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.
Liberalism is the direction this country is headed, I don’t like it but we live in a democracy and our democratic process is turning our government and our society more and more liberal. Socialized health care seems inevitable, even with the failure of ObamaCare. Being offended by something is now a badge of honor, which has driven political correctness to absurd extremes. We blame rather than learn. I just saw a video of an ObamaCare advocate blaming Republicans for the law’s failure. In the discussion of saving black lives you can’t even suggest the problem can be worked from both sides, police training reforms AND basic compliance with officers, or you are a racist. Global warming is the perfect liberal issue for the media. The media is saving the planet by making money informing us of a problem that big oil has created. And now people are being told you can define your gender by chosing which gender you identify with the most. Some college applications now have 6 choices for the question of gender, and that number will only grow. Its a world going to the left my friends, whether we like it or not.
If it continues left much longer, we will not have any functioning democracies left. Instead we will have oligarchic kleptocacies, organized around a central
“big leader”, a la Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe.
Honestly, that’s about all the world had a few hundred years ago. And then democracy blossomed (often from the end of a rifle).
Civilizations rise and fall, real suffering recedes until the people forget why they thought they needed so much control over government in the first place. Then the scammers, thugs, and power mad slowly work their way into power. eventually the parasites outweigh the host and often the only way to shake them off is though a fall. And hope that what rises after is at least in some way a good alternative. That is the time when what you set as your foundation makes or brakes a nation.
Protip: A strong declaration of basic rights right from the start can head off a world of trouble later on. Expect those with an agenda to start whittling away at them immediately. All slippery slopes will be declared a necessity and a temporary evil, and if started down will go on until you hit bottom.
“If it continues left much longer, we will not have any functioning democracies left. Instead we will have oligarchic kleptocacies, organized around a central
“big leader”, a la Venezuela, Cuba and Zimbabwe.”
Yeah, and since the Left is completely incapable of defending the United States national security, our new “Big Leader” will probably be the Chinese or Russian leader. They know how to push Leftwing pacifists around, and will certainly do so if given the chance. Obama being a good example. A couple of more decades of that kind of governance and we can probably kiss the U.S. and the Western World goodbye forever.
I’m not sure that Obama’s “election” and “reelection” weren’t the result of fraud. The case is clearer for 2012, which was well within the margin of fraud.
That’s just one reason why this election will be the last real shot for democracy. With the courts in the one party pocket, no electoral reform will happen with a Democrat (ironic!) president and possibly Congress.
Voting more than once per election should be a capital offense for the third conviction. Even photo ID and indelible ink on thumbs isn’t enough to deter the Democrat fraud and intimidation machine. Fingerprint ID or its biometric equivalent is called for. To get into Disneyworld requires a fingerprint, but not to vote.
To allay privacy concerns, only one print should be used.
And voting by mail, as in OR and WA, should also be banned for federal elections. There has never been more blatant fraud than in those two supposedly reform-minded states.
After retiring about 11 years ago I subscribed to both Nature and Scientific American. I dropped both after about one year when I realized that both had the same threefold agenda: (1) Promote their primary religion, atheism, (2) promote their secondary religion, human-induced global warming, and (3) promote continuing government funding of liberal university “research.” The current post indicates a “doubling down” on that agenda.
I don’t understand why Nature’s editorial writer thinks a war between Russia and the US would be good for science or the planet.
I’ve read through and no one has raised this point, so I will raise it here.
There is a profound irony in this situation. I will assert that the fundamental principle of all science is the commandment, “Thou shalt not bear false witness.” Truthful observations and truthful records and honest conclusions are what science depends on, TO EVEN BEGIN.
These paltry publications, however, have indulged in what Aleksandr Solzhenitsyn long ago termed “the Lie.” Against this he declared: “One word of truth shall outweigh the world.” And, if we are truly believers in the truth, we should accept this as also being true, and be fortified in it.
I await Nature’s ‘science’ article on which side of the bed I should get out of in the morning and who I should vote for in all future elections here in the UK!!!!
I may have a view about candidates in the US election but as a British citizen I sure won’t be sticking my nose in democratic elections in another country. Nature is an international journal with an international editorial (mostly British), they have just published a politically biased, anti-science article. Hopefully they will see sense and there will be some resignations.
Proof that science is politics now. Any claims of impartiality can be disregarding immediately. These are now activists—political activists and should be referred to as such. Do not use the term science journal—it’s a political activist journal.
Well, l suppose they were running up against political correctness issues with with their earlier exclusivity centred on “scientific men”, so they may as well catch up with the new post normal mixing sciency stuff with activism and politics.
