listed as “temporarily out of stock.” Hopefully, this is because the company is attempting to (tentatively) reverse course, but maybe it’s because they’ve been so successful in marketing woo-woo to the gullible.

To me, as a physics teacher, this discovery is as bad as opening up their catalog to the biology section and finding products for sale that promote creationism. The misleading advertisements and products on the Edmund Web site are unacceptable, and until they change course I will no longer purchase any of their products. Readers who wish to contact Edmund Scientific can reach them at scientifics@edsci.com or 1-800-728-6999.

In the early 1990s, he asked Paul Gross to work with him on combating pseudoscience, and their resulting book, Higher Superstition: The Academic Left and its Quarrels with Science, appeared in 1994. He later wrote many articles relating to standards of science, what he curmudgeonly thought of as charlatans pushing pseudoscience and metascience, and public knowledge and understanding of science. His later books included The Flight from Science and Reason (1997) and Prometheus Bedeviled: Science and the Contradictions of Contemporary Culture. He played a major role in working with the NYU physicist Alan Sokal in Sokal's presentation of a gobbledygook paper to the post-modern humanities journal Social Text, which published it in spite of what Levitt and many others thought were flags that indicated that it was a joke. The result was and is widely interpreted, especially in scientific circles, as a black mark on postmodernism.

I first met Norm Levitt when I was in third grade, in around 1951,and he a year behind, so I am honored to have known him for well over fifty years. We lived in the West Bronx during its Golden Age; there have recently been celebrations and museum exhibits on the occasion of the 100th birthday of the Grand Concourse. Norm's mother, Molly, was best friend and Mahjong buddy of the mother of the new boy in my building (and on my floor), Ronnie Saiet, and Norm's parents and Ronnie's socialized. The Levitts lived just a couple of blocks away, on Walton Avenue south of 167th Street, so Norm spent a lot of time with Ronnie, Ira Blumenthal, and me, playing the role of D'Artagnan to our Athos, Porthos, and Aramis. (Wikipedia, which I consulted to checking the Musketeers' names' spelling, informs me that the story of d'Artagnan was continued by Dumas in two more novels, Twenty Years After and The Vicomte de Bragelonne, the set becoming known as the d'Artagnan Romances. So d'Artagnan was the main character, a suitable analogy for this memorial comment.)

In the 1950's in the Bronx, we boys were free and on our own a lot, much less programmed than today's young people. Those of us intellectually inclined were lucky to have the Bronx High School of Science in our lives, where our mathematical abilities especially were fostered. Of course, Harvard wasn't bad in mathematics, either.

One of my high-school influences was Martin Gardner's book Fads and Fallacies in the Name of Science, published by Dover in 1957, when Norm and I were in high school. In 2003, I started teaching a seminar at Williams College on the subject, and one of the dozen weekly topics was the so-called Sokal Hoax. I was delighted to find that Norm was an expert on the topic, and I invited him to lead that week's seminar. Naomi and I have had the pleasure of his visits to us on three such occasions, including one at which we also had the pleasure of the company of Renée. And my students on the three occasions certainly benefited from the readings he supplied and the discussions that he led.

I am honored to have been a friend of Norman Levitt, and I am delighted that our friendship was professionally renewed during the last few years. Naomi and I have sent our deepest condolences to his widow, Renée; to their children, Steven and Oradee, Heather and Jason; and their grandchildren. They have asked that any memorial contributions be made to the National Center for Science Education, 420 40th Street, Suite 2, Oakland, CA 94609.

A memorial service was held in Manhattan on October 31, with a secular rabbi presiding and, by particular request, no mention of god; Norm had been cremated. The half dozen speakers aside from me and from a cousin were mathematicians, and the importance of his research mathematical work was stressed. We learned of his early promise, and of the wall of his report cards that his mother had proudly displayed in their Bronx apartment. We learned of his wide range of knowledge of interests, including visiting art galleries in New York and knowing about battles in the Civil War. We learned about his special love for his grandchildren.

The death of Norm Levitt is a loss for his family, his friends, the world of mathematics, and all those interested in the standards of science.

Dear Outlaw,

After suffering a sharp pain behind my eyeballs, I visited my doctor, who immediately diagnosed the problem. His treatment was to get plenty of rest and apply Head-On to my forehead twice a day. What is a “skeptoid” anyway?

