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:
“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”.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
While disappointing, it is not surprising. Politics corrupted mainstream science long ago. People wonder how “lysenkoism” could have existed, but then reassure themselves it was the old USSR. However that misses the point. Government pays for a product. Not for dissent. And it does not take a communist government to get what it pays for.
Maoism is a snowball rolling downhill. Can’t stop it, just ride it down to the bottom. Deep Green, snowflake culture, SJWism, are all of a piece and are here for the foreseeable future. God help us.
In the broadest scope, whenever two or more are gathered in the name of science…there is politics. In a way, Nature is just being uncharacteristically honest, not even bothering with the facade of knowledge for knowledge’s sake! With governments funding so much of the science that goes on these days, it is impossible for scientific organizations to remain apolitical.
As for not adhering to founding documents…have you read the US Constitution lately? Almost everything the US Government does is clearly un- or extra-constitutional. No one seems to care. Not even the Supreme Court, which was founded specifically for the purpose of protecting the Constitution against such degradation. If we don’t care about the documents our nation is supposed to be governed by, why would we care about the mission statement of a magazine?
The pendulum swings from renaissance and enlightenment to dark periods in human history. Guess where we are now. Clinton, Trump and Nature are just manifestations of the this point in the arc.
I tried the AAAS journal “Science” for awhile and was disappointed.
This question is intended to be real and not facetious. Is there a good science journal currently published in the English language?
“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.”
The problems Repubicans have is the advocates of human-caused climate change cannot prove what they claim: That humans are causing the climate to change in ways it would not do otherwise, without human intervention via CO2.
As soon as CAGW advocates come up with some proof, Republicans will get on board. But just saying something is so, doesn’t make it so. Saying humans are causing the climate to change does not make is so. Proof is what is required. You have no proof. You shouldn’t expect Republicans or any sensible person to get on board until you do.
Personally, what I require isn’t definite proof. I’d actually be willing to go along with at least some of the anti-CO2 measures if all they had was a good hypothesis and some evidence that could go either way. We really WON’T know for sure one way or the other about a lot of the measurements for decades, and sometimes you have to take a chance and bet on the unlikely be devastating possibility.
No, what I require is HONESTY. I require CAGW proponents who act like they believe the stuff they are repeating. I require ‘solutions’ that might actually effect the CO2 level and not just waste billions. I require Climate Scientists who don’t hide their data and constantly adjust their work. I require journals and papers that a 5 year old can’t see the holes in. I require Climate reporters who don’t create fake memos from their opponents. I require Activists who don’t constantly publish tweets, comments, articles, and videos that demand unbelievers be punished or fantasies about their deaths.
In short, I require the Climate Faithful to start acting like reasonable people and stop acting like a cult.
And I need it a decade ago, back before they destroyed their reputation with all this crap. Because it’s frankly to late by now.
have you heard mr pence reading his thoughts about evolution into the congressional record?
no politician has any use for truth, much less science.
it’s all about the narrative – whatever gets you to play at the voting casino.
to play is to lose. but you must believe you can win to be a proper chump.
Science and it’s public manifestations like Nature are undergoing a nessecary clarification. Good. While it is sad to watch from the cheap seats it is not unwanted or unexpected. The known known becomes visible to all.
Science in the West was captured by its funders the politicians over a long period of time. Lets have it out in the open where we can more readily defeat the thing.
Nature is the world’s most highly cited interdisciplinary science journal,
Job knew how to handle this kind of modesty:
No doubt but ye are the people, and wisdom shall die with you
About thirty years ago I first read an article about journalism students. When asked why they were taking the course the answer was “To change the world”. Not to report on the world. Saw it a few times since.
Also at about that time I was a regular reader of Scientific American. Then one edition started with a brief essay that native Indian cultures were not violent until Europeans arrived on the East Coast.
Subscription ended!
The next edition did publish a retraction and offered an apology. It took a lot of distorted anger to publish that foolish essay.
The rot continues, particularly in the collective garbage about man-forced climate change.