If I may be permitted some old fashioned non pc opinions, I find it troubling that an inordinate percentage of US women have such a thin skinned sensitivity to a man’s boorish remarks that they would choose to destroy this great USA and vote instead for it’s most corrupt elitist, self interested, women the country has ever produced. I hope the media is wrong about this because if it is true, women have no place in politics. Actually, the majority of men in men’s company talk about women’s figures and attributes and how nice it would be… There remaining s a lot of Neanderthal in men’s make up and “locker room talk” wasn’t just coined by Trump. He’s just too candid to conceal what a high percentage of males think. I guess he has to learn how to lie better to be acceptable to these perennialy aggrieved souls seeking safe spaces. We’ve mentioned Bill Climton’s and his wife’s attitude to their victims and we know about the beloved Kennedy’s who have couple murders of lovers chalked up. But they were polite about it so that made it ok. Were it not for Maggie’ Thatcher, Golda Meir and a few others and some of the no nonsense women of self esteem like Janice Moore’s we meet at WUWT I would say that women have no place in politics.
“If I may be permitted some old fashioned non pc opinions, I find it troubling that an inordinate percentage of US women have such a thin skinned sensitivity to a man’s boorish remarks that they would choose to destroy this great USA and vote instead for it’s most corrupt elitist, self interested, women the country has ever produced.”
Don’t sell American women short just yet. Let’s wait and see how they vote.
One thing I have seen consistently this year is every time they do these real-time polls with the lines scrolling across the screen in response to what the candidate says, the Independents have been in lockstep with the Republicans since the beginning of this political season.
A lot more emails to come out between now and election time.
Don’t you love how the Leftwing Media buries every Hillary negative (a lie of omission), and trumpets every Trump gaff (half-truths). The Leftwing Media will never be considered unbiased after this election. Their Leftwing political agenda is out there for all to see. They have no credibility anymore (haven’t had any credibility with me since the Vietnam war).
I’ll say it. “Women have no place in politics!”*
*nether have men. I for one anxiously await our future robot overlords. They can’t do any worse. >_<
I make no money from this – but if you read SF, schitzree, you might enjoy E.M. Foner’s books.
Our best fighter pilots can’t defeat planes piloted by A I . In fact they can put those planes at a disadvantage and still can’t beat them.
Mr. Chantrill,
Thank you for your inanity. There certainly hasn’t been enough of it this election season.
What we see today is a reflection of the past .
“The Cold War began during the Truman administration and lasted through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and was ended in Reagan’s second term when Reagan and Gorbachev came to an agreement that the conflict was dangerous, expensive, and pointless.
The Cold War was a Washington creation. It was the work of the Dulles brothers. Allen was the head of the CIA, and John Foster was the Secretary of State, positions that they held for a long time. The brothers had a vested interest in the Cold War. They used the Cold War to protect the interests of their law firm’s clients, and they used it to enhance the power and budgets associated with their high positions in government. It is much more exciting to be in charge of foreign policy and covert activity in dangerous times.”
http://www.foreignpolicyjournal.com/2016/08/20/rethinking-the-cold-war-and-the-new-one/
“Three spooks, John Foster Dulles (aided by his equally corrupt brother Allen, head of the CIA), Henry Kissinger and Zbigniew Brzezinski, chosen by David Rockefeller to oversee the deaths of tens of millions of men, women and children, murdered in their own small beloved countries, as often as not in their own towns, villages and homes – millions more dying in violent aftermaths of US crimes against Congo, Guatemala, Korea, Vietnam, Cambodia, Laos, Iraq, Afghanistan, Somalia, Nicaragua, El Salvador, Indonesia, Libya and many other places. (Congo alone accounts for from between six and fifteen million dead since the US led Belgians and other Europeans in destroying it as a nation.”
http://www.countercurrents.org/janson170812.htm
We often hear how important the past is Re Climate Change and how we arrived here at 400 ppm. My grandfather used to sit me on his knee and complain about the political system back in the 60’s . He’s biggest projection that I can remember was that one day they will TAX the air we breath. So is the real issue about the one part Carbon or the two parts Oxygen. I read somewhere that it takes 11 litres of air to burn one litre of gasoline. Feel free to correct me if I’m wrong. So next time your sitting in a traffic jam on your way to work think about how much Oxygen your converting to CO2.
“What we see today is a reflection of the past .
“The Cold War began during the Truman administration and lasted through the Eisenhower, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Ford, and Carter administrations and was ended in Reagan’s second term when Reagan and Gorbachev came to an agreement that the conflict was dangerous, expensive, and pointless.
The Cold War was a Washington creation. It was the work of the Dulles brothers.”
A ridiculous conspiracy theory. You act like the communists were innocent bystanders in all this.
Eight different presidents from both political parties thought the situation in Southeast Asia was serious enough for the U.S. to be involved (along with numerous allies). Maybe they knew something about the situation that you don’t understand.
Sorry, jmorpuss, but the Cold War began when the Soviet Union detonated an atomic bomb in 1949. And it got even colder when they actually beat us to the demonstration of a deliverable hydrogen bomb only a few years later. And began building ICBMs.
I have no love for most of the administrations you mention, or their key actors, and most were doubtless involved in ulterior agendas. But nobody was in control of the Soviet Union and they were quite clear about their interest in ruling as much of the world as they could put under their grip.
