The 'world's most respected science journal' Nature starts on the road to Perdition

nature-screws-themselves

I never in my life thought I’d see this article, never. I witnessed the corruption of National Geographic and Scientific American into political cesspools, but I never thought this would happen. Nature has sunk to the depths of blatant political advocacy. They don’t even seem to read their own writing, because the first line says:

In March 2011, this publication suggested that the US Congress seemed lost in the “intellectual wilderness”.

The Republicans had taken over the House of Representatives, and one of the early acts of the chamber’s science committee was to approve legislation that denied the threat of climate change. As it turns out, this was just one tiny piece of a broader populist movement that was poised to transform the US political scene. Judging by the current presidential campaign, when it comes to reason, decency and use of evidence, much of the country’s political system seems to have lost its way.

It seems Nature has lost its way in the “intellectual wilderness” too, because your mission is (or was) science, not political advocacy.

Nature’s original mission statement was published for the first time on 11 November 1869. The journal’s original mission statement was revised in 2000. The original mission statement is reproduced below:

Original Nature masthead

“To the solid ground

Of Nature trusts the mind that builds for aye.” – WORDSWORTH

THE object which it is proposed to attain by this periodical may be broadly stated as follows. It is intended

FIRST, to place before the general public the grand results of Scientific Work and Scientific Discovery ; and to urge the claims of Science to a more general recognition in Education and in Daily Life ;

And, SECONDLY, to aid Scientific men themselves, by giving early information of all advances made in any branch of Natural knowledge throughout the world, and by affording them an opportunity of discussing the various Scientific questions which arise from time to time.

To accomplish this twofold object, the following plan will be followed as closely as possible :

Those portions of the Paper more especially devoted to the discussion of matters interesting to the public at large will contain:

I. Articles written by men eminent in Science on subjects connected with the various points of contact of Natural knowledge with practical affairs, the public health, and material progress ; and on the advancement of Science, and its educational and civilizing functions.

II. Full accounts, illustrated when necessary, of Scientific Discoveries of general interest.

III. Records of all efforts made for the encouragement of Natural knowledge in our Colleges and Schools, and notices of aids to Science-teaching.

IV. Full Reviews of Scientific Works, especially directed to the exact Scientific ground gone over, and the contributions to knowledge, whether in the shape of new facts, maps, illustrations, tables, and the like, which they may contain.

In those portions of “NATURE” more especially interesting to Scientific men will be given :

V. Abstracts of important Papers communicated to the British, American, and Continental Scientific societies and periodicals/

VI.Reports of the Meetings of Scientific bodies at home and abroad.

In addition to the above, there will be columns devoted to Correspondence.


Here is the revised mission statement from 2000:


Citations and Impact Factor

Nature is the world’s most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal, according to the 2013 Journal Citation Reports Science Edition (Thomson Reuters, 2014). Its Impact Factor is 42.351. The impact factor of a journal is calculated by dividing the number of citations in a calendar year to the source items published in that journal during the previous two years. It is an independent measure calculated by Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, USA.

Aims and scope

Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions. Nature also provides rapid, authoritative, insightful and arresting news and interpretation of topical and coming trends affecting science, scientists and the wider public.

Nature‘s mission statement

First, to serve scientists through prompt publication of significant advances in any branch of science, and to provide a forum for the reporting and discussion of news and issues concerning science. Second, to ensure that the results of science are rapidly disseminated to the public throughout the world, in a fashion that conveys their significance for knowledge, culture and daily life.


Notice that POLITICS or POLITICAL ENDORSEMENT isn’t part of either.

And they close the Clinton endorsement with this paragraph:

Although both parties have become more extreme over the past two decades, conservatives have turned their backs on mainstream science to an unprecedented degree. If there is any good news, it’s that everybody now recognizes that the Republican Party has a problem. A new generation of conservative leaders will need to set a fresh course. In the meantime, Clinton must take the reins.

The irony is thick, and they don’t get what they’ve just done. They are no longer about science, and are little better than a political rag now. It doesn’t matter that they supported Hillary, it would have been equally bad if they supported Trump. Science and politics just don’t mix, and they’ve started themselves on the slippery slope to Perdition. But, surely they’ll say they had “good intentions”.