The way that these neo-bolsheviks (which is what they are) operate was nicely summarized by the great “iowahawk” (David Burge):
1) Find a respected institution.
2) Kill it.
3) Gut it.
4) Wear the carcass as a skin suit and demand respect.
Now would be a good time for everyone who has never done so to read what I think is George Orwell’s best work – his non-fiction memoir (of his time as a marxist volunteer in the Spanish civil war and how he came to his senses about marxism) “Homage to Catalonia.”
This is just another manifestation of a MSM that has gone nuts over supporting ‘feel good’ far left causes because emotion sells and the left deals in emotion, not logic. The truth no longer matters to either the media or the fools who unconditionally believe what they are told. The ‘progressive’ left takes advantage of the ignorance of their followers to obfuscate the fact that the policies they pursue are self destructive, ineffective, counter productive and foolish. This regressive left ideology is not at all concerned with the best interest of citizens, but only with the political ambitions of its proponents as they give lip service to the contrary. How the political left in combination with the MSM has infected climate science is a case in point, but this foolishness transcends climate science and will inevitably lead us to ruin, especially since this pathological condition has worked its way into the electoral process.
“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.”
Clicks on internet keys determine the worth of scientific articles? Is that better or worse than peer reviews?
There are so many problems with this that even I, neither a scientist nor a computer geek, can see huge problems. And that’s an understatement.
Are you kidding?
And “It is an independent measure calculated by Thomson Reuters, Philadelphia, USA.” (http://thomsonreuters.com/en.html)
Again, are you kidding?
Nature! Another magazine for the consensus set.
I wonder what it will take for you people (I assume you’re people) to get your heads out of the sand. To an adult you sound so whinny and small. It’s time to grow up and broaden your perspective. Is it possible that your thoughts on climate change may be wrong? What is the probability of you being correct in your assessment? What are the consequences if everybody agreed with you and then you were found to be wrong? Could the damage be corrected? How many lives would be lost, how many species would be lost? All so that you might be right, but could just as easily be wrong. Mathematics is not on your side. It’s fine to be skeptical, but not to the detriment of all other possibilities.
Mathematics is not on your side.
Them’s fightin’ words stranger. The only thing skeptics have on their side is math/science.
Mathematics is not on your side
I have written several articles for WUWT on climate science from a mathematical perspective. They show that (a) CO2 has not been a major driver of climate, (b) the way the climate models are tuned is mathematically invalid, (c) the climate models’ internal structure can never work.
bobthebear, you are so far off the mark that it is hard to know where to start to put you back on the track to reason. Perhaps you could start by reading stuff with an open mind. I suggest you start here:
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2015/11/08/inside-the-climate-computer-models/
Note that the arguments presented in this article have been confirmed by the (US) National Center for Atmospheric Research (NCAR). They performed 40 climate model runs in which changing the initial state by less than 0.000000000001 deg C (!! yes, really, a trillionth of a degree !!) caused a model’s results to change by several deg C.
Mathenatically, unequivocally, the climate models in their current form can never predict future climate.
Skepticism includes ALL possibilities! I would suggest you take your own suggestion. You need it more than anyone else here.
“It’s fine to be skeptical, but not to the detriment of all other possibilities.”
What the hell is that supposed to even mean? It’s every scientist’s job to be skeptical of every single thing and continue to be skeptical until the theory is mature and well enough tested to be invariably correct in its predictions. So far cagw has proved to be the diametric opposite of that and is invariably wrong in all of its predictions. So much so that the permanently embarrassed Mandarins of cagw were obliged to change the branding to ‘climate change’ which is forever completely unfalsifiable and cannot therefore even be said to lie within the remit of science at all.
bobthebear,
“It’s fine to be skeptical, but not to the detriment of all other possibilities.”
Main stream climate science is not just skeptical that the SB relationship and COE determines the steady state solution for a specific stimulus, but ignorantly insists that incremental CO2 both drives the steady state and supplies stimulus. So, are you saying that skepticism is OK when accompanied by ignorance, but when supported by science and math it’s not?
bobthebear,
It is the true believers to whom you should address your questions.
bobthebear,
Perhaps you imagine yourself sound logical and high minded but your vague holier than thou style of argument is just pathetic. Better rethink your strategy.