TA and Michael
To me the cold war was a war about knowing (knowledge) and science was the chosen weapon. The race was on to convert theories into practice as quick as possible, before the other side did. And stepping into the now, you can’t keep spending this type of money on defence http://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2015/06/25/the-biggest-military-budgets-as-a-percentage-of-gdp-infographic-2/#693f1f134064 and not have a war to fight. Here’s 15 more facts about military spending http://www.businessinsider.com.au/military-spending-budget-defense-cuts-2011-10?r=US&IR=T When I see this type of expenditure I ask, who’s really running the show? And does the US constitution change when at war? Is America under military rule, because of the war on terror .
“Is America under military rule, because of the war on terror .”
American is firmly under Leftist pacifist civilian rule. That’s why we are losing all our wars, and our international standing. If the military were running things, we wouldn’t be losing all our wars, or our international standing.
Not that I am advocating military rule. I advocate realistic civilian rule, which cannot be had with Leftists/pacifists like Obama/Hillary in the driver’s seat.
Yeah, I know, some people think Hillary is a Hawk, but I disagree. She might be quick to bomb someone like Kaddafy, but she’s not going to commit American troops to anything (you didn’t see any followup in Libya, did you?).
Instead, she will seek to “empathize” with our enemies. Anyone who says, as she does, that their goal is to empathize with our enemies is not a hawk, they are a pacifist, plain and simple. That’s the way pacifists look at the world: They think they can reason with the bad guys. That’s because they reject war out of hand in their minds, so reasoning with the bad guys is the only option left to them. And puts them and us in a bind when the bad guys decide they don’t want to be reasonable, which they usually do.
Hitler was totally reasonable. He only wanted the land next to his. Appeasement they called it. History repeats itself, sort of…
“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.”
Evidence???
When it comes to empirical evidence climate science too has lost its way and in terms of the unbiased and objective evaluation of research climate science journals and many universities are lost for good.
What ever were you Republicans thinking when you chose an idiot like Trump to run against Hillary? What ever Hillary is she’s not stupid and stupid always loses to smart . Republicans had the option of choosing Cruz who is smarter than Hillary instead they chose a looser
Lots of Democrats and Independents voted in the GOP primaries this year, but Trump still won only 42% of the vote before Cruz dropped out, and 44% at the end. The media gave him free coverage, since they knew he’d be a worse nominee against Clinton than almost any other in the field of 19 major candidates. NBC could have released the rude, crude and lewd Billy Bush tape during the primaries, but of course waited until October.
But forced to chose between a clown and a crook, I have to go with the clown. Corrupt Clinton is a pathological liar, traitor, racketeer and accomplice to rape, a gross failure as SecState, and suffering from late-stage neurological disease as well. I’m not voting for Trump but against her.
I should add, not just a gross failure, but guilty of selling US foreign policy to the highest bidder, regardless of national security interests.
Stealing money donated for Haitian earthquake relief might have been a new low for the Clintons, but they’ve probably committed much worse crimes against humanity I don’t know about. IMO that was worse even than handing Libya over to ISIS or selling US uranium mines to Russia. Now she dares to claim that Trump is in Putin’s pocket.
“Republicans had the option of choosing Cruz who is smarter than Hillary instead they chose a looser”
Trump hasn’t lost yet. I won’t take the cheap shot on you. I will let it slide. 🙂
“All your points are well taken, but you still haven’t explained why you would choose stupid Trump over way smarter Cruz?”
Not sure who you are addressing but from my point of view Trump is not stupid. In fact, I think he is a *very* intelligent person. He has the skills the United States needs right now. We need a tough-nosed executive who knows how to take charge of things and get them in good financial shape. And Trump is NOT obligated to any special interest, since he is not taking their money. He can govern for the benefit of the people, not the special interests, who have been taking this country down for decades, and will continue to do so if the corrupt Hillary Clinton is elected.
I ask myself, who would I choose as a next door neighbor? Who would be the least likely to make my life miserable with frivolous lawsuits and other annoyances? I’ll take Trump, thank you.
All your points are well taken, but you still haven’t explained why you would choose stupid Trump over way smarter Cruz?
For those who have been hiding under a rock for the past 4 months – Cruz is not running.
. . . and a sure win ?
. . . for those hiding under a rock Donald Trump is a New York Liberal , why did the Republicans go with a New York Liberal ??
If all you can see is liberal/conservative, you will never understand. Cruz was #2 in the primary, and Bernie would have taken Clinton if not for the conspiracy of the DNC. So ask yourself, what all 3 have in common.
And you will have your answer.
“. . . for those hiding under a rock Donald Trump is a New York Liberal , why did the Republicans go with a New York Liberal ??”
Trump is espousing conservative policies, that’s why. His running mate, Mike Pence, is a rock-solid conservative.
