Science magazine an advocacy platform for activists against Trump

Science magazine continues to explore the depths of junk science-fueled activism.

Here’s the lead author:

As spotlighted in “Scare Pollution: Why and How to Fix the EPA,” government science is as corrupt as corrupt gets.

Read the entire attack in Science.

12 thoughts on “Science magazine an advocacy platform for activists against Trump”

  1. Precautionary Principled Andy Leveris, DOW CEO who proclaimed on CNBC that we should spend billions$$$ on Global Warming just to be safe. I almost puked seeing him in front of the CEOs at Trump’s executive conference—change your mind Andy?
    On is it the DOW-DuPont merger that prompts your being there?

  2. Gretchen Goldman is the research director for the Center for Science and Democracy at the Union of Concerned Scientists. In her role, Dr. Goldman leads research efforts on the role of science in public policy, focusing on topics ranging from scientific integrity in government decision-making, to political interference in science-based standards on hydraulic fracturing, climate change, sugar, and chemicals.

    Dr. Goldman came to UCS from the Georgia Institute of Technology, where she was a postdoctoral research fellow working on statistical modeling of urban air pollution for use in epidemiologic studies of acute human health effects.

    She holds a Ph.D. and M.S. in environmental engineering from the Georgia Institute of Technology, and a B.S. in atmospheric science from Cornell University.

    This lady is typical. dubious terms such as environmental engineering and epidemiology are commonplace. No shock she has moved into public policy rather than science.

    It is literally her full time job to write these type of articles, and Trump is irrelevant in the equation.

    She even wrote: “The public will suffer if politicization of science is normalized. “

  3. Most of these people arent real scientist from what little i saw.

    The left is trying to use Trump to take over science now

  4. “Those guys are progressive idiots …”

    I wonder which part makes them “idiots”? The part that is “progressive”? Or, the unmentioned part that they are actual scientists and have science-related credentials?

    Have you ever read the SCIENCE magazine?

    Give it a try. It’ll be good for you. I mean well.

  5. You want to maintain scientific integrity? Do the following:
    1) Archive all your ‘raw’ data and make it publicly available.
    2) Detail the methods you used to process your data.
    3) Most importantly, don’t be opposed to anyone checking your work and conclusions.

  6. Isn’t Kenji Watts offended and needing a safe-space since the magazine is called “Cat”alyst? Are the canineophobes?

  7. First thing is that membership in the ‘Union of Concerned Scientists’ does not constitute a professional credential. Ask Kenji Watts of the household of Anthony Watts
    Second thing is that ‘Science’ magazine, the organ of the AAAS, has been primarily a political advocacy pulp for several years, abandoning every principle of critical thinking in favor of agitating for increased research funding.

  8. many so-called scientist need to have the government supply of baby milk (grants to further political agendas) cut. the only advocacy the federal government should have is all government provisions should be available to all US citizens. and NOT visitors.

  9. Their article claims: “Officials chose
    science advisory committee members based
    on who they voted for rather than scientific
    credentials, prevented federal scientists
    from publicly sharing their research and expertise,
    and manipulated scientific reports
    to help justify policy decisions.”

    That perfectly describes everything done by the global warming scientists and their governmental enablers. And the people writing the article were major participants in the wrongdoing they complain about.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.