Mocking Ensues After Scientific American Endorses Kamala Harris
The magazine showing, once again, why it is the Bud Light of science journals
Back in 2020, the once highly respected Scientific American decided to break with 175 years of editorial tradition and endorse Biden for president, saying:
That is why we urge you to vote for Joe Biden, who is offering fact-based plans to protect our health, our economy and the environment. These and other proposals he has put forth can set the country back on course for a safer, more prosperous and more equitable future.
Subsequently, the magazine has completely lost its grip on sanity, reason, and logic. Since Biden took office, let’s review some of the low-lights from the magazine’s stack of articles.
- Scientific American has colluded with other media to normalize “climate emergency” terminology, despite vast swaths of scientific evidence showing the Earth’s climate has continuously changed over 4 billion years.
- The magazine is pushing “birth parent” terminology, which is utter nonsense in the face of real biology.
- The editor-In-chief Laura Helmuth slammed for peddling gender pseudoscience on Twitter, which was brilliantly debunked by Evolutionary biologist Colin Wright.
- Most recently, the magazine offered a ridiculous take on football injuries…tying them to racism.
So, as the 2024 presidential election season enters into the final stretch, it is not surprising that Scientific American’s editorial team throws circumspection and neutrality out the window and endorses Vice President Kamala Harris.
For only the second time in our 179-year history, the editors of Scientific American are endorsing a candidate for president. That person is @KamalaHarris. | Editorial https://t.co/dOsFW8BQCn
— Scientific American (@sciam) September 16, 2024
In response, let’s take a look at how science has thrived under Biden.
Team Biden used “science” and threats of a “winter of death” to force covid vaccine mandates on the American people. In response, Americans are increasingly distrustful of both vaccines and public health officials.
Biden admitted to using stealth to enact the Green New Deal, policies that are a direct result of the climate emergency pseudoscience supported by Scientific American. You can talk to the residents of Nantucket and the Central Valley of California about the adverse environmental impacts “renewable energy” is having on those regions.
Finally, there is space exploration…which Scientific American promised Biden would support.
The coronavirus pandemic, climate change and space exploration are among the issues that Joe Biden will influence if he wins the election. https://t.co/CuneytmHpr
— Scientific American (@sciam) October 7, 2020
The SpaceX mission Polaris Dawn just successfully splashed down after accomplishing several historic firsts. Was Biden supportive?
No, because CEO Elon Musk is supporting Trump. Via David Strom of Hot Air:
It was only through the magic of Starlink–an Elon Musk project–and SpaceX’s reusable rockets and reusable Crew Dragon–that any of this was possible. Boeing, which has been in this business for about 70 years, couldn’t do it. They couldn’t perform a round-trip manned mission to the space station safely. SpaceX does it routinely.
We all know why so little attention has been paid to any of this. It’s the same reason the FAA has been slow-walking approvals for testing of Starship: Elon Musk is behind these projects.
Boeing and Blue Origin (which is struggling mightily to get into orbit with any payload of importance) are owned by friends of the Democrats, while SpaceX is owned by Musk, who has endorsed Trump. Musk is the last free speech warrior, and that is simply unacceptable.
Not surprisingly, mocking has been ensured in the wake of this inanity, led by evolutionary biologist Wright, as referenced above.
A science magazine should not be endorsing presidents. This is why you have lost all credibility. And yes, I'd be equally critical if you had endorsed Trump.
— Colin Wright (@SwipeWright) September 16, 2024
Unfortunately, it is difficult to shame the shameless.
No longer science, you’re advocacy, and shame on you.
— tree hugging s*ster 🎃 (@WelbornBeege) September 16, 2024
Intriguingly, the Scientific American endorsement did lack one key data point.
Why didn’t you name the other candidate you endorsed? pic.twitter.com/QFTxhjzDOa
— johnny maga (@_johnnymaga) September 16, 2024
In conclusion:
@sciam – The Bud Light of Science Journals https://t.co/bDKOuQZnZq pic.twitter.com/L3n82wgD6W
— Leslie Eastman ☥ (@Mutnodjmet) September 17, 2024
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
How is “equity” scientific?
Evidence shows that it drags society down to the least common denominator of misery and despair EVERY SINGLE TIME.
You mean like socialism?
“They’re the same picture.”
The paper should do a rigorous study on the psychological effect on a cabal of propping up a senile, criminal, but likable figurehead compared to a slow-wilted, skanky detestable shrew.