 

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

262 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
kim
October 25, 2016 8:18 am

I’ve had a tiny hint lately that the journal Science may return to a little sense. Whispers, in the wind.
==========

ShrNfr
Reply to  kim
October 25, 2016 9:48 am

I threw my AAAS membership into the toilet a long time ago. They were being blatantly biased many years ago.
It is time that the common person recaptured the government and scientists and engineers of integrity recaptured their fields. Science and engineering have been overtaken by elitist Lysenkoism and the phrenologists, and politics have been taken over by the self-anointed. Both will result in misappropriation of resources and excess mortality, morbidity and misery.

Reply to  ShrNfr
October 25, 2016 10:41 am

I would probably renew my membership in the American Chemical Society, the AAAS , and others. The problem is whether the people on the boards would take the criticism of their stance seriously, or dismiss it in favor of their pet belief. Nor do I know how far they have been corrupted. It seems that there are no fair minded individuals left on those boards. I haven’t seen or read one coherent article that is skeptical of the love affair with climate change. Somebody there has to be questioning the entire idea of climate change by co2. They are either all political hacks or none of them can do math. There simply is no way around it, the AGW math says it should be much much warmer than the slight warming we’ve had, if we’ve actually had any warming. The UN is on another rant. By the way, anybody invited to Morocco?

Jeff Alberts
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 25, 2016 7:23 pm

“Science and engineering have been overtaken by elitist Lysenkoism and the phrenologists, and politics have been taken over by the self-anointed.”
With respect, by quitting, you’re allowing the spread of these things to continue. the change has to come from within by those members who still have integrity.

Reply to  ShrNfr
October 25, 2016 10:00 pm

Jeff, while I agree change must come within, if the members wishes’ are being ignored to the degree they seem to be, the best bet is for EVERY member to quit and collapse the body. Then rebuild from the ashes.

pokerguy
Reply to  ShrNfr
October 26, 2016 7:44 am

They think they’re defending science against the Philistines. They don’t think of it as primarily political.

PaulH
October 25, 2016 8:19 am

And they wonder why the print media is losing money and subscribers.
/shaking my head

Hugs
Reply to  PaulH
October 25, 2016 11:19 am

Nature has sunk to the depths of blatant political advocacy.

They lose money and subscribers because they’ve become politically biased. And it seems to be in vain to try to point this out to them.

Reply to  Hugs
October 25, 2016 5:26 pm

It would be nice if Nature would eventually get back to objective science, but I doubt they ever will. Climate research should be just that, not political agenda. Until the money source reads them the riot act, they will not change.

Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 8:25 am

If you think that’s bad, you should watch the UK’s Daily Politics show of today’s date. Staggering:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b080xry0/daily-politics-25102016
I just hope it’s available outside the UK. The panel discussion afterwards was equally bizarre.
Ian

Ian_UK
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 8:29 am

I should have added, FF to 50 mins 40 secs. Sorry.
Ian

Pcar
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 6:58 pm

Daily Politics becomes Andy Pandy fiction entertainment
Video: Daily.Politics.161025.CO2.Mad.Professor.PDTV.x264-Pcar https://vid.me/DC9Y
Video Daily.Politics.161025.CO2.Mad.Professor.PDTV.x264-Pcar

Marcus
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 9:40 am

Not available outside the U.K. unless you use a VPN..

ShrNfr
Reply to  Marcus
October 25, 2016 9:49 am

I guess they are properly ashamed of it.

climatereason
Editor
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 9:40 am

Ian
I am in the UK and sat through the video. The female presenter seemed a little bemused by the whole procedure
I went to the source of the Nature article linked to above and was surprised to se the actual headline was theirs, as I thought someone At WUWT was indulging in hyperbole and had ambitions to become the resident tabloid headline writer.
obviously many of the commenters to the Nature site were also surprised.
I could not bring myself to vote for either of these two very poor candidates. I am surprised Nature is endorsing one of them and seems oblivious to her many faults.
tonyb

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  climatereason
October 25, 2016 9:57 am

“I am surprised Nature is endorsing one of them and seems oblivious to her many faults”
They’ve calculated that her administration is more likely to give them other people’s money.

Tom O
Reply to  climatereason
October 25, 2016 10:29 am

Not sure why you wouldn’t vote for either of “those very poor candidates,” since you have undoubtedly voted for poorer ones in the UK. I don’t think you understand the US, anymore than do I truly understand the UK. I, for example, have never understood how anyone could have supported Blair or Cameron given their stated positions. to each side of the ocean, their own value set. Thankfully.

