X and the WSJ point out how the public does not trust of scientists who push agendas.
Kind of like the way Dan Peterson's Interpreters constantly push M2C and SITH in their effort to persuade Latter-day Saints to follow the scholars instead of the prophets.
_____
In this case it is Scientific American.
_____
The WSJ pegged this months ago.
The Political Scientific American
A very unscientific Harris endorsement shows why voters don’t trust scientific elites.
The scientific clerisy fret about eroding public trust in science, but what do they expect when they act like political partisans? The latest exhibit is an editorial this week endorsing Kamala Harris by the formerly esteemed publication Scientific American.
The magazine has a rich 179-year history of highlighting emerging technology and scientific debates in ways the lay public can understand. So it’s sad to behold its transformation into another progressive mouthpiece, broadcasting opinions on such subjects as gun violence, climate policy and identity politics that masquerade as science. Its Harris endorsement is a classic of this genre.
The editorial repeats favorite straw men on the left—for instance, that Mr. Trump “ignores the climate crisis in favor of more pollution” because he supports rolling back burdensome regulations and green-energy subsidies. Never mind that emissions declined during the Trump Presidency as cheap natural gas from hydraulic fracturing replaced coal power.
It also criticizes Mr. Trump’s support as President for “a work requirement as a condition for Medicaid eligibility.” By contrast, the editorial says, Ms. Harris supports “science” and would “improve health” by expanding Medicaid coverage. Who knew “science” supports a bigger welfare state?
Most of the magazine’s swipes at Mr. Trump aren’t related to science or health. “He goads people into hate and division, and he inspires extremists at state and local levels to pass laws that disrupt education and make it harder to earn a living,” the editorial avers.
By disrupting education, the editors don’t mean the Covid school shutdowns backed by teachers unions. They refer to state laws that ban critical race theory in K-12 schools.
The editorial continues: “Even after Trump was injured and a supporter was killed in an attempted assassination, the former president remained silent on gun safety.” Are the editors implying Mr. Trump is partly at fault for his second assassination attempt? They also parrot the mischaracterization of JD Vance’s remark regretting that school shootings have become a “fact of life.”
The more scientists and their magazines imitate an MSNBC roundtable, the more Americans will distrust anything they say.