—Forgot to Ask My Doctor

Dear Forgot,

A skeptoid is a mild but sometimes painful protuberance on the brain. Although a specific cause has remained elusive, some scientists theorize that it’s triggered by a “skeptical strain in the brain.” In other words, overindulging in skepticism. Currently, there’s no real cure except for time, although some researchers are tirelessly testing a promising new product, tentatively referred to as “Preparation S.” I suggest you follow your doctor’s advice (think of the Head-On as a placebo), lay off any heavy, irritating doses of skepticism for a while, and avoid tight headgear.

David Hume, Benjamin Franklin, Harry Houdini, Oskar Pfungst, and others did brilliant skeptical investigations in earlier centuries. The modern skeptical movement was formalized relatively recently, led by pioneers such as Martin Gardner, Paul Kurtz, Carl Sagan, James Randi, Ray Hyman, Ken Frazier, Joe Nickell, and others—many of whom still proudly appear in these pages.

There are, of course, dozens more skeptics out there whose names may be slightly less familiar but whose contributions are immeasurable, from Robert Carroll and his skeptics’ dictionary to all of our columnists and contributors. Sadly, skepticism has lost many great champions over the past decade, including Phil Klass, Barry Beyerstein, and Carl Sagan, just to name a few.

Unless we find a way to clone Randi, Kurtz, Nickell, Hyman, and the rest (I’ve been told in confidence that a top-secret project of just such a nature has been underway since 1986 at Area 51), future generations of skeptics will need to step up, join the cause, and carry on the mission.

In fact, a new generation of skeptics is here—the YouTube crowd, the Twitterers, and the texters—and more are on the way. These kids are intelligent, engaged in the world around them, and think critically. The challenge is to provide them not only with support but a context for their skepticism. For, as Shakespeare noted, “What’s past is prologue.” Faith healers, soothsayers, frauds, and others have always been with us and always will be. Recognizing, through examples of careful skeptical research and investigation available in this magazine and elsewhere, that much of the paranormal and pseudoscience is merely old wine in new bottles will arm future generations of skeptics.

Skepticism has found new ways of spreading and new champions to take up the cause. We see many of them in this issue. Justin Trottier discusses how to effectively communicate skepticism and science to younger generations. Barry Karr brings us up to date on CSI’s efforts to reach out to kids, and CFI librarian Timothy Binga reviews some of the best skeptical books for children and young adults. Heidi Anderson gives a mother’s perspective on raising skeptical kids.

This theme carries on in articles by the Center for Inquiry’s own D.J. Grothe on podcasts, Karen Stollznow on blogging, Blake “Dr. Atlantis” Smith on skeptical Web sites, and Tim Farley on video skepticism. Reed Esau tells us about a new program called SkeptiCamp, and Daniel Loxton provides a follow-up to his insightful “Where Do We Go From Here?” essay about the future of skepticism, asking “What Do We Do Next?”

Today’s teens have never known a time when Google and Wikipedia weren’t available to answer any question (accurately or otherwise) with a few clicks. They didn’t grow up watching Cosmos or In Search Of (or even That’s Incredible! or Unsolved Mysteries); their television is largely cable TV dominated by mystery-mongering programming.

I grew up reading about real skeptical investigations by real people like James Randi and fictional ones such as Encyclopedia Brown and Scooby Doo. To modern teens, these are ancient history. To many of them, “skeptical investigation” is symbolized by two mystery-mongering plumbers who moonlight as ghost hunters on the Sci Fi Channel. Young people remain fascinated by the paranormal and unexplained, and they would be interested in the skeptical point of view if they were exposed to it.

The Internet, like any new medium, has been both a blessing and a curse for skeptics. New examples of woo-woo can spread across the globe in a matter of seconds, but with diligence, skeptical commentary can follow closely behind.

Every generation has wrung its hands about “kids today.” During my travels to a conference a few months ago, I saw near-constant refutation of the idea that “people don’t read anymore.” On planes, on subways, and in waiting areas, most people were reading. A few chatted on cell phones, but the majority of them had a newspaper or some best-selling paperback in front of them. Circulation and readership of newspapers and magazines has experienced a steady decline over the past decade, but the reading hasn’t stopped; it’s gone online and found new venues.

I’m also skeptical of the idea that people don’t write. Andrea Lunsford, a Stanford professor researching the writing habits of today’s youth, has found that young people today write far more than previous generations did. Much of it is in the context of online social networking (such as Facebook, MySpace, and Twitter); while this is not the same caliber of writing as analyzing themes in Animal Farm, this self-initiated, non-scholastic discourse is encouraging. Before there was a virtual outlet for an individual’s writing, many Americans wrote very little that was not required outside of academia, a career, or a diary. Just as comic books, graphic novels, and Harry Potter books may be stepping stones to more “serious” literature, kids who instant message each other may one day be writing, or critiquing, great works.

