• Privacy Policy
  • About Us
  • Contact Us
Climate Change Dispatch
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us
No Result
View All Result
Climate Change Dispatch
No Result
View All Result

Scientific American’s Shock Endorsement Of Kamala Over Trump Sparks Outrage

by Joshua Klein
September 18, 2024, 2:49 PM
in Media, News and Opinion
Reading Time: 3 mins read
A A
5

kamala rally milwaukee

In a historic move, Scientific American magazine has endorsed Democrat Vice President Kamala Harris for president — after having made its then-sole exception by endorsing Joe Biden in 2020 — citing science, healthcare, abortion, gun rights, technology, and climate action as key reasons. [emphasis, links added]

On Monday, Scientific American, one of the oldest and most respected science publications in the U.S., made headlines by endorsing Kamala Harris for president. “Vote for Kamala Harris to Support Science, Health and the Environment,” the publication advocated.

In what was only the second time in the magazine’s 179-year history that it has backed a presidential candidate — the first being Joe Biden in 2020 — the editors cite Harris’s dedication to science-based policy, public health improvements, and environmental protection, as well as her support for “reproductive rights,” as reasons for their rare political stance.

The editorial drew sharp contrasts between Harris and her opponent, former President Donald Trump, who they described as one who “endangers public health and safety and rejects evidence, preferring instead nonsensical conspiracy fantasies.”

The magazine also expressed concern over Trump’s “dangerous” and “disastrous” record, particularly his handling of public health during the COVID-19 pandemic and his rollback of environmental protections.

Insisting that “Only one [future] is a vote for reality and integrity,” the piece concludes with a plea: “We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”

The move by the major science magazine, which is particularly notable given its traditionally neutral stance, sparked outrage.

“Authoritarian Leftist partisanship has hijacked everything: academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, Justice system, etc.,” wrote Evolutionary behavior scientist Dr. Gad Saad.

Authoritarian Leftist partisanship has hijacked everything: academia, science, journalism, medicine, business, law, entertainment, culture, Justice system, etc. https://t.co/6gruRwZTqX

— Gad Saad (@GadSaad) September 16, 2024

“An utterly predictable and worse boring “revelation” from the pathetic and self-destructive woke mob that captured @sciam,” wrote clinical psychologist and bestselling author Dr. Jordan Peterson.

An utterly predictable and worse boring "revelation" from the pathetic and self-destructive woke mob that captured @sciam https://t.co/3TRIlVjbti

— Dr Jordan B Peterson (@jordanbpeterson) September 16, 2024

“You endorsed a candidate, Joe Biden, in the last election. Your science publication has been compromised by ideologues, and it’s reflected in the unscientific and disgraceful content you’ve published in recent years,” wrote journalist Andy Ngo.

“A science magazine should not be endorsing presidents. This is why you have lost all credibility,” wrote evolutionary biologist Colin Wright. “And yes, I’d be equally critical if you had endorsed Trump.”

“I will never forgive you people for destroying a once great science magazine,” wrote independent journalist Christina Buttons.

In 2020, the magazine backed 2020 Democrat presidential nominee Joe Biden in its first-ever presidential endorsement in the magazine’s 175-year history.

The editors wrote that they felt “compelled” to support Biden in his effort to defeat President Donald Trump, citing Trump’s handling of the coronavirus crisis and his skepticism on issues such as climate change.

“The evidence and the science show that Donald Trump has badly damaged the U.S. and its people — because he rejects evidence and science,” the editors wrote in the magazine’s October issue.

In June, the long-standing science magazine called for federal regulations for homeschooling, even suggesting that parents of homeschooled children “undergo a background check.”

Last year, a Scientific American piece claimed that a world with fewer people means a changed climate and better outcomes for the remaining population – human and otherwise – of the planet.