You lost me at “rigorous study.”
You lost me at ‘likable’. Joe Biden* was always a nasty c*nt.
You would think Scientific America would have enough scientists lying around that would have pointed out the guy they endorsed 4yrs ago was senile.
“Scientific American” has become “Woke American.”
This is a small model of what they have done to real science. They are bastardizing everything with the taint of Marxism.
She is the dumbest person I have ever seen at this level of politics. I don’t know how we got from the Founders to this. Yet, there is a level of dumb that is beyond her: people who want this F-ing idiot as president.
The scary thing is the feeling that Democrats have done enough hard work to fortify the election from the wrong result.
You mean from the America loving result?
It’s been somewhere in the neighborhood of 35 years since I dropped my subscription to Scientific American. Specifically, I was annoyed at how they were all in on the political agenda attached to what was then called global warming.
It looks like things haven’t changed. How is that non-science magazine still in business?
Same here. When Scientific American decided to stop reporting on real science and become just another PopSci magazine like all the other pseudo-scientific magazines on the magazine rack (like Discover etc.) I allowed my subscription to lapse and haven’t read it since for well on to the last forty years. And this kind of nonsense, taking sides and endorsing a presidential candidate, just reaffirms I haven’t missed anything.
I’ve never been able to understand a single article in Scientific American. The illustrators never understand the article either.
The problem continues everywhere today with regard to masses and curvature of space.
I hung on a bit longer, but stopped subscribing & reading SciAm in the early ’90s (I’d subscribed since the mid-’60s). In high school I used to read and enjoy the old copies back to the early 1930s.
A once great magazine. I had a subscription back in the 80’s. It had some great articles back in the day. Just look up the bio of the editor. A real “Karen”. She thinks someone cares about “who” she supports for President. No one cares! FKH
I would love to see them explain her “plans” while expounding on how “dangerous” Pres. Trump’s record of success was, and will be.
I wonder if he explain why she isn’t putting her marvelous plans into practice right now, in office? She is the de facto president, after all.
Keep in mind ‘Scientific AMERICAN’ is anything but. Way back in the 1980s, the formerly American periodical was sold to a German publisher, Holtzbrinck Publishing Group. There has been a merger or two since then and it’s now owned by a British-German subsidiary of Holtzbrinck Publishing Group…but, still essentially German-controlled.
So sure, it makes total sense why a German publisher would endorse Kamala Harris.
Scientific American, neither scientific nor American.
Beat me to it. I wonder what their circulation is?
Anti-freeze. The kind that poisons your pets.
Scientific American has become another mouthpiece for modern Lysenkoism.
Thanks for the article. Wired went the same direction. I guess the cool nerd kids drank the cool aid and are just the social blowhards now.
Oh, dear me, did WIRED ever! I just recently bought a one year sub based on some good on-line articles. The print publication started arriving and it is overflowing with propaganda. Now it goes right into the trash with not even a look.
Now it is called “WIERD.”
My bad: “WEIRD.”
Not only Wired but even CNET has gone over the edge.
Conquest’s Second Law is really indistinguishable from Thermodynamics’ own.
I urge you to read the editorial opinion.
I concludes as follows: (try not to laugh….or cry)
“At the top of the ballot, Harris does deserve our vote. She offers us a way forward lit by rationality and respect for all. Economically, the renewable-energy projects she supports will create new jobs in rural America. Her platform also increases tax deductions for new small businesses from $5,000 to $50,000, making it easier for them to turn a profit. Trump, a convicted felon who was also found liable of sexual abuse in a civil trial, offers a return to his dark fantasies and demagoguery, whether it’s denying the reality of climate change or the election results of 2020 that were confirmed by more than 60 court cases, including some that were overseen by judges whom he appointed.
One of two futures will materialize according to our choices in this election. Only one is a vote for reality and integrity. We urge you to vote for Kamala Harris.”
Downvote not for you but for the retching I engaged in reading that tripe.
MAKE SCIENTIFIC AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!!
Fire its editorial board.
I think it was W. F. Buckley who stated “any group not explicitly stating conservatism is its driving force will tend, over time, to become a bastion of liberalism as its founders age out.”, or words to that effect. Once the bureaucrats have taken over The End is Neigh. His own National Review magazine is a shadow of what it was during his lifetime. I used to be a subscriber.
