To top it all off, Trofim was a biologist.
Posted on 03/27/2023 12:40:22 AM PDT by Libloather
The editor-in-chief of the Science academic journals wants scholars to know that they should agree with him on climate change if they want to be published.
Holden Thorp, a professor at Washington University who oversees the Science publications, recently praised Nature magazine for explaining why it made the rare decision to endorse politicians, including its 2020 endorsement of President Joe Biden.
He argued that opposing the politicization of science “gives people the permission to say things like ‘climate change may be real, but I don’t think we should have government regulation to deal with it,’ which is unacceptable,” Thorp wrote on Tuesday. He has since deleted the tweet.
The idea of only publishing people that agree with your specific policy prescription is antithetical to scientific inquiry and open debate. While scientists should make recommendations and provide input, the political decisions made by policymakers are not a science.
Furthermore, scientists are not the only ones who deserve a voice, despite what Thorp may believe. Policy decisions to restrict access to gas stoves , tax carbon , or make it harder to drill for oil are not a simple scientific equation; they require input from business owners, economists, and other stakeholders who can help figure out the best path to balance environmental protection with economic growth.
The comments from Thorp drew criticism from at least one self-described “progressive” academic.
“Holden [Thorp] has made it abundantly clear that as EIC of Science, Science is a journal for US democrats only. He writes many one-sided commentaries, and bizarre attacks,” Dr. Vinay Prasad, a medical professor at the University of California, San Francisco, wrote . “Ok for me b/c I'm a progressive, just bad for the institution of science and society, which I still care about.”
(Excerpt) Read more at washingtonexaminer.com ...
Lysenkoism at its best - the opposite of science.
Pure normative science. He’ll destroy the journals he is responsible for. It will take time but it will happen as more and more research is accepted that does overt issue advocacy and policy outcomes.
At one of the higher ed institutions that we support, the Science and Math departments no longer allow student research to use references from Nature, Scientific American, and the Lancet as they are now openly expressing a bias to normative science.
To top it all off, Trofim was a biologist.
“(only 7.83 years left)”
Maybe he has only 7.83 years left.
“[A]s far as I can tell, Holden is not a biologist.”
He’s not. Nor does he qualify as a scientist in any meaningful way at all, apparently. But he’s pulling a paycheck in spite of all that. The world’s in a sorry state.
That editor should be fired.
If not then the rag has transitioned from a science journal to a political science journal.
I think Holden was a fictonal character on the Frasier TV show.
Yeah, Holden Thorp.
Scientific American fell into the political hole 20 years ago. Now it’s the two “serious” publications. Where can any real scientist get published now? Substack?
Holden is a chemist who was involved in at least two failed start-ups. Seems that one of his great talents is self-promotion.
Something like substack might work... but since we’d also want perr review, there should be the ability for members to give feedback with a rating. As each member gets more respected, their review might carry more weight than some unknown. This would result in a crowdsourced peer reviewed site where everyone could publish but only the ‘good stuff’ would float to the top.
I remember reading several years ago that some temp sensors were placed near parking lots which gave higher temp readings causing bad data.
The parking lot effect: temperature measurement bias of locations – Watts Up With That?
https://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/05/26/the-parking-lot-effect-measurement-bias-in-locations/
Old News. The East Anglia emails showed clearly that they were colluding to prevent any scientific paper that dared question their over the top Gaia worship from being published in any of the scientific journals.
Again, the parallel with Nazi Germany. The sciences became tools of the state. There was no longer biology, there was Nazi biology. Same with chemistry and physics. Read Shirer’s RISE AND FALL.
/\ CA. is flooding and Gavin tells us that ca is still in a drought. /\ Meanwhile those that have roofs collapsing in the high sieras and beleive in man made climate change desperately try to do their part in saving muver erf. 
Climate change is now beyond scientific discussion. It is purely a political issue. The left uses it to shape legislation and regulations. It is now thier political dogma.
This is why the current assault on all applications of natural gas, the most abundant and cheap “fossil fuel”. But methane, the main gas component, is found throughout the solar system. There are oceans of it on the moons of Saturn...and no fossils lived there.
WHY BRING FACTS TO THE ARGUMENT?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.