Climate change Intelligent Design Peer review

Mark Steyn on the politicization of science journals

Spread the love

Commentator Steyn noticed this trend in an article in a recent edition of Nature in relation to climate change, where Nature, to judge from a recent paper, hopes to end the debate rather than win it:

As Judith [Curry] herself puts it:

“Apart from the rank stupidity of this article and the irresponsibility of Nature in publishing this, this paper does substantial harm to climate science.”

But Nature doesn’t care. It suffices for peer-reviewed science in the third millennium:

“It’s time to stop giving these people visibility, which can be easily spun into false authority,” Professor Alex Petersen said. “By tracking the digital traces of specific individuals in vast troves of publicly available media data, we developed methods to hold people and media outlets accountable for their roles in the climate-change-denialism movement, which has given rise to climate change misinformation at scale.”

Gotcha. So you’re just another guy in the shut-up business, a phenomenon of our times rising far more rapidly than sea levels in the Maldives. “Consensus enforcement” (in Dr Curry’s very useful formulation) stalks our public discourse in everything from immigration to Islam to transgender bathrooms. But climate alarmism is (for the moment) unique in attempting to pervert the scientific method to advance its political goals – to declare that science proves that a scientist, merely by attracting the attention of a Vancouver blogger, is transformed into a contrarian who should never be heard from again.

Mark Steyn, “End of the Peer Show” at

It sounds like, in their ideal scenario, the rest of us would never know, except for our own experience, if what they are saying is incorrect.

What science looks like when it gets Woke: Guardian Axed Science Blog, Spreads Sciencey Rumors Instead

When Medical Journals Get Woke…

Why has a historic medical publication gone weird

New England Journal of Medicine, seeking new editor, urged to get woke Journal editor: “The main job of journals will not be to disseminate science but to ‘speak truth to power,’ encourage debate, campaign, investigate and agenda-set — the same job as the mass media.

Lancet: Why has a historic medical publication gone weird?


Was Thomas Kuhn not so “evil” after all? Philosopher of science: If Errol or Kripke or anyone can tell me something absolutely objective and unchanging about what’s out there in the natural world, I sincerely want to hear and believe that. Maybe I should (re)turn to Jesus. (Huh?)

Follow UD News at Twitter!

2 Replies to “Mark Steyn on the politicization of science journals

  1. 1

    You know, if the practice of science were truly no different than the liberal arts–history, sociology, psychology–then filtering out the opposing views might actually be a practical method to dominating the field. But when Germany banned “Jewish science”, and when Russia banned “bourgeois genetics”, it didn’t turn out well for them. So let’s just suppose that Nature bans teleology. Then people who ask “what is junk DNA for?” will not get funding, and Dan Graur will be unable to solve the mysteries of promoters, cell division, cancer, and epigenetics. It is Feynman’s warning all over again, the easiest person to fool is yourself. Because then you become one.

  2. 2
    asauber says:

    “But climate alarmism is (for the moment) unique in attempting to pervert the scientific method to advance its political goals”

    And I’d say we’ve had at least 20 solid years of daily pervasive perversion. And Brother Brian changes out his lightbulbs.


Leave a Reply