Gerry, England
Reply to  climatereason
October 25, 2016 1:10 pm

Tom O, in the UK only a small group – one constituency – actually votes for Blair or Cameron or whoever as they are just another MP. We don’t have the presidential head to head system. As leader of the winning party they get the PM job. The trouble is not enough people don’t vote if they don’t like choices on offer. A huge drop in turnout to say 20-25% might just be a wake up call that we hate the whole lot of them.

Richie
Reply to  climatereason
October 26, 2016 5:29 am

“Nature” obviously views itself as Defender of the Faith.

PhilW
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 10:11 am

More superb science from the biased BBC here https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ge0jhYDcazY

mwh
Reply to  PhilW
October 25, 2016 11:07 am

It is incredibly hard to believe that anyone could be that stupid , pumping warm or even hot carbon dioxide from and exothermic reaction into a bottle – the temperature would have gone up several degrees without the lamps on but due to lack of scientific rigour she didnt bother to have controls operating that didnt have the lights on or at least a temperature guage in the reaction vessel – awful, awful science – if she is a teacher…….definitely detention for not paying attention in science class

Reply to  PhilW
October 25, 2016 5:58 pm

Sadly those scientists and (less) engineers employed by the BBC in a sciencey capacity often and unwisely imho getting dragged into doing other staged stuff outside their field of expertise – where they trade their dignity and credibility to keep on the gravy train.
The BBC regularly contrives to leverage credibility in one field to lend authority and trust to something cooked up and staged by an activist production team.
As for Nature…. pfffff.. wow… ….

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 12:36 pm

Far from proving the acidity of the oceans and its threat to coral all this has shown is that while Boris got the brains his brother got the offal: he’s full of it.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Ian_UK
October 25, 2016 2:29 pm

Absolute political junk science – Prof Martyn Poliakoff cherry picking chemical reactions to gain political ‘friends’ & more funding.
now repeat the experiment; using seawater & CO2 at the ppm found in the oceans & show what realty happens in the full chemical reaction.

Reply to  1saveenergy
October 25, 2016 3:33 pm

If the “Corals”on the Great Barrier Reef are dead,then we may as well dredge a direct path through it,so the ships don’t have to go around the reef.

Rob
October 25, 2016 8:34 am

And all of this supposed loss of intellectual rigour among politicians(!) is due to one issue – climate change.

Louis
Reply to  Rob
October 25, 2016 10:02 am

Yes, the pseudo-science of climate change supersedes all other science to these people.

gnomish
Reply to  Rob
October 25, 2016 1:26 pm

CAGW is the religion of peace.
the science is settled.
CO2 akbar!

csanborn
October 25, 2016 8:39 am

Like in politics, science publications will now give you a pond full of pure water to get you to drink a pint of poison.

October 25, 2016 8:41 am

…are we crying over the loss…?

Resourceguy
October 25, 2016 8:41 am

Global mass extinctions are not limited to species; the truth and unbiased institutions also succumb in such widespread events.

Dick of Utah
October 25, 2016 8:46 am

You scratch her back, she’ll scratch yours. This is Nature joining the new reality.

Harry Passfield
Reply to  Dick of Utah
October 25, 2016 12:47 pm

…But she’ll draw blood!

RockyRoad
Reply to  Harry Passfield
October 25, 2016 3:10 pm

She’s not called a black widow for no reason.

October 25, 2016 8:49 am

“Global warming causes increased greed amongst liberals and lefties.”
Can I get some dosh to study that please? (Just until the oil price picks up again and I can get back to looking at rocks for a living.)

Alan Roberson
October 25, 2016 8:50 am

Pardon, but Nature has been suspect for some time.
I fully agree that they’ve shown their hand, with this article.

aetherwizard
October 25, 2016 8:55 am

This is really nothing new. Science has been mired in politics for over 100 years. This latest revelation is just the political factions becoming more visible.

Bubba Cow
Reply to  aetherwizard
October 25, 2016 9:43 am

With the End of Obama, they feel “safe” to crawly out from under their rock, but I don’t believe the light of day will be kind to them.
Media is desperate for the HildaBeast.

Nigel S
October 25, 2016 8:56 am

Take the reins in the Phaeton sense I suppose.
‘It’s a hard rain’s a-gonna fall.’