Another example is AARP. About 20 years ago they came out as an organization officially supporting as a right late term partial birth abortions. Self, I said to myself, why is there a need to “take a stand” on this particular issue for a group with this particular demographic – ie – folks mostly too old to have kids? I haven’t renewed my membership since.
I recall a similar quote/aphorism (maybe it’s the same one from Buckley) observing that any group or institution that is not intrinsically leftist, will over time, become leftist.
Correction: any group or institution that is not intrinsically _rightist_, will over time, become leftist.
A related observation, I cannot remember by whom, is that if not actively prevented, the left will take over revered institutions, gut them, and wear their skins.
It’s just restating the same law. It was a tweet by David Burge (@iowahawkblog) that has achieved meme status.
Robert Conquest
It’s Robert Conquest’s second law.
Unfortunately, many groups and individuals that explicitly claim to be conservative will also become leftist. The list is long:
– Paul Ryan
– Bill Crystal
– Steve Schmidt
– Liz Cheney
– Mitt Romney
– Rick Wilson
– Jennifer Horn
– Reed “The Lad” Galen
– John McCain (RIH)
I could go on, but someone needs to pay for these electrons.
As others have fairly noted, an alleged scientific publication’s slavish promotion of the offensive, irrational, misogynist and decidedly anti-biology “trans” ideology and its attendant propaganda assertions and conceits (e.g., “birthing person;” “menstruating person;”) is as anti-science as you can get.
Its laughable that Democrats call conservatives “anti-science” when it is their own religion that no longer knows what a woman is and believes men can get pregnant.
PseudoScientific American
If they were scientific then they would have drawn a more accurate picture of FKH, instead of that one that is a younger and more black version of her. Also they’d conduct an audio analysis of her cackle and its effect on the environment.
I believe the cackle causes marine mammal strandings.
It may also contribute to birds flying into wind generators to escape the sound.
their agenda is clear and of course wok
look at the garbage they hire and their “body of work”
Danielle N. Lee is an American assistant professor of biology at Southern Illinois University Edwardsville,[1] best known for her science blogging and outreach efforts focused on increasing minority participation in STEM fields.
Her research interests focus on the connections between ecology and evolution and its contribution to animal behavior. In 2017, Lee was selected as a National Geographic Emerging Explorer.[2] With this position Lee traveled to Tanzania to research the behavior and biology of landmine-sniffing African giant pouched rats.[3]
just wait until the people who are now under 20 years old
take ove
what??
men cant get pregnant ??
heresy ……PLANET OF THE APES takeover
The apes still knew the difference between male and female.
true
and those chicks with beards were sometin else
I loved the part where Taylor says he wants to give Zira a kiss, and she says, “but you’re so damn ugly!”
S A. Lost their credibility 50 years ago. At least.
Scientific American has always been on the left. Only now they are no longer even the slightest bit subtle about it. It does a lot of damage because some people take it seriously. Let’s look at a specific example: the book “Unsettled” by Steve Koonin. Koonin is a first rate physicist with the skills and experience to write on the subject of global warming. Many of the reviewers, both on Amazon and elsewhere reference an article that appeared in Scientific American on June 1, 2021. Here is Koonin’s response to to the smears:
https://climaterealism.com/2021/06/dr-steve-koonin-responds-to-a-scientific-american-smear-article-by-oreskes-et-al/
Another negative review appeared in the May 13, 2021 issue. The author is an economist, not a physicist.
The criticisms are heavy on ad hominem attacks and light on any science. Read them for yourself an decide. I’ve read “Unsettled” and Koonin has done a great job making the science understandable by a general audience. You don’t need to know calculus to read it.
The magazine was respected back in the 90s. I blame the internet and the decline of old media.
“Scientific American”, which is neither was an institution in our culture. Like all such institutions and everything in our culture we are in the middle of what is a schism in how we view the universe and mankind. The dividing valley cannot be bridged anymore, nor is it going to narrow.
We are functionally two very different countries and peoples, and they have chosen their side. We shall see which, or if either, survives.
Subotai Bahadur
I’m going to predict that for only the 3rd time in their history, they will endorse a candidate in 2028, and surprise…….it will be a d. Write it down. You heard it here first. Take it to the bank!
Vote with your wallet. I just left Sirius because of Howard Stern pushing his politics. Bud is dead to me, and I filled up my pantry with GOYA when the Dems targeted them, discovering a quality product in the decision. If people do so by the 10s and hundreds of thousands it will get notice. I haven’t had a subscription to SA in years, but what if 50,000 subscribers just ended it?