January 28, 2017 | David F. Coppedge

Big Science Goes Total Left in Opposing Trump

Have they no shame? Science is not supposed to take political positions. What they’re doing this week undermines their credibility as unbiased seekers of the truth.

Everyone knows the country is deeply divided politically, but there are certain groups who should keep out of politics on company time. If a scientist wants to express his or her views privately, that’s legit as it is for any citizen. But pretending that ‘science’ per se (as represented through scientific institutions and journals) only has one view of the new president is out of bounds. Maybe Big Media is refusing to report on scientists who support the new administration, but all you read in the major media is that ‘scientists’ not only dislike President Trump; they vow to fight him. Here are some samples:

dScientists join massive protest against Trump (Nature). What could be clearer? “Scientists,” an imprecise group if there ever was one, are “against Trump.” Conversely, as the article implies, Trump is against science — and against “diversity” and “equality,” too. Sara Reardon reports, “Researchers at Women’s March in Washington DC defend their work as US president takes office.” Conservative scientists or researchers need not apply, because they don’t even exist in this broad-brush generalization. Nature also posted tweets from “Scientists on their hopes and fears for BM-screamclickTrump administration” — only negative tweets, of course. Example from an anonymous Mr. E: “As teacher of well-founded Theory of Evolution, I worry about science under #BetsyDeVos & her science denying ilk.

Climate scientists brace themselves for a Trump-led witch-hunt (New Scientist). “Witch-hunt?” Them’s fightin’ words. And the leftist pseudo-science rag New Scientist is fightin’ with ’em. Scientists, that is. Global warmists. Panicked piglets at the government teat.

THE Climate forecast for the next four years is bleak. Donald Trump notoriously tweeted in 2012 that global warming was a hoax created by China to damage US manufacturing. As president-elect, he has chosen a climate change denialist to head the Environmental Protection Agency, and his pick for the helm of the energy department (DOE) is Rick Perry, who once suggested dismantling it.

Question: if the DOE were dismantled, would it warm the planet or change anything? The DOE didn’t even exist until the summer of 1977. Take a moment to watch Bjorn Lomborg allay the fears and non-reason of these fearmongers (Prager University). The over-the-top propaganda words in the NS article are unworthy of science. If you thought for a moment that NS is a “news” site, pay attention to the bottom of the article, where they tell climate scientists where they can get legal counsel. The BBC is in on the campaign across the pond, too, promoting the march on Washington and the rogue Twitter accounts – no mention of the friendly meeting yesterday between President Trump and their own Prime Minister, Theresa May.

Scientists Plan Washington March in Response to Trump (Live Science). Laura Geggel reports only scientists in favor of protesting Trump and his policies, giving the impression that ‘scientists’ represent a monolithic political bloc. Her bias mirrors that of the mainstream media, who gave 129 times more coverage of the anti-Trump women’s march on Washington compared to the March for Life (source: Newsbusters). A website was made to advertise the event, scientistsmarchonwashington.com.

‘Rogue’ Science Agency Twitter Accounts Mock Trump-Ordered Restrictions (Space.com). Like Geggel, reporter Tariq Malik presents only anti-Trump positions of selected people pretending to speak for science. These people have set up unofficial Twitter accounts emblazoned with the logos of federal agencies such as the National Park Service, NOAA and NASA, to blast the new administration and its policies. Then Malik hands the baton back to Geggel with a link to her anti-Trump article about the march on Washington. Incidentally, Mindy Waisgerber presents the same bias in her Live Science article about the rogue Twitter accounts.

3 Things You Need to Know About the Science Rebellion Against Trump (National Geographic). Et tu, NG? This blatantly partisan article by Paul Nicklen slanders Trump about orders “silencing” certain department heads without giving any response from the administration’s side. Nicklen makes it seem like Trump is acting out of personal peeve instead of studied position. The “heroes” of Trump’s “muzzling” of these departments (which do, after all, report to him), are scientists fighting his alleged “attacks” on science, and those supporting the march on Washington. One wishes in vain for a response by Kellyanne Conway, Mike Pence or Reince Priebus in the name of fairness, but Nicklen’s advocacy piece is nothing short of a battle cry, shouting ‘bravo‘ to the anti-Trump forces. And he calls it “three things you need to know.”

Doomsday Clock Ticks Half-Minute Closer to Midnight in Historic Move (Live Science). It should be patently obvious to any thinking person that this “Doomsday Clock” scientists keep promoting has nothing to do with science, since nobody can foresee the future. It’s only a visualization gimmick to further certain political objectives. By reporting this charade, Mindy Waisberger joins with the self-appointed prophets to engage in fear-mongering about Trump’s election and his apparent denial of the science of man-caused global warming.

What is fascism? (Live Science). Fascism belongs in the history and political science departments, not “live science.” In this not-so-subtle salvo against the Trump administration, Jessie Szalay pretends to offer a balanced presentation of the political history and nature of fascism, citing history experts. The opening photo shows Mussolini and Hitler. The timing of this article, however, is highly suspect, coming right after Democrats have accused Trump of fascism and ‘Hitlerian’ statements. That could be OK, shedding light on history, if Szalay also included some balance to defend Trump against the slander, but Szalay misrepresents conservatism as a stepping stone to fascism. Any mention of the anti-Trump protestors sporting blatantly communist slogans and resorting to violence? Crickets.

Women’s access to birth control and abortion fading under Trump (New Scientist). Shouldn’t it be good news that abortion is becoming “safe, legal and rare” for liberals who once advocated those descriptive words? What could science possibly have to do with abortion? For all practical purposes, scientists would have to agree that a human life begins at conception, when a full complement of unique human genes began the developmental program toward birth. Why does NS writer Clare Wilson begin her anti-life rant with a photo of protestors with signs, “Stand with Planned Parenthood,” when that abortion provider was founded by a notorious eugenicist and racist?

Those are just a few recent articles showing the lopsided political bias of Big Science. We’re not even caught up yet on the latest news. Trump hasn’t even done much concerning science after one week in office other than sign some executive orders, and the Senate has dragged on confirmation of his Cabinet appointees. Wouldn’t it be more scientific to actually watch for some data to come in, rather than to shout that the sky is falling? Who knows; liberals might even like some of Trump’s policies a year from now.

It bears repeating: there are many great individual scientists who do quality work in their specialties, regardless of their political feelings. But their institutions — Big Science and its lapdog, Big Media –have gone so radically far left that they cannot be taken seriously when they engage in blatant, overt, shameless political advocacy. Treat them like you would Elizabeth Warren and Hillary Clinton.

 

 

Comments

  • dtrenaissanceman says:

    Thanks for the good article. I don’t claim to be a scientist, but it seems to me the bottom line is, even the question of whether science itself is a worthy pursuit is a non-scientific question.

  • Vlad says:

    Oh I so wish all liberals created their own country to live in peace and harmony, far from churches and objective morals…… Wait, I think they did it once by establishing town Liberal in Missouri. That was a fun experiment they learned nothing from.

Leave a Reply