Science journal editor: Agree with me on climate change or don’t get published (only 7.83 years left)

Washington Examiner ^ | 3/26/23 | Matt Lamb

[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.”

[Kalamata]

>>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.

I prefer a more accurate term, Communist Science. One of the disinformation tactics of the communist is to label anti-communists as Nazis. Holden Thorp and other elitists of the science orthodoxy are virtually all “progressive” (i.e., communist.)

For example, world-class scientists who happen to be Christian, such as Dr. James Tour, are excluded from membership in the National Academy of Sciences.

Mr. Kalamata

[Kalamata]

>>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?

It is virtually impossible to get published in a so-called “peer-reviewed” science journal if you deny Darwinism and/or the climate prophets.

Mr. Kalamata