The forms and forums are changing, but science, skepticism, and critical thinking will always be with us. The next generation of skeptics—the activists and leaders of Skepticism 2.0—will forge paths ahead.

—Benjamin Radford, guest editor

I am terrified about the recent talk about poles reversing and 2012. Do I need to prepare myself and accept this?

In late December 2012, three planets will line up correct? And the earth will pass next to the black hole in orion’s belt, and turn our planet upside down. My question is, will the earth’s gravity withstand it and hold us up and the oceans from going wild?

According to NASA scientists, the earth will stand still for about three days and then, in one hour, rotate a full 90 degrees (the geographical pole shift) during which time winds will be an average of 200 miles per hour. Every volcano on earth will erupt and of course there will be many earthquakes, so two thirds of earth’s population will die in that one hour. Is this true??

How can an astrobiologist have anything to say scientifically about nibiru, the Shumerian planet? With scientists around the world finding facts in the existing scriptures on everything else, including Pluto, then why would we not believe them about nibiru? How can we say nibiru doesn’t exist if science is only in the past few decades catching up with a science that has existed before civilized man?

There are various recent pictures and videos of an unidentified object that is beside the sun. If it is not Planet X what is it? I myself took a picture of the sun and have also captured the same object.

I am a legal administrative assistant and, having done my share of investigation, I find that the fact that the sun will pass in front of the earth and roughly eclipse the black hole at the centre of the Milky Way on Dec 21, 2012 decidedly compelling. There seems to be so much real evidence supporting the fact that something extraordinary is happening or going to happen, that I cannot simply dismiss it.

If Nibiru is a hoax, please explain to me why have you not tried to confirm this with the media to at least drain some fear out of the many people who are falling for this hoax.

Someone has said that the Nibiru can be visible by our eyes since 15th May 2009 in south hemisphere. Someone also said that you, NASA have known this planet X, Nibiru since 1983. I really feel afraid of the end of world. Please tell me the truth!!

Why NASA is hiding facts about nibiru? It really exists beyond pluto. There is photo proof for that. It seems to me that you and NASA hide something big.

I am from Pakistan, and here the propaganda of 2012 is rising day by day. A lot of people is doing business from 2012. My question is why is NASA not condemning these hoax?

Why doesn’t you and your government put a ban on the TV shows and report telecasting about Nibiru? If US can step to protect the world physically from terrorism, why can’t it protect us mentally from these news, if they are hoax?

If you claim that the nibiru planet is a hoax why is there actual footage from the nasa stating that the planet exists?

I am a Russian journalist. We in this country have many people who are anxious about problem Nibiru. I know that serious scientists including in the USA do not accept Nibiru theory of Zecharia Sitchin. But tell, please, who from the scientific USA does not support even the existence of Nibiru?

I don’t believe NASA. Nibiru will throw modern-day science as we know it for a loop. NASA knows it’s there, but all will be revealed soon. . . . So why are you not telling the truth? Please answer me, I’m a boy, and I’m 16 years old.

If Nibiru is such a hoax then why was it on the History Channel and why don’t you guys have censors for such “hoaxes” then? I have four little babies and I think all of the human race deserves to know the truth from you “experts”. If it’s real then do the right thing; if not quit letting these hoaxes confuse true issues please.

One of the things we are most proud of is that for at least fifteen years we have supported the Presidential Awards for Excellence in Mathematics and Science Teaching program (PAEMST). This is the United States highest presidential honor for the teaching of mathematics and science. Each year 108 outstanding teachers of mathematics and science at the elementary or secondary level are honored for their contributions to teaching and learning. Each year we donate a gift subscription of Skeptical Inquirer to each and every recipient of this award. We feel it is important for us to support these wonderful teachers as they educate our future generations.

Over the years we have provided scholarships to a number of students (both high school and college) attending various CSI events, including our national and regional conferences, as well as events like the Skeptic’s Toolbox held annually at the University of Oregon. We have also provided a number of Research Fellowships to students studying in the fields of science and anomalistic psychology at locations such as Goldsmiths College in London and the University of Hertfordshire under the Direction of such famed lectures as Christopher French and Richard Wiseman. As I write this update, we have the Center for Inquiry Institute going on here in Amherst. Joe Nickell is conducting a workshop on investigating the paranormal. Along with a number of participants from around the United States, we have helped sponsor three students from Russia, as well as two people from China. We have also had an internship program where young people can come here learn about science and reason and work with us on projects such as running a conference and establishing local groups.