Dear Unbearable Bob,
I’ve lived in one place for the great majority of my seniority and I can personally testify that NOTHING HAS CHANGED concerning climate, sea level, or the peskiness of crows. The summers are hot, the winters are cold, the spring and fall are rainy, and plants will grow unless you beat them back into submission. What planet do you live on, where you have seen any climate change? (Urban heat island effect doesn’t count…which I assume you are familiar with, considering the breadth of your erudition.)
It s not about science, agw is ,was and always will be political.
And it is a Lie.
The Projection is strong in this one.
But srsly newfriend, which part of The Church of CAGW do you want to know the consequences of if we skeptics are wrong? Because the Climate Faithful have it wrong on pretty much every level. Their projections fail, their data needs constant adjustment, and their solutions don’t even work. And judging by the air miles and seaside homes accumulated by the High Priests of Climate they don’t even believe in it themselves.
But hey, lets give the Climate snake oil salesmen the benefit of the doubt and, just as a ‘what if’, pretend that a CO2 level over 350ppm really will cause Thermagedden. So what will happen then?
WE. ALL. DIE.
Well, maybe not ALLLLLLL of us. Just most. BILLIONS. Because we’ve been over 350ppm since the 80’s. And if the Climate Faithful were even half right then nothing we do can bring it back down again. Even if we stopped all Fossil Fuel burning tomorrow (and cement production, and raising farm animals, and whatever else we might be doing to produce ‘greenhouse gasses’) It would take centuries for the levels to return to the ‘natural’ (read ‘near killing point of most plants’) levels of CO2 we had before the Industrial Revolution.
And ending Fossil Fuel use world wide in anything less then 2 or 3 decades would be global suicide. ‘Renewables’ simply can’t provide the power that modern society uses. A crash course in building Nuclear power plants MIGHT have worked, but the Greens are anti-nuke even more then they are anti-carbon. Even if we could get such a Nuclear program off the ground and building globally, that still doesn’t solve the transportation problem. The past decade has proved that making Fossil Fuel free cars, trucks, trains, aircraft and ships will require far more then government throwing billions at Elon Musk.
The only way we could ‘Decarbonize’ the world economy would be to drastically cut back in energy production. Back to the energy production levels of the 1800’s. or even the 1700’s. I’m not even talking about just ‘Renewables’ like wind farms and solar panels. Producing both are themselves high energy industries. Aluminum production, Silicon, Rare Earths and high precision manufacturing. Just transporting the components for your average 5MW wind turbine and assembling them on site. All require an energy capacity
above what they can themselves produce. Even the large Hydroelectric Dams that were build in the last hundred years were built with the power of coal and oil. (not that they count as ‘Renewable” in the Greens crazy worldview) To truly Decarbonize we’d have to go back further, to what is truly ‘sustainable’ under it’s own power. Which means deindustrialization on a scale to make the Khmer Rouge look like a boy scout nature hike.
BILLIONS. DEAD. PERIOD.
The sad truth is, even if the Climate Faithful’s crazy CO2 induced apocalypse were a possibility, the alternative would be horrifically worse. With affordable energy we can survive even if the environment were to suffer devastating collapse. without it, we simply can’t support ourselves at our current levels, even without ‘Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming’.
Bob, any action we take in the West will have only an insignificant effect on temperature, etc. Only if our example inspires Asia to double or triple its electrical costs and follow in our footsteps would it be meaningful. (It won’t.)
Most of us need not speculate on how many lives will be lost. We have a pretty good handle on how many lives have already been lost thanks to you and your agendas. Fifty million from the ban on DDT alone. How many more thanks to the lack of other pesticides and fertilizers that were not made available to the poorer nations? How many more thanks to the lack of energy to run refrigeration, heating, transportation? How many specimens of endangered species have been chopped to bits, or broiled alive by your money-making “Green” schemes? How many fish and other wildlife died, and how many First Americans lost their livelihood thanks to the “help” of a so-called Environmental “Protection” Agency? How many millions of acres of forest have burned to the bare soil in wildfires and lost their ability to ever regenerate thanks to your “management” of the woodlands?