Read rest at Breitbart

  • Truth
  • Twitter
  • Facebook
  • LinkedIn
  • Gettr
  • Threads
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Mastodon
  • Buffer
  • Telegram
  • Email
  • Copy Link
  • Share Using More Networks…

Popular Posts

Electric Vehicles (EVs)

The ‘Green’ Scam Of The Century: How ‘Renewables’ Increase Fossil Fuel Demands

Oct 23, 2024
News and Opinion

Antarctica Is Colder, Icier Today Than At Any Time In 5,000 Years

Apr 15, 2024
Energy

30-Plus Signs That The Climate Scam Is Collapsing

Apr 09, 2025

Comments 5

  1. LOL@Klimate Katastrophe Kooks says:
    1 year ago

    Email sent to the Scientific American editors with proof that the CAGW hypothesis has been disproved, that CAGW is nothing more than a complex mathematical scam:

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554236765

    Or you can go directly to the post at PatriotAction.us:
    https://www.patriotaction.us/showthread.php?tid=2711

    If you want the files I attached to that email to Scientific American, they are three files, consisting of further mathematical proof that climatologists are lying, a derivation of the Specific Lapse Rate for 17 constituent atomic and molecular species of the atmosphere proving that CO2 has such a negligible effect upon surface temperature that it is literally unmeasurable (0.00024538389628901 K surface temperature reduction for a reduction of CO2 from 430 ppm to 280 ppm), and another showing that increasing CO2 by 10x (from 430 ppm to 4300 ppm) would only increase surface temperature by 0.03763035491536 K. You can even do the math yourself to verify the results.

    You can find the contents of those files here:
    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554079224

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554085134

    https://disqus.com/home/discussion/cfact/the_un_and_the_biden_administration_want_net_zero_for_the_uswhile_china_opts_for_energy_realism/#comment-6554085756

  2. Geir Aaslid says:
    1 year ago

    Who do you write this nonsense:
    On Monday, Scientific American, one of the oldest and most respected science publications in the U.S., made headlines by …..

    Decades ago Scientific American ceased being a scientific journal, and the respect rapidly evaporated. They now stand for woke, pseudoscienfific climate lunacy. The endorsement of Kamala Harris was highly predictable.

  3. David Lewis says:
    1 year ago

    Endorsing a candidate may be new for Scientific American but their leftist policies are not. I did not renew my subscription in the early 1990’s due to their junk science articles supporting gun control.

    • David Lewis says:
      1 year ago

      The author of one of the so called science papers supporting gun control refused to share his data despite repeated requests from the National Rifle Association. Now, the authors of some studies on climate change refuse to show their data. In both cases, the most likely reason is these authors know that the data does not support their conclusions.

  4. Shoki Kaneda says:
    1 year ago

    Like many other institutions, Scientific American has been subverted by doctrinaire leftists for whom the cited reasons are not science but dogma.

Stay Connected On Social Media

gab-logo

Donate Today

Beating back the alarmist narrative takes time and money. Please donate today to help!

Recent Posts

  • clouds sun earthNew Study Finds Recent Global Warming Mostly Driven By Natural Forces—Not CO2
    Oct 27, 2025
    Recent warming is largely due to natural climate factors, with only one-third linked to rising greenhouse gases, new study shows. […]
  • Poverty in IndiaHow Climate Dogma Is Keeping The World’s Poor In The Dark
    Oct 27, 2025
    Western climate policies keep billions in poverty by denying developing nations access to affordable energy, all in the name of climate change. […]
  • EU's Ursula Von Der Leyen and TrumpUS Pressures Europe To Roll Back Climate Mandates, Targets Net Zero Policies
    Oct 27, 2025
    The Trump administration urges EU to weaken rules on emissions and sustainability, citing risks to trade and energy reliability. […]
  • aoc dollarClimate Tightwads: Most Americans Reject $1 Monthly Carbon Fee, Poll Shows
    Oct 27, 2025
    Most Americans won’t pay $1 a month to fight the so-called threat of human-caused climate change, new AP-NORC/EPIC poll shows. […]
  • Surface miningTrump Moves To Break Communist China’s Grip On Rare Earth Minerals
    Oct 27, 2025
    Trump moves to break Communist China’s control over rare earth minerals critical to U.S. technology and defense. […]
  • COP30 Amazon17 Republican AGs Urge Trump Admin To Skip COP30 Over Green Energy Policies
    Oct 24, 2025
    The attorneys general say attending COP30 would back costly, unreliable wind and solar and risk U.S. energy security. […]
  • severe storm over cityClimate Expert Reveals Latest Scandal Tied To Billion-Dollar Disasters
    Oct 24, 2025
    Climate Central takes over the Billion-Dollar Disasters tabulation, sparking fresh controversy over its methods and motives. […]
  • ocean sun cloudsNew Study Finds 75% Of Rising Ocean Heat Likely Natural, CO2 Not A Factor
    Oct 24, 2025
    Study shows ocean warming driven mostly by natural cycles, not greenhouse gas emissions, challenging mainstream global warming narratives. […]
  • LNG terminal in germanyU.S. And Qatar Push Back On EU’s Climate Mandates That Threaten LNG Exports
    Oct 24, 2025
    U.S. and Qatari officials warn that the EU’s latest climate regulations under CSDDD could endanger Europe’s access to affordable natural gas. […]
  • marines trainingCrazy Hill Op-Ed Demands Generals Respond To Climate Change ‘National Security’ Threat
    Oct 23, 2025
    The Hill warns of climate Armageddon unless U.S. generals join the fight against ‘Mother Nature,’ now deemed a national security threat. […]

