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