Sun Spot: “…why you would choose stupid Trump…”
Trump may be many things, but stupid is certainly not one of them.
You, like most, miss the forest for the trees. It would not have mattered if the republicans had nominated Gandhi. The democrat play book would have been the same. The only difference would have been the response of the nominee.
Trump is not stupid. He is also not a politician. So he does not couch his words in political double speak. He says it straight. And if you actually listen to what he is saying, it is not stupid and not surprising. But the media has to be hysterical about it and they push the meme that “no one does that!”. And fools believe them.
Do enough believe them? We will find out in 2 weeks. But I will warn you of the following:
#1 – Cruz is no smarter than Trump (and I am a Cruz supporter).
#2 – Hillary IS stupid. No one can be smart and plan what she did. The only reason she is not in jail is that the media is covering for her.
Your best bet is to stop listening to the media and listen to the what the facts are saying. It paints a vastly different picture.
Sun spot,
“All your points are well taken, but you still haven’t explained why you would choose stupid Trump over way smarter Cruz?”
Intelligence is not necessarily an indicator of leadership qualities and often it leads to a failure to compromise. Look at Obama. There’s no question that he is intelligent, but he’s a horrible leader. Like Cruz, his IQ may be high, but his EQ is low and you need both to be an effective leader.
Trump has demonstrated leadership qualities by building a multi-billion dollar enterprise. This tells me that he would rather surround himself with people who are smarter than he his, rather than surrounding himself with sycophants as career politicians always do.
Not to mention the fact that Cruz has Canadian parentage and was Canadian. (His mother WAS American, until she became a Canadian, and was Canadian when she gave birth. The father was Canadian also.)
The original point of “natural born” (lost in all the commentaries) was the objective that the candidate have no residue of foreign citizenship, and thus no vulnerability to foreign direction. This was fulfilled if both the parents were American citizens.
“Natural born” means a citizen from birth, ie not needing naturalization. Because Cruz’ mom was a US citizen, so is he, based upon the citizenship laws in effect at the time of his birth.
Dear Chimp,
Not so. “Natural Born” was a term of art used in international law in the 18th century. It referred to a situation where the person was born of parents who were BOTH citizens of the country of interest. As I read the biographical information of Ted Cruz, his mother became a Canadian citizen before he was born, so he was NOT born of a U.S. citizen…and his father was not a U.S. citizen. He is (or was) a Canadian.
Even if he were able to claim some form of dual citizenship, he would not meet the constitutional requirement for being eligible for the Presidency. My cousin is in such a situation. Her mother was a U.S. citizen and her father was a French citizen. She holds dual citizenship…but she can’t run for president.
This whole concept arose from the laws and regulations of the English peerage, since it was not uncommon for births to occur when a family might have traveled to continental Europe, and it was important to establish what kind of citizenship was legitimate for succession.
This is why a person can be “natural born” even if the birth occurs on the Moon, so long as both parents are U.S. citizens.
Since the founders did not define the term, it is up to the courts to decide. As of yet, they have not. So until there is an Amendment or a ruling, the US Code, section 8, Title 1401 is the law of the land. And Ted Cruz is indeed a “natural born” citizen.
Basically it means (at this time) anyone who does not have to be naturalized. Cruz did not need to be since he got his citizenship by the fact that his mother still was one, regardless of her status as a Canadian Citizen.
President Eisenhower warned us about the military-industrial complex, and all the leftist academics in the country are quick to attack anything related to military strength or industrial progress.
But he also warned us about the “scientific-technological elite”.
“Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields…
Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity.
…
We must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific-technological elite.”
I worked for almost 20 years in academia and saw this first hand. Eisenhower’s statement that “a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity” was unbelievably prescient. Everything in academics is about securing grants, which earn scientists acclaim, job security, advancement, and power. Intellectual curiosity is quashed by formulaic expectations and a herd mentality. Government priorities dictate what will be studied and what outcomes are desirable.
As one obvious result that is only tangentially related to scientific inquiry, the federal government has a very “affirmative” diversity requirement that affects the likelihood of security grants by every scientist at every institution. This government priority has led to some universities going so far as to require that ALL faculty hiring goes through the Office of Diversity. Job listings come right out and say that “women and minorities are especially encouraged to apply”, which is the modern twist on “white heterosexual men need not apply”.
It has very little to do with science, but is clear evidence that the scientific-technological elite and the government are in a death spiral of conflicting interests, none of which contribute to intellectual curiosity or disruptive innovations.
The leftists in academics and government are so vigorously scratching each others’ backs that the article references by the author was a foregone conclusion.
The military-industrial complex is less of a threat now than the academic-green industrial climate hoax complex.
And I say that as a card-carrying opponent of the F-35 boondoggle.
“And I say that as a card-carrying opponent of the F-35 boondoggle.”
Well, the good thing about this is the Chinese probably stole the F-35 design from the U.S., so China is going to have a lot of problems with their new jet, too. 🙂
Boy, are we ever devious and clever to pull that trick on them!