Bob Weber
October 25, 2016 8:59 am

They are taking this stance in part because Trump has promised to wipe the slate clean of this type of behavior in government sponsored science, and they are simply doubling down on stupid here, an in your face, “‘oh no you won’t’ meddle with our [misplaced] science and political advocacy, nor our vast funding.”
All the C/AGW proponents will to have to discuss in the future is their former golden era, when they fooled themselves and everyone but skeptics into thinking that they had the upper hand scientifically. Their legacy and prestige is coming apart at the seams under their own hubris, at their own hand.
I consider this to be another political ad bought and paid for by Clinton’s fellow travelers, who have demonstrated nothing is beneath them when it comes to stealing this election.
Real NATURE is presently overruling Nature. How will they save face? By imposing groupthink.
The SUN rules NATURE, not CO2!

October 25, 2016 9:00 am

https://wattsupwiththat.com/2016/09/28/solar-variability-and-the-earths-climate/comment-page-1/#comment-2316211
[excerpt]
However, I do agree with you that peer review as practiced by leading journals such as Nature and Science is mere pal review, and these once-great journals have recently published a pile of utter crap, especially about manmade global warming.
I suggest that the internet and forums such as wattsup are the new, much better and more transparent form of peer review. Publish, let others comment, take your lumps, and let your results stand or fall as they may.

October 25, 2016 9:01 am

I confess that I am not as shocked; with a vantage point inside academia and as a reasonably well-published scientist, I’ve observed that Nature has for some time veering off course in significant ways. While their mission might, at one time, have been to publish research deemed significant from an unbiased perspective, in recent years significance has been replaced by ‘high impact’, a numerical score that measures the citations of articles within the journal. However, there is one problem: Nature screens articles for impact by looking at the reference list of the article. If an article cites plenty of Nature papers, it is considered. If not, it is by definition ‘low impact’. Since the impact factor of journals includes self-citations (citations of Nature articles by Nature articles), they have engineered a self-sustaining impact factor. Through this they have convinced scientists all over the world that publishing an article in Nature is the ticket to promotion and tenure. Their 20 specialty journals charge USD 7000 each for an institutional subscription.
Despite this (or perhaps because of it) I’ve found many examples of either trivial or questionable research in my own field published in Nature. I’m afraid that the political posturing is simply reflective of a journal that has become convinced that it bears no risk, that it can say, do, or act in any way its owners and editors wish without consequence. I’m further afraid that the elitism present in these sorts of attitudes and actions are all to common in scientific leaders.

bobthebear
Reply to  thomasbrown32000
October 25, 2016 10:54 am

Tom, what is your field? Why would you be against free speech. Nature’s editorial staff has a right to expressing their opinions about things other than nature or science. Don’t you agree?

Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 11:04 am

bobthebear,
“Nature’s editorial staff has a right to expressing their opinions”
Except that outright lying by any publication for political purposes is far over the line, especially when just the opportunity cost of those lies is measured in the trillions. If it was a person, other than CO2 being vilified, it would be called slander.

Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 11:07 am

Bob that’s true, but they should change their name from Nature to Political Science Quarterly or American Interest or Foreign Affairs or Foreign Policy…. at the very least American Interest ran an article skeptical of the path current climate change policy is taking us. ( about 2 years ago)

Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 11:28 am

Yep. It is called a Letter to the Editor of their local (or even national) Paper. But when I go to buy a car, I do not want a lecture on who is better for president. Just like I do not accept medical advice from my car mechanic.

Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 12:25 pm

All good responses … I don’t think the issue is free speech. Rather it is the problem that arises when one publication becomes the de facto gatekeeper, eventually getting to dictate what represents good science. When one group has that power, after awhile they begin to actually believe that they are both better scientists and better people than the great unwashed masses.

rogerknights
Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 1:37 pm

Much better this openness of theirs than covert bias in selecting and peer-reviewing articles.

Ged
Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 1:53 pm

Simple, it’s called conflict of interest https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conflict_of_interest
Science is meant to be apolitical to avoid influence by any outside force or ideology, and Nature represents more than just American researchers and interests. What they have done is violate that core principle and declare a straight up conflict of interest.
Freedom of Speech means the editors can personally on their own with their personal accounts voice their feelings and thoughts on politics. But Nature is not a platform or soapbox for anything except sharing scientific discoveries, and politics immediately corrupts it.

Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2016 9:08 am

“…conservatives have turned their backs on mainstream science to an unprecedented degree…”. Uh, no, but judging from that statement, liberals have turned their backs on logic to an unprecedented degree.

Mary Brown
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
October 25, 2016 12:04 pm

Please don’t call them liberals. They aren’t. Liberals believe in liberty.