Speaking of education, over the last few years we have received well over 300 requests from textbook publishers, university professors, as well as newspapers, magazines, local skeptical and humanist groups, and even television shows and movie producers, to include material originally published in the Skeptical Inquirer in their works. We try and accommodate as many of these requests as we can, for we know this material will continue to have reach and effect long after you’ve put down the magazine.

The Committee for Skeptical Inquiry also publishes a number of books, anthologies of Skeptical Inquirer articles. At least two of these books, The Outer Edge and Bizarre Cases, have been used by several colleges across the United States for use in courses ranging from psychology to logic and critical thinking. One book that CSI published was a book for young children called Bringing UFOs Down To Earth, by Philip J. Klass. Over the years CSI and the Skeptical Inquirer field voluminous requests from school children around the world for information on UFOs. It got to be too much for us to photocopy selected articles to send them in response to their questions. This book was commissioned by CSI to act as a primer on UFOs in term and examples that children would find useful, entertaining, and educational. We must have given away hundreds of this booklet over the years, and at one point Prometheus Books published a version in their children’s book series for far wider distribution. We still send copies of the book even now.

One of CSI’s crowning achievements in reaching and teaching young skeptics is our involvement with the Camp Inquiry program. This year was our fourth year of participation in the program and we are delighted to report that this was the biggest year ever, with forty-five campers ages 7-16 taking part in the week long event. The Camp Inquiry Web site states: “We think kids are uniquely situated to enjoy a new ‘Age of Discovery.’ Where others may see turbulent seas and dangerous impasses, we see opportunities—to create, to forge new paths, to open new communications, to tell new stories. And the best part is, the tools have been around for ages: science, reason, and skepticism remain the best means by which to navigate these unpredictable waters.”

Another activity with which we help sponsor is the Campus Outreach program run by the Center for Inquiry. This program helps establish and maintain groups, programs, and activities at hundreds of colleges and universities across North America, as well as a number of other countries. We send these groups issues of the Skeptical Inquirer and information flyers for use as promotional material and handouts at their meetings and events, assist them with bringing in speakers, training in running events and community organizing. Each year we help bring in a number of leaders of these groups to our headquarters in Amherst, NY for training lectures and workshops, as well as providing them with the chance to meet others just like them who share the same issues and experiences.

Finally, a number of years ago CSI developed a fun event for the whole family. It was called the Superstition Bash, and included such things as running a superstition obstacle course; psychic misreadings, and misfortune cookies. We were overjoyed to see this concept used and adapted by the Exploratorium in San Francisco last year, exposing the public to critical thinking about dangers and fallacies of superstition and magical thinking. Educating the next generation of skeptics is an important task, and one which we can all contribute.

This story began with predictions that Nibiru, supposedly a planet discovered by the Sumerians, is headed toward Earth. Zecharia Sitchin, who writes fiction about the ancient Mesopotamian civilization of Sumer, claimed in several books (e.g., The Twelfth Planet, published in 1976) that he has found and translated Sumerian documents that identify the planet Nibiru, orbiting the Sun every 3,600 years. Sitchin has sold many books about these Sumerian fables, which include stories of “ancient astronauts” called the Anunnaki who aided the Sumerians. Then Nancy Lieder, a self-declared psychic who claims she communicates with aliens, wrote on her Web site ZetaTalk that inhabitants of a fictional planet around the star Zeta Reticuli warned her that the Earth was in danger from Planet X, or Nibiru. This catastrophe was initially predicted for May 2003, but when nothing happened, the doomsday date was moved to December 2012.

These two Nibiru fables were greatly amplified when linked with the turn-over of the Mayan long-count calendar at or near the winter solstice of 2012. Many Web sites sprang up declaring that December 21, 2012, would be the end of the world, a time of violent physical and spiritual transformation—never mind that the real end for Mayan civilization came several hundred years earlier with the European invasion of the Americas. This spring I counted more than 175 books on the 2012 doomsday listed on Amazon.com, where the most popular themes are the Mayan calendar and ways to survive the coming apocalypse.

