In a text called Nature uses the D-word, Anthony Watts notes that Nature, in a shockingly political diatribe called
Science scorned (Nature),uses the popular radicals' expletive for climate realists, the "deniers". Well, the comrades inkspillers try to do much more than that. They want to convince the readers that when it comes to any question you may ask, science and left-wing politics is the same thing.
Make no mistake about it: this is the lesson the reader is expected to make from every single paragraph of the text.
Nature attacks Rush Limbaugh and others because they dare to criticize the Left for their attempts to hijack science and to contaminate it to their own image. However, the very editorial in Nature is nothing else than another proof that Limbaugh is 100% right.
Besides whole paragraphs of garbage, vitriol, ad hominem attacks, and shit that is simply way too obscene to be reprinted on a relatively polite blog such as The Reference Frame, Nature complains that
Yet the public often buys into anti-science, anti-regulation agendas that are orchestrated by business interests and their sponsored think tanks and front groups.Holy cow? What are the "anti-science, anti-regulation" adjectives supposed to mean when they appear in this combination? When two adjectives appear in this way, separated by a comma, it means that the speaker wants to convey the idea that these two adjectives are effectively equivalent, or nearly equivalent.
But what does "anti-science" have to do with "anti-regulation"? The only way how "anti-science" and "anti-regulation" could be linked would be for the "science" to be the same thing or nearly the same thing as the "regulation". Clearly, that's what the Nature editorial tries to communicate. Well, if it is so, then it is easy to understand that "anti-science" and "anti-regulation" is the same thing, too.
It is a breathtaking delusion to think that science is correlated with regulation in any way.
Science has nothing whatsoever to do with regulation. Science cannot tell us what priorities we should hold dear. Science cannot tell us what is "universally" bad and what is "universally" good. The good and the evil always boil down to the personal interests of people and their groups and, more generally, to moral values that extrapolate the experience and that transcend these interests. However, the moral values cannot be scientifically determined because they always depend on subjective considerations. And if there are disagreements about moral values, the confrontation between the different opinions is always a matter of politics, not science.
The only scientific discipline that has something quantitative to say about regulation is economics and be sure that economics says that regulation is mostly harmful.
It is equally absurd to put the business sector against science. To say the least, the private sector has achieved a huge portion of the achievements in all applied sciences. There is absolutely nothing wrong about science that is studied for the private money. And this funding arrangement has been more efficient in many cases. It is not hard to understand why.
The scientific community has had a strong left-wing political bias for several decades. And indeed, Barack Obama's presidency with its attempts to "restore science to its rightful place" has made the situation in the U.S. worse than ever.
The main thing that Obama would do and should do if he sincerely cared about the rightful place for science would be to fire all the people who have ever been seen to identify science with a particular political ideology - to dismiss all the disgusting left-wing ideologues pretending to be either scientists or advocates for science. He should try as much as he can to guarantee that for example, the authors of this atrocious diatribe in Nature will never write about science and his presidency in this way again.
Even if Obama had some honest or conservative guts and roots, I don't quite believe that it's possible for him to solve this dreadful situation because he's literally surrounded by the extremist left-wing scum pretending to be an innocent group of science fans.
While global warming is treated as the main topic in the diatribe and it is indeed the most politicized concept that was brought to contemporary science, it is not the only problem. Politics and people's purely politically motivated efforts to impose regulation of many types may be realized and is being realized in many other disciplines besides climate science.
It must always be fought against because, as Rush Limbaugh rightfully noted, such a political control over the big conclusion of science is always as pernicious as eugenics or Lysenkoism. It leads to the elimination of the basic principles of science. And in most cases, it ultimately hurts the society as well. The comparison with eugenics or Lysenkoism, although they came from the "opposite" political movements, is the right analogy here - and Limbaugh is the more impartial side of the dispute if he's able to notice.
There is no analogy or equivalence between science and regulation. Obviously, the editorial will help many more people to see that there is a genuine and serious problem with the currently politicized scientific institutions in the U.S. and elsewhere.
And that's the memo.
Bonus: CEO evaluates AGW
To improve your mood: The Independent had the honor to make an interview with a distinguished guest of high manners, Michael O'Leary, the CEO of Ryanair.
He has explained that the climate has been changing since time immemorial and global warming, which is a load of bullshit, has been renamed to climate change because there has been no warming for 12 years. It's a horseshit promoted by fucking eco-warriors who are, as O'Leary has previously determined, fucking Luddites who want to make flying a festivity for the elite and who want to return us to the 18th century. The best thing we can do with them is to shoot them.
The IPCC, the most useless organization in the world, is utter tosh and Al Gore couldn't even get fucking re-elected after a boom.
Hat tip: Juraj V.