What are the consequences of following your religious faith? How many more millions, how many more species, how much more of our environment should we let you destroy?
Since when does a “science” publication print “opinion” about “politics”?
That is what you read the NY Times for.
WOW! I wish I had to power to make everyone look like fools by just voicing a POLITICAL OPINION.
Trump IS Political. He never claimed to be a scientist or a science magazine.
At least one of them is honest. The other is a political rag masquerading as a science one.
“The concept of global warming was created by and for the Chinese in order to make U.S. manufacturing non-competitive.”
He wasn’t all wrong. He wass right that it’s created concept and that the Chinese are giving it lip service to make the U.S. non-competitive, but the concept of a CO2 related crisis was invented by the UN, not the Chinese.
I will never understand why some people think Bill Clinton is running. Trump can talk the talk, but only Bill walks the walk.
So keep your ignorant opinions to yourself. Unless you have incontrovertible evidence to the contrary, you are merely a parrot of the most corrupt person to ever run for president.
Chantrill says:
The truth? Apart from the fact that you seem to be still in kindergarden? It’s that Clinton has sold her soul and the people of the US to the devil – or the highest bidder. She is corrupt, disloyal and a very sick woman. Stacked against a man who may be fond of women (like JFK, W Clinton, any other Kennedy) I’d take the man.
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.
Discussion? There’s a stretch.
It’s all caused by too much of that mystical, magical gas, CO2, in the Nature corporate offices.
Office methane concentrations.
@bobthebear October 25, 2016 at 11:20 am
Have you got any evidence we can discuss, I would be interested in what you have and how it fits into the current picture…..
WOW! What a great response! Thank you all. The mathematics has to do with basic probabilities, not the science of climate change. If there is a 10% chance that the climate science is correct, what is the cost of ignoring the science. If Russia had an atomic bomb and we didn’t, and there was only a 10% chance that they would use it because they didn’t want to kill so many people or that they would make the country they bombed uninhabitable. What would our response be? Not to spend as much as it takes to get a bomb? I doubt it. That’s the mathematics that I’m talking about. You folks need to look a little deeper.
Thanks for your thoughts.
OMG, you are blathering on about the precautionary principle as if it was mathematics.
Thank you for your comment.
So you counted the responses but didn’t read any of them?
I’m going by your “Wow! What a great response!” Not really engaging in any type of critical thinking. Or are you here just to derail the thread?
When you start off with Juvenile attacks, no deeper inspection is necessary. Both the arguer and argument can be safely discarded. So you and yours were.
What complete and utter drivel, Bob.
You really haven’t the first clue, have you?
Not about mathematics, most especially probability theory, and even less about climate science.
I suggest you change your handle from bobthebear to bobthebedwetter.
Really? 10%?
Nope. The predicted “climate catastrophe” has about the same probability as the Sun going nova sometime in the next century or so.
At least if we invest a few trillion dollars into interstellar spaceships (ignoring the billion or two extra deaths from keeping the majority of the world in abject poverty while we do so) – we’ll have something to show for it.
Yes! The next great apocalyptic scare! I humbly volunteer to lead the effort – I really want to take a vacation, errr… horribly inconvenient nova-prevention conference duty… on the Orion resort planet. (I hear that those green slave women are hot – and not in a climate sense.)
Nature may be declaring their hand a little too soon. The parallels with Brexit are startling. The Dems have started celebrating their victory two weeks out just like the Remoaners did in Brexit. Their entire campaign has been personal attacks on Trump ( With Brexit it was Farage and UKIP) They are relying on Star Power as did the Europhiles and trotting out an endless stream of quite foul mouthed celebs to carry out personal attacks. They have tried the “”fear of Trump” card for two years and it has not worked. I was always of the opinion that if your strategy was failing after a year maybe you should change it? Hillary only plays to her own Gallery, Trump goes out in the wild. Cameron only stood in front of preselected audiences whilst Farage turned up in Pubs. Trump only needs to capture the undecided voters. The Solid Dems are not a threat.