Nobody with half a brain supports Trump.
Triple billionaire entrepreneur Peter Thiel has at least a brain and a half. Rudy Giuliani was the most successful US attorney in history and the best mayor of NYC in at least a lifetime. NJ governor Chris Christie was almost as good a federal lawyer. Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich was a college history prof. Multiple best-selling book author, lawyer Ann Coulter is his biggest fan.
Even Dilbert comic strip author switched from Clinton to Trump, because his support for Trump’s policies outweighed his fear of being killed by the murderous Clinton crime family.
Clearly it’s your brain that is a little on the light side.
Don’t be stupid.
You would certainly know a great deal about stupidity.
Speaking of intelligence, how could I forget former DIA chief, LG Michael Flynn?
I’m betting that most of the people on this list have IQs higher than yours:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Donald_Trump_presidential_campaign_endorsements,_2016
“Nobody with half a brain supports Trump.”
This explains the IPCC, MSM and his opponents on the political left which don’t have half a brain between them.
“Nobody with half a brain supports Trump.”
You are correct, the people with half a brain support the corrupt Hillary Clinton.
But everyone with a full brain does. Those with the half brains support Hillary.
Single strongest predictor of supporting Trump is low educational attainment.
Nuff said.
But like all predictors, it is not 100%, You are proof to that rule.
Wookie: “Single strongest predictor of supporting Trump is low educational attainment.”
So what?
Low educational attainment is absolutely not evidence of stupidity.
In fact, in a lot of cases rather to the contrary, many of those I have had dealings with are of very high educational attainment indeed, but are far and away the most stupid.
Are you acquainted with the acronym IYI, for “Intellectual Yet Idiot”?
I’m sure you must know plenty…
Perhaps you should look in a mirror…
Consumer Reports ” 42 million people owe $ 1.3 trillion in student debt ” … all those smart people are going to pay that off next year… they were fed a line and they bought it hook line and sinker.
Educational attainment may not 100% predict intelligence, but nevertheless it’s a very strong predictor. This “science” blog is evidence enough of that. A bunch of overweight, not very bright middle aged men that think that the world owes them something and the liberal boogy man is out to get them in the form of increased regulations.
You and your ilk are a dying breed. Get ready for 8 years of Hillary, a Democratic Senate and a Supreme Court stacked with liberal justices all salivating at the prospect of enacting a green agenda and taxing the bejesus out of your meagre 401Ks.
Wrong-o, Wookie. You pay for our retirement costs, but won’t get one yourself. We got ours, you pay the bill.
I can see how successful you are Wookie, still paying on your student loans? Right off the top of my head I can think of at least people that don’t have college degrees, Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, and Warren Buffet. ( Jobs has left, but what he founded still is ). You should look at the credentials that most of the people on here hold. We are not stupid or ignorant. You remind me of the cultural revolution in China under Mao. … ” be careful what you wish for “
No, this blog is evidence that the owner will allow anyone to post, even those who have not yet matured and think that juvenile ad hominems and infantile insults are what passes for intelligent discourse.
Should you ever grow up, you may come to realize how very immature your entire rants are. But that is a big IF.
Stop whining.
Wookie,
Hey, moron!
Bill Gates is a college dropout.
Also Larry Ellison of Oracle.
Yes I can see how it logically follows that all those trump supporters that never went to college are as intelligent as Bill Gates.
Just like all the numpties on this website think they know the first thing about science.
Oooooh, Wookie. This “numptie” has a science degree. Do you understand the “science?” Can you explain the 3X CO2 amplification?
Desperation is so unbecoming. Perhaps if you stopped trying to think up new insults and actually learned something, you would be happier. You would definitely be smarter. But I guess that is too much for the wookie to handle.
Yes – and I bet you got very low grades…
@wookie – you have to at least take a course to get a grade.
“Nobody with half a brain supports Trump.”
NO, it talks a whole brain to do that.
That is why dumbocrats support Hillary.. less than half a brain.. are you one of them ?
talks.. === takes…
Wow- that’s quite a list of intellectuals you have there. It seems you’ve undermined your own argument.
Not that it matters. This election is going to be a landslide and the subsequent hand wringing and blame game is going to tear what’s left of the republican party in two.
Funny how clueless unsuccessful middle aged men always seem to support Trump.
What is really funny is how your only arguments seem to be juvenile ad hominems and infantile insults.
Guess you fit your own description.
Thiel, Giuliani, Christie, Gingrich and Flynn are highly successful. Coulter is a highly successful woman. To name but a few who show your assertion false.