Mikeyj
Reply to  Mary Brown
October 25, 2016 1:01 pm

socialist progressive is more accurate

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Mary Brown
October 25, 2016 1:53 pm

Mary, how about Marxists or radical leftists?

JPeden
Reply to  Mary Brown
October 25, 2016 4:26 pm

Dem-Progressives are Ideological Liberals: they say what they’re supposed to say in order to stay with the Totalitarian Agenda of the “Liberal” Progressive-Dem Party. So they simply repeat and “believe” Dogma as “truths” about Reality. The Totalitarian Agenda is only to manipulate people so as to produce nothing having to do with Liberty. North Korea would be more like it.
Classical Liberals do not say what they are supposed to say, since they/we depend on our inherent rational capacities to figure things out for ourselves, with the aid of a lot of other people similarly oriented – such as almost everyone here at WUWT.
Hardly anyone not familiar with the terminology knows what the term “Classical Liberal” means as opposed to “Liberal”, so I use “Classical Liberal” mostly to upbraid Ideological Liberals who think they’re operating at the same level as, say, the “Liberal” Enlightenment people who Founded America and Empirical Science.
The Totalitarians are using the old trick of keeping a word, but changing its meaning in practice to even its opposite, while still wanting to keep the original meaning as it was practiced. They do this 24/7. Now Climate/Climate Change in their practice means “CO2-Climate Change”, so they don’t mention the “CO2”.
I learned about this trick in a Philosophy Class around 1965, but now even “Philosophers” think their Degree allows them to tell everyone what the “correct” Philosophy is. It would be pretty funny or pitiful, if this kind of thing didn’t work to self-gratify so many people, and to fool themselves and other people. It is the Dems own “Perception is Reality” [Delusionalism] since “Perception is Reality” is a good definition of someone who is “Clinically Deluded”. Otherwise, “Perception is Reality” is used as a tactic to delude other people, such as by what they call “mainstream Climate Science”, which is really only a massive Propaganda Operation.
Thank the Stars I’m not allowed to write more that 140 characters on Twitter!

Reply to  JPeden
October 25, 2016 4:48 pm

JPeden,
In some parts of the world, Liberal refers to a more Libertarian point of view and is about as anti progressive left as you can get.
Progressive left politics in America is defined by taking the easy ‘feel good’ path, not for the benefit of constituents, but for the benefit of political ambition since hard choices are often bad politically. Look at what ‘everybody deserves a handout’ has done to our inner cities, or how the ‘if we’re nice to them, they’ll be nice to us’ foreign policy has led to the rise of Isis, the unabated nuclear ambitions of Iran and North Korea, one sided trade deals and more. Climate change is much the same thing, where they have become deluded into thinking they’re saving the world which is the ‘feel good’ path which gets reinforced by a progressive left media that considers anyone who doesn’t agree with them deplorable. This progressive left ideology where catastrophe is misrepresented as hope and truth is deprecated with lies is a failed experiment and it’s time for it to be discarded.

Reply to  Mary Brown
October 25, 2016 10:29 pm

Notes from 2012 – looks like we chose Option B (the quagmire) below.
http://wattsupwiththat.com/2012/08/28/germanys-new-renewable-energy-policy/#comment-1067214
[excerpt]
In North America, we too have our share of CAGW scoundrels and imbeciles – an ignorant stew of Harpo and Groucho Marxists who are convinced that if all industry were shut down and everyone worked for the government, the economy would perk along just fine. These leftist ideologues appeal to that idiot 30% of humanity who are somehow convinced they are much more intelligent than the rest of us, despite their lack of any technical or economic competence.
From time to time, these ideologues gain power and proceed to wreak havoc upon their economies – witness the Canadian Liberals under Pierre Trudeau and Jean Chretien, or the Ontario Liberals under Doltan McGuinty. Out of neighbourly courtesy, I will not comment on USA politics.
Because of the boom in cheap natural gas from shale, and similar apparent success in shale oil, North America is again enjoying abundant cheap energy. The question is, will we use this incredible competitive advantage to rebuild our economies and our manufacturing sectors, now increasingly outsourced to China, or will be squander this opportunity in a quagmire of regulatory incompetence and pseudo-environmental obstructionism?
Stay tuned.

Jim Watson
October 25, 2016 9:08 am

Perhaps they should change the name of their journal to “Human Nature,” since they have obviously succumbed to same.