Anyway, where did Hillary get that inane smile. Did she nick it off the Cheshire cat or was she the first killer clown let loose? Interesting times. I’m a Brit living in France so I can’t vote. For being spared that decision I am truly grateful.
Shhhh!!!!!! Hillary is hunting wrabbits!
I have heard the argument that he needs to entice the Undecided, but I have come to the conclusion that if anyone remains undecided between Trump and Clinton, in consideration of their legal liabilities and policy prescriptions, they are mentally defective and we would be better served if their dilemma prevents them from attending the polls.
Alternatively, I think what Trump is doing, successfully, is appealing to the vast majority who have not been voters and recruiting them to his side.
Ivor, you pretty much echo my own thoughts on this election matter. All looked lost for Brexit and even Farage was prematurely accepting defeat but what was missed was the pure revulsion of the many for the elitist establishment. What the polls apparently show is a reflection of the incumbent’s opinion of themselves but that is increasingly divorced from what the people actually think. Considering a small cynical punt on Trump with the added bonus that I’d be delighted to lose it.
The Brexiteers complained, whined and lied for over 40 years after the decision to join the EU was made. And you worry about a few months? I suppose you are someone who stops trying to influence political ideas once your party loses an election? You give up on it all? The fact is that Brexit will be economic suicide for the UK, in our opinion and the opinion of most economists and we will persist in trying to avoid that outcome. You had over 40 years to make your case, and you convinced voters to ignore experts and see truth and accuracy as optional ideas.
You ain’t seen nothing yet from from the remainders, we may have lost the battle, but the war still rages.
It is indeed a “comment”. Unfortunately it is a “comment” that has nothing to do with the subject of the magazine it is printed in… at least not the subject it claims to be about.
Can you imagine the uproar on the left if a magazine like ‘Family Circle’ or ‘Parents’ printed an ‘Editorial’ advised its readers to vote for Trump because Hillary eats babies.
I expect this kind of thing from ‘Rolling Stone’ or ‘National Rifleman’. They wear their politics on their sleeve. But ‘Nature’ is supposed to be a science magazine.
At least, it WAS.
Yes I do. I do not want someone who lied, cheated and stole to be near them. I do not want someone who sold controlling interest in our Uranium to the Russians. I do not want someone who has revealed national secrets through incompetency and now just outright big mouth to be near them.
I do not care about someone’s opinions about Global warming where Nuclear options are at stake. The 2 have nothing in common as it is not nuclear bombs that have (or have not since the science is NOT settled) caused global warming. And it is not some politicians opinion that is going to either confirm or refute the hypothesis.
Only an idiot would believe that.
Dear Chris: No, you don’t want someone who BELIEVES IN THE CONCEPT to be anywhere near the nuclear launch codes. (Particularly since she spilled the beans on our nuclear response timeline to 76 million viewers.) That is a dangerous disconnect from reality.
Trump’s off-the-cuff speculation (and that’s all it was, as anyone can recognize) may be more true than the concept anyway.
Personally, I’ve really gotten sick of the Lefties ‘Trump can’t be trusted with the Nuclear Launch Codes’ meme. What, do they think it’s still the 80’s? That we are still in the cold war? Who do they think we have missiles aimed at right now for immediate launch at the press of ‘The Button’? The Russians? The Chinese? Iran? SYRIA? The last time I checked, the president doesn’t have the authority to start a war without Congress’s approval, Nuclear or otherwise. (I could be wrong, though. Obama seems to think so) The ONLY situation the president is likely to ever be in a position to authorize a general launce without going though congress first would be if someone else had already launched on us. Frankly, anything else is a crazy fantasy.
Someone needs to tell Hillary that the Big Red Button on the Oval Office desk that Bill said never to press because it launces the nukes was really only to summon an intern for a lapdance.
“You seriously don’t want someone that believes the Chinese invented the concept to be anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.”
So vote for the party that is helping enable nuclear weapons for the Mullahs?