Coulter is an idiot who preys upon bigoted not very bright people to buy her books which are littered with schoolboy errors and falsehoods. She’s on camera making an idiot of herself claiming Canada sent troops to Vietnam for Christ sake. Christie is a typical fat loud mouth mobster who is about to be indicted. Giuliani has just trashed any ounce of credibility he has by supporting a likely psychopath who not only knows nothing about current affairs/world events/government but is quite clearly incompetent in business. Anyone who inherits a seven million dollar silver spoon up their ass and manages to lose everything time and again has no place running the country. Jesus, he would have more money if he just put it in an index fund in 1970 and literally did nothing. If you think Trump is some sort of business genius then you really are as dumb as dogs***.
Wookie, just keep sending money to your masters so I can continue the good life.
Sorry Wookie, you are only demonstrating your own ignorance. Canada DID send troops to Vietnam. They sent them to enforce the Paris Peace accord (which of course was violated by the north).
So your whole diatribe merely shows her intelligence, and your lack thereof.
http://military.wikia.com/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War
douche
LOL! So when shown the facts, your only response is an infantile insult. Yep, must be a hillary bot.
Wookie
October 27, 2016 at 9:14 am
Do you enjoy making a fool of yourself in public? What a sicko!
About 30,000 Canadians volunteered (including 50 Mohawks) to fight in southeast Asia, and 110 died, with seven among the MIAs. Canadian Pete Lemon, who thank God is still alive, was awarded the Medal of Honor.
You are such an idiot, that you must like being publicly humiliated.
Wookie,
You are well and truly a subhuman douche, not fit to shine the boots of Giuliani, Christie, Coulter or that great Canadian-American Pete Lemon. Here is his MoH citation:
For conspicuous gallantry and intrepidity in action at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty. Sgt. Lemon (then Sp4), Company E, distinguished himself while serving as an assistant machine gunner during the defense of Fire Support Base Illingworth. When the base came under heavy enemy attack, Sgt. Lemon engaged a numerically superior enemy with machine gun and rifle fire from his defensive position until both weapons malfunctioned. He then used hand grenades to fend off the intensified enemy attack launched in his direction. After eliminating all but 1 of the enemy soldiers in the immediate vicinity, he pursued and disposed of the remaining soldier in hand-to-hand combat. Despite fragment wounds from an exploding grenade, Sgt. Lemon regained his position, carried a more seriously wounded comrade to an aid station, and, as he returned, was wounded a second time by enemy fire. Disregarding his personal injuries, he moved to his position through a hail of small arms and grenade fire. Sgt. Lemon immediately realized that the defensive sector was in danger of being overrun by the enemy and unhesitatingly assaulted the enemy soldiers by throwing hand grenades and engaging in hand-to-hand combat. He was wounded yet a third time, but his determined efforts successfully drove the enemy from the position. Securing an operable machine gun, Sgt. Lemon stood atop an embankment fully exposed to enemy fire, and placed effective fire upon the enemy until he collapsed from his multiple wounds and exhaustion. After regaining consciousness at the aid station, he refused medical evacuation until his more seriously wounded comrades had been evacuated. Sgt. Lemon’s gallantry and extraordinary heroism, are in keeping with the highest traditions of the military service and reflect great credit on him, his unit, and the U.S. Army.
Gee- no psychopathology there.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canada_and_the_Vietnam_War
Even your link proves Coulter correct and you incorrect. As I said, spend less time insulting and more time learning.
Grow up.
Funny how clueless unsuccessful middle aged men always seem to support Trump.
Even funnier when you sound just like the ‘remain’ camp did prior to the recent UK Referendum on EU membership.
A possibly ‘fatal’ case of projection on your part?
As opposed to those who adopt “Wookie” as a call sign?
“that’s quite a list of intellectuals you have there”
Jealousy.. you know that you will NEVER be among them.
From my just pasted 60-year perspective on U.S.A. “Academia”, they are mostly Leftist, somewhat Stalinist, always Communist, embarrassingly Denialist, and if they can find a “Republican Whig” to hang in place of a Mexican Tudor they are all for it.
For ‘Nature’ to “come out” like this says something else!
They … are Scared!
“For ‘Nature’ to “come out” like this says something else!
They … are Scared!”
I think you are right, they *are* scared. They see the world turned upside down if Trump wins. They would be correct, in that assumption.
If one regards – justifiably, I think most would agree – Nature as a microcosm of [institutional capitalization deliberate] Science, it appears that if you take the King’s coin, you sing the King’s song. Put another way, in a colloquial idiom: Who is Robert Stadler?
“conservatives have turned their backs on mainstream science to an unprecedented degree.”
Obviously, Nature has turned its backs on mainstream science to an unprecedented degree.
And they’re now too dumb to even realize it!
Once highly respected, The Economist” has gone the same way, especially with climate change coverage.
Okay – this is no doubt a silly question – but why can’t the members get together, sweep in and take over the board? Demand the removal of the lot of them. Sack them. Kick them out. The only other way I can see the members gaining back control is to pull the rug out from under them by staging a walkout and letting the whole jolly lot collapse.
Voices from within won’t do it. It will take a coup. Or restart elsewhere – scientists doing science, but this time guarding the door.