October 25, 2016 9:13 am

You mention Scientific American which I had subscribe to along with Science News in about 1968, I was 12. I maintained these subscriptions into the 1990’s about 25 years. For most of those years I looked eagerly each month to learn about new theories, science and results from ongoing research. In the waning years I looked forward with fading hope of something of interest but ultimacy disappointed at the wishy-washy watered down articles and in many cases the horse sh#* that passed for science. Cheers, Mark * * *

bobthebear
Reply to  zzmabzz
October 25, 2016 10:58 am

Go back to sleep, zz…zz. Apparently the smarts you had when you were young, have left you. What a shame.

Reply to  bobthebear
October 25, 2016 11:59 am

! bobthebear, regarding your comment to zzmabzz. Along that line of thinking bob, why don’t you quit posting here until you GET some smarts? Thanks.

catweazle666
Reply to  bobthebear
October 26, 2016 11:50 am

“Apparently the smarts you had when you were young, have left you.”
Oh, the irony…

Marty
Reply to  zzmabzz
October 25, 2016 12:40 pm

Same for me ZZ. I subscribed to them both shortly after I graduated from college in the early 1970’s and I used to read them cover to cover on the long boring train ride to work. Then I noticed in the 90’s that their quality was slipping badly. Scientific American in particular was running a lot of garbage articles. When Science News ran a long unscientific global warming scare story it was for me the final camel that broke the straw’s back. I dropped both magazines.
Just to generalized for a moment, there seems to be a systemic problem in the academic world and in journalism with group think and with a general intolerance of differing points of view.

TA
Reply to  Marty
October 25, 2016 5:16 pm

I did the same, Marty, ZZ. And it was specifically because they were pushing the human-caused global warming narrative.
I’m just glad Astronomy magazine doesn’t have many opportunities to discuss climate change. I still read that one. There have been a couple of opinion pieces chiding skeptics about climate change, but only a couple. They should stick to the stars and planets, and leave the science fiction to others.

Reply to  Marty
October 27, 2016 4:04 pm

TA – ’tis not science fiction. ‘Tis fantasy.
I call these “journals” Denatured, Fantasy News, and Insane American. (Former subscriber to some, and one of the first at the University Library Periodicals desk to get hold of others that I couldn’t afford.)
BTW, I stopped Insane American WAY back, when they were proclaiming that the “Next Ice Age” was nigh, and that if we just got rid of all of our missiles, those nice Communists would of course do the same…

Jeff (the other one)
October 25, 2016 9:16 am

Remember that Trump might just take down the educational-industrial complex. There goes the gravy train. This is largely about following the money.

Chimp
Reply to  Jeff (the other one)
October 25, 2016 5:22 pm

He could start by banning publishing in Nature any research funded by the US taxpayer.

October 25, 2016 9:19 am

Been inferrable for some time. Lots of really bad papers. But now its obvious rather than inferrable. Just like what McNutt finally made obvious via editorial at Science. The real and growing dilemma for both journals is that Mother Nature is disagreeing with their ‘climate science’. Observed ECS half of modeled. No warming this century except via Karlization. No acceleration in sea level rise. No tropical troposphere hotspot. Arctic ice hasn’t disappeared. Planet greening. Renewables black out South Australia.

Louis
Reply to  ristvan
October 25, 2016 10:08 am

If you would just swallow the blue pill, ristvan, you too could stay plugged in to the computer models and ignore reality.

Editor
Reply to  ristvan
October 25, 2016 3:25 pm

Nature‘s Aims include the publication of “surprising conclusions“. Yet they won’t publish the surprising conclusion that Mother Nature is disagreeing with their ‘climate science’. Methinks their treatment of surprise is rather selective.

DMA
October 25, 2016 9:21 am

“Science and politics just don’t mix, and they’ve started themselves on the slippery slope to Perdition.”
Looks to me like they jumped off the cliff.

Marcus
October 25, 2016 9:25 am

[Snip, off topic /mod]

October 25, 2016 9:27 am

[Snip, off topuc, though interesting /mod]

schitzree
Reply to  harkin1
October 25, 2016 11:03 am
October 25, 2016 9:29 am

Congress is lost in a wilderness alright.
It’s a deep, mysterious forest of money trees.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  rebelronin
October 25, 2016 10:00 am

“It’s a deep, mysterious forest of other people’s money trees.”
Fixed that for ya’.

October 25, 2016 9:42 am

It is political science

1 2 3 4