Of course, Nibiru does not exist. A large planet (or a brown dwarf) in our solar system would have been known to astronomers for decades, both indirectly from its gravitational perturbations on other objects and by direct detection in the infrared. The NASA Infrared Astronomy Satellite (IRAS) carried out the first all-sky survey in 1983, which, along with several subsequent surveys, would have seen Nibiru if it was there. However, the Nibiru proponents have asserted that Nibiru was hiding—that it remained behind the Sun for several years or that it could be seen only from the South Pole. Both of these are geometrically absurd statements. Most of the so-called Nibiru photos on the Web are lens flare produced when a camera points at a bright source, an artifact also responsible for many UFO photos. As it approaches Earth, of course, Nibiru should be increasing in brightness. In fact, if it were going to be inside Earth’s orbit in three years, it should have already reached naked-eye visibility, and tens of thousands of astronomers, both amateur and professional, would be tracking it.

As the story grows in complexity, many more doomsday scenarios are being suggested, often unrelated to Nibiru. These include a reversal of the Earth’s magnetic field, severe solar storms associated with the eleven-year solar cycle (which may peak in 2012), a reversal of Earth’s rotation axis, a 90 degree flip of the rotation axis, bombardment by large comets or asteroids, and bombardment by gamma rays or various unspecified lethal rays coming from the center of the Milky Way Galaxy or the “dark rift” seen in a nearby galactic spiral arm. A major theme has become celestial alignments, which fascinate laypersons. Supposedly, the Sun will align with the galactic center (or maybe with the Milky Way Dark Rift) on December 21, 2012, subjecting us to potentially deadly forces.

All of these pseudoscientific claims, together with distrust of the government, are being amplified by publicity for the new film from Columbia Pictures, titled simply “2012,” to be released in November 2009. The film’s trailer, appearing in theaters and on its Web site www.whowillsurvive2012.com, shows a tidal wave breaking over the Himalayas with only the following words: “How would the governments of our planet prepare 6 billion people for the end of the world? [long pause] They wouldn’t. [long pause] Find out the Truth. Google search 2012.”

The film publicity includes creation of a faux scientific Web site for “The Institute for Human Continuity,” which is entirely fictitious. According to this Web site, the IHC is dedicated to scientific research and public preparedness. Its mission is the survival of mankind, and the Institute was supposedly founded in 1978 by international leaders of government, business, and science. In 2004, it claims, IHC scientists confirmed with 94 percent certainty that the world would be destroyed in 2012. This Web site encourages people to register for a lottery to select those who will be saved; a colleague of mine submitted the name of her cat, which was accepted. I learned from Wikipedia that creating fake Web sites is a recent advertising technique called viral marketing, analogous to computer viruses.

The Nibiru 2012 hoax was initially spread by the Internet. Now at least one TV cable show per week deals with this coming apocalypse. Most of these seem to be on the History Channel and the Discovery Channel. Much of the recent coverage focuses on Nostradamus (who else?), who is now credited with predicting doomsday in 2012. The story has also been reported on Fox News, and I anticipate intensified media coverage over the next three years.

The doomsday scenario is spreading internationally; about half the questions I receive about Nibiru/2012 on my Web site now come from outside the U.S. Many write from India, saying they read about Nibiru in the newspapers. A journalist said that many people in Russia “are anxious by problem Nibiru.” A correspondent from Pakistan wrote, “The propaganda of 2012 is rising day by day. Why is NASA is not condemning these hoax?” The theme of censorship is often raised. One woman asked “why you and your government dont put a ban on the TV shows and report telecasting about Nibiru and 2012. If US can step to protect the world physically from terrorism, why can’t it protect us mentally from these news, if they are hoax?” Another woman pleaded, “I have four little babies and I think all of the human race deserves to know the truth from you ‘experts’. If it’s real then do the right thing; if not quit letting these hoaxes confuse true issues please.”

I continue to receive several email questions every day about Nibiru and 2012, sent to the NASA Web site “Ask an Astrobiologist”. See the sidebar for some examples received during just two weeks in May 2009. Many questioners are frightened, angry, or both. To my surprise, I have not seen much evidence that other scientists or skeptics are concerned about this growing outbreak of pseudoscience. More than a hundred past replies of mine are posted on the astrobiology Web site and also referenced on the NASA home page. A few news blogs such as Yahoo also provide truthful answers, but these are drowned out by the 2012 hysteria. I give credit to Wikipedia, which has several entries on Nibiru, including a very good overview of the pseudoscience under “Nibiru collision.” But questions keep streaming in, and I fear this will not be my last update on this subject.