The fact the editors of an international ‘science’ journal thought there was no problem in writing an editorial telling voters who they should be voting for – due to their bias on climate change – completely negates any research papers they publish on the subject. This isn’t just confirmation bias, can they not see you can’t do science if you only perform the research and accept the results you are already lobbying for. Pointless authors declaring a conflict of interest when the editors – and hence the entire journal has a conflict of interest!
Imagine if the journal had lobbied against the (unpopular) theory of continental drift and sea floor spreading. The theory was not generally accepted for over 50 years – mainly because the scientific consensus (led by several ‘distinguished’ scientists) was against the idea.
Imagine if the journal then had lobbied against the idea and told its readers to vote only for candidates who believed in popular consensus science as any candidate who believed in continental drift and sea floor spreading was ‘anti-science’ !
“Science and politics just don’t mix, and they’ve started themselves on the slippery slope to Perdition”
That is what we have said about this site for many years, but it remains a cheer leader for right wing US politics..
““Science and politics just don’t mix, and they’ve started themselves on the slippery slope to Perdition”
That is what we have said about this site for many years, but it remains a cheer leader for right wing US politics..”
Science and politicis *do* mix, you just have to get the science right.
As a follower of WUWT from another nation (Australia) can I make a plea on behalf of all non US folllowers of WUWT that we have more science writing instead of what seems interminable wrangling about US politics.
While I fully recognize and am grateful that WUWT originated in the USA, after all it is an online internet based blog, with no doubt many followers from a wide range of English speaking countries who are not all that exercised by the shenigans of US politics .
The best material I have read and learned about climate science I have found here on WUWT.
That includes me checking all the other blog sites listed on a side bar on WUWT’s site and finding that none of them come up to WUWT at its best
So as the principle of competitive advantage suggests please stick to what you are best at -ie publishing interesting challenging articles on climate science and allowing informed discussion to flow underneath.
Political abuse about US presidential candidates we can find any time on mainstream media
“While I fully recognize and am grateful that WUWT originated in the USA, after all it is an online internet based blog, with no doubt many followers from a wide range of English speaking countries who are not all that exercised by the shenigans of US politics .”
Perhaps you should get exercised about it. If Trump is elected, it is going to be a whole new world, including your world.
I am exercised about who becomes next US president but I can read about that in plenty of msm
I come to WUWT for the science coverage I cant get in msm not political argument
And how about instead of trying to dictate the rules, you just skip over any parts of the WUWT website that you don’t like.
I am not dictating I asked politely to focus on the science
Thomho, you did ask politely, and I hope I did not offend you with my reply. That was not my intention. But it is easier to just ignore the things you are not interested in rather than trying to get people to make big changes to a website format that works very well the way it is.
So Anthony should either shut up about politics or start a whole new blog? Just so you don’t see articles you’re not interested in? And did you notice the (absurd) claims about climate change in the political advocacy?
I don’t entirely know what to make of this kind of comment. It doesn’t discuss the subject, it just tries to disrupt the bloggist’s workflow. I’ve seen similar on other skeptical blogs.
On the other hand, there has been commentary about the political wrangling in other countries (internal) that as an American, I had no knowledge of. It shines a light on the scope of how organized C/AGW is. The proponents of climate change agenda are exercising the same strategies in all the western countries. Arguing this case successfully requires more than just the scientific bases. It’ll do little good to be right scientifically but be declared a criminal by law. Which is also an agenda of climate change. They have so stated by implications and outright. I am first and foremost an enemy in every sense of the word. ( not just me, every skeptic here ) The only thing that has kept us from being sent to a re education camp is our right to disagree. Of course that could change. We have an issue in the US where they gave bonuses for soldiers to reenlist. 15 years later the government wants the money back… with interest.
” 9. Per the WUWT policy page, certain topics are not welcome here and stories submitted concerning them will be deleted. This includes topics on religion, discussions of barycentrism, astrology, aliens, bigfoot, chemtrails, 911 Truthers, Obama’s Birth Certificate, HAARP, UFO’s, Electric Universe, mysticism, pressure gradient predicts all planetary atmospheric temperature, and Principia/Slaying the Sky Dragon aka “MAGIC GAS”.
Please note that politics is not mentioned as unwelcome
I am also from Australia and find the relevant WUWT Australian content to be refreshingly plentiful. A Google search yields About 16,600 results. There are also pages of results searching this site internally. Just my (counter) opinion.
Thomho,
The problem is that if you separate the politics from climate science (US, Australia and everywhere else), it no longer makes sense how climate science got to be so wrong. The current election will be a pivotal point in the science. If Clinton is elected, we can look forward to another trillion wasted on green garbage and main stream science staying broken for at least another 4 years and perhaps decades. If Trump is elected, much of Obama’s green nonsense will be rolled back and climate science will have a window to get back on track with the scientific method and away from science whose only criteria is that if fits the CAGW narrative.