Got it!
“t doesn’t matter which side of the debate you are on, it’s not true that the Chinese invented the concept of global warming. You seriously don’t want someone that believes the Chinese invented the concept to be anywhere near the nuclear launch codes.”
Who says Trump really believes that? Trump says a lot of things tongue-in-cheek. In other words, he likes to joke around and tweak people (like you). He knows alarmists are SO serious, so he tweaks them a little. That’s the way I take this particular comment.
Just to (literally) interject…
Unless this is someone spoofing his login (unlikely) – Chris is a conservative. (Tending libertarian – not the small “l” there.)
Funny thing about the people that are not Regressive Democrat Robots – they feel free to disagree with anything, including other people that (mostly) agree with them. So – please – retract the claws, WUWT regulars.
Now, having defended the person – I disagree with his position. It is indeed an opinion piece, but a “science” oriented journal should restrict its official opinionating to science-related issues. A piece on “Vote for Hillary because Trump will cut science funding” – that would pass muster as a fit subject for their voicing an opinion in that forum.
Um, and Chris? You might want to read up a bit on Thomas Jefferson and Joseph Priestley. Jefferson was quite enamored of Priestley’s works defending the Phlogiston Theory and Spontaneous Generation – at the time when both of those ideas were being rather thoroughly disproven by empirical evidence.
Blast it… NOTE the small “l,” if you please…
Reblogged this on Climatism and commented:
Eisenhower warned of the corruption of science with politics in 1960.
“The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocation, and the power of money is ever present and is gravely to be regarded.
Yet in holding scientific discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
– President Eisenhower 1960
I too have been watching the decline of scientific journals into political rags. I don’t know that I ever considered National Geographic as a science magazine, but at least it used to not be just a tool for political activists. Then Scientific American lost all sense of what is science. Then Science (AAAS) jumped onto the Climate Change bandwagon so hard it can’t print a page that doesn’t reference it somehow. One by one they all turn into junk. I think it must be a natural progression – I mean even the Royal Society is full of activists instead of scientists now.
I suppose it was a forgone conclusion – the people who work there come from modern Universities, and those no longer teach science but instead political correctness and activism. As the old scientists retire, they are replaced by poorly trained and incompetent staff with degrees but no context in science. They all chase political power and government money. No one has time to perform good science for the sack of learning. They certainly don’t want to be argued with and shown a fool – so best to avoid controversy and debate.
“O’Sullivan’s First Law in operation (An eternal truth” by John O’Sullivan, published in the National Review on October 27, 1989) — “All organizations that are not actually right-wing will over time become left-wing.”
Schitzree addendum to O’Sullivan’s First Law: Even those organizations that are actually right-wing will over time become left-wing unless they actively guard against being infiltrated.
I’m certainly not surprised. They tasted power (money) years ago and their collective tummies said, “It is good!” They won’t veer from their current direction until the money and jobs dry up and they’re out in the cold. That will probably take a long time – certainly long enough to destroy the West.
Christopher, I was under the impression that section was to be used for comments on articles within the magazine not outside politics. although in this case I see why they are demonizing the GOP. If Trump by chance wins funding for these “scientists ” will come to a be a slow trickle. And in the case of AGW rightfully so.
The basic problem is government has abrogated its responsibility to maintain an independent civil service. Loyalties are split between institutional budgeting and serving the needs of the people. Thats why the civil service was created in the first place to create an independent source of information. Now the foxes are guarding the chicken coop. Thats why you have the Sierra Club saying “your own NOAA” when in fact NOAA is not a conglomeration of outside interests beyond the reach of government. The democratic system was built on accountability through the ballot. A career civil service was created to end the practice of politicians giving away plum key jobs to people with conflicts of interest. People in the civil service work under stringent controls over conflicts of interest. Now we have all this “official” agencies like NASA’s GISS operating under the control of people without accountability standards and split loyalties via grants and affiliations with non-government institutions. We either break that up or this will never end.
If scary global warming didn’t sell Nature wouldn’t pump its tires . The field of science is being reduced to lot lizard status .