Get Instant Email Notifications

Subscribe to receive a digest of daily stories, or get emailed once they're published. Check your Junk/Spam folder for a verification email.

Submit a tip

Please enter your email, so we know you're human.

Books You May Like

exposing great lie

Have a suggestion? Let us know! We swap out books based on your input. We participate in the Amazon Services LLC Associates Program. See here.

  • About
  • Privacy Policy
  • Contact Us

© Portions copyright Climate Change Dispatch

No Result
View All Result
  • Home
  • Videos
  • Who We Are
  • Facts Vs. Fearmongering
    • Real science vs Junk Science
      • 1100-plus Peer-Reviewed Studies
      • 97% – Myth of the Climate Change Consensus
      • Michael Crichton: Aliens Cause Global Warming
      • Climate change and its causes
      • Climate Science Primer
      • CO2 is not pollution
      • Deceptive Surface Temperature Records
      • Editorial: Great Global Warming Hoax
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 1
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 2
      • Rules for Climate Radicals: Part 3
      • Why CO2 Is A Minor Player In Global Climate
      • Why Politicized Science Is So Dangerous
    • Facts Not Fear
      • A Simple Question For Climate Alarmists
      • Climate Change – The Facts
      • Climate Change Fears Are Empirically Baseless
      • Global Warming 101
      • Global Warming Q&A
      • Understanding The Medieval Warm Period
      • Ocean Cycles and Climate
      • Overview of Plate Climatology Theory
      • Precautionary Principle
      • Should We Celebrate Carbon Dioxide?
      • The Skeptics Handbook
      • Weather Versus Climate
      • Why I’m a GW skeptic
      • Winning the climate debate with facts
      • Why Aliens Cause Global Warming
    • Greenhouse FAQs
      • CO2, Plants, & Industry
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • How much have temps changed?
      • Is global warming real?
      • Measuring temperature
      • Swimming in CO2?
      • Scientists urge caution?
      • Today’s warming trend
      • Variations in temperature
    • Gore’s Greatest Goofs
      • Deconstructing the Truth
      • Fact-Checking Al Gore’s Latest Predictions
      • How Gore Created The Global Warming Hoax
    • Inside Real Climate
      • Closer look at the 97% Consensus
      • GW’s Amazing Story
      • IPCC gets failing grade
      • Real Climate Exposed!
      • Truth about Real Climate
      • We’ve Been Conned
      • What is there a 97% consensus about?
    • Behind the IPCC
      • 1,000 Scientists Dissent
      • Climategate: Caught Green-Handed!
      • Climategate Inquiries
      • Climategate Inquiries 2
      • NIPCC Report Now Available
      • Understanding the Climategate Inquiries
  • Submissions
  • Contact Us

© 2025 Climate Change Dispatch

 
Share via
  • Facebook
  • Like
  • Twitter
  • Pinterest
  • LinkedIn
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky
Share via
  • Digg
  • Tumblr
  • VKontakte
  • Print
  • Email
  • Reddit
  • Buffer
  • Love This
  • Weibo
  • Pocket
  • Xing
  • Odnoklassniki
  • WhatsApp
  • Meneame
  • Blogger
  • Amazon
  • Yahoo Mail
  • Gmail
  • AOL
  • Newsvine
  • HackerNews
  • Evernote
  • MySpace
  • Mail.ru
  • Viadeo
  • Line
  • Flipboard
  • Comments
  • SMS
  • Viber
  • Telegram
  • Subscribe
  • Facebook Messenger
  • Kakao
  • LiveJournal
  • Yammer
  • Edgar
  • Fintel
  • Mix
  • Instapaper
  • Copy Link
  • Truth
  • gab-logo Gab
  • Gettr
  • Baidu
  • Mastodon
  • Threads
  • Bluesky