People don’t like to be told they are brainwashed
Trump tries to frame Hillary : as a CROOK
Team Hillary try to frame Trump : as a MONSTER
Scott Adam’s explained that on his blog
Both are persuasive arguments to their own pool and means not having to think hard or look at full colour facts.
Many good people have found comfort in the simplicity accepting Trump is a monster.
But Trump’s actual policy documents don’t seem to mad they seem logical
If that whole new world is just a start at getting ride of the old Dem/Rep special interests system, then that is a positive.
I don’t see Trump as a risk but rather an opportunity, getting rid of the old makes a better America for Blacks, Hispanic, gays whatever.
(I wish Trump was pro-abortion choice, but some compromises have to made ..hopefully banning abortion won’t be an implemented policy.)
@stewgreen – I do not think you have to worry about Trump and abortion. Even if he was Pope Francis, he could do nothing about it. That takes a constitutional amendment. So even for those of us who are pro-life, it is a non-issue.
Incorrect. All it would take would be an act of Congress to restrict the Supreme Court from hearing cases pertaining to abortion and refer the whole topic to each individual state to decide. That is one of the powers of Congress, though it is placed in a different part of the Constitution. That would permit the states to hear new cases and decide them without any appeal to the Supreme Court.
@Michael Dunn – you will have to cite that part of the constitution, since I have read it from top to bottom and not seen that power enumerated. Indeed, the delineation of power between the feds and states is PART of the Constitution, so any attempt to change that would require a constitutional amendment,
Please cite the part of the Constitution where you found that. Apparently no one else has.
Dear Phil,
So glad to provide: Article III, Section 2, second paragraph: “…In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, WITH SUCH EXCEPTIONS AND UNDER SUCH REGULATIONS AS THE CONGRESS SHALL MAKE.”
What I have outlined would protect the power of the states from appellate reversal by the Supreme Court.
Apparently, the framers and signers of the Constitution knew all about it.
@Michale Dunn – Ah the irony! Not for you. I commend you on the reading. But it is interpretive. As the case has already been adjudicated by SCOTUS, it no longer falls under the appellate clause, but under the Constitutional clause, which Congress does not have the authority to limit SCOTUS on (the part not quoted in your response).
Now I fully understand that is merely my interpretation, and like most of the constitution, is open to other interpretation. But then who would adjudicate the issue if it came down to a challenge? And thus the irony. SCOTUS would.
But it would make for a great legal battle or a very interesting debate topic.
Thanks for opening up a can of worms! An enjoyable one as I doubt it will come into play.
Dear Phil,
I guess I do not follow your reasoning, since Roe v. Wade reached the Supreme Court as an appeal. Thus they were functioning in an appellate role.
Be that as it may, if it came down to a challenge, Congress could impeach and remove all the justices who opposed Congress. Politics is not for the faint of heart. Sometimes power must be affirmed by its exercise–because the exercise is necessary to set everyone’s heads straight. (I will admit, it comes down to how jealous the Congress would be about its powers. I am still awaiting their reclamation of the singular right to declare war.)
Just as an aside: I had a 5-year struggle with the tyrannical Executive Director of my union, who fancied that HE was the perpetual power presence, and that the elected union officers were merely temporary seat-sitters. Therefore, in his view, he was in charge and defied our directions. There was only one way to resolve that dispute. We fired him. Who can fire whom is what settles the question of who is in charge. He didn’t take it well, but he never returned.
@Michael J. Dunn – it CAME to SCOTUS as an appeal. However, it is NOT an appeal now. It is part of the constitution, so Congress has no say in whether SCOTUS hears it as they can only decide what APPEALS, not settled law, SCOTUS can rule on. But then my second part is who decides the delineation? And that would come down to SCOTUS. Conflict of interest? Yes. And well worth the cost of popcorn.
And another fly in the ointment is the fact that even if Congress takes that power away from SCOTUS (and SCOTUS does not slap them down), the lower courts would decide. And what do they use for their decisions? Previous rulings, especially from SCOTUS. So the final ruling would be from a Circuit court based upon the Roe v. Wade decision.
There are a lot of other possibilities, none of them good for anyone, even for the most ardent right to life supporter. So withdrawing appeals power from SCOTUS is not going to happen. And my statement stands. Whether you are for or against Abortion, using that as your litmus test in voting is a wasted vote. Nothing is going to happen until an amendment is passed. Period.
Win or lose, the republicans are definitely going to change into a dynamic rejuvenated party. Trump seems to have found many tens of millions of people that went unseen by both parties. If Trump doesn’t win, the next election, possibly the beginning of a dynasty, will be won by Trump-like candidates with brass balls but with perhaps fewer self-immolating topics and more care in choice of language. He should have won in a landslide. Maybe the latest stuff from the FBI will give him a win.
The Clinton campaign is the hybridization of Evita Peron with Tammany Hall, except Hillary is unable to sing dance or create effective policy. Evita could at least sing and dance.