The other day, we told you about 'Scientific American' the magazine that purports to be about, well, science.
They recently endorsed Kamala Harris because -- even though she's from the party that thinks there's 57 different genders -- she understands science. Or something.
Someone should ask Kamala to define what a woman is.
Anyway, how did we get here? How did we get to a place where 'science' became another religious sect of the Democratic Party? It certainly didn't happen overnight. It's the result of the Left's politicization of everything.
And here's a thread that explores who is running 'Scientific American' these days, and it's a list of progressive liberals who are less interested in science than their agenda.
The post continues:
First up: the editor in chief, Laura Helmuth.
Helmuth is actually a scientist (PhD cognitive neuroscience), although she prefers to be known as a Woman In Science. From her bio, "She speaks frequently on ... ways to use social media effectively and fight misinformation."
Oh. Misinformation.
Next up, the managing editor Jeanna Bryer.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
Bryer has an English BA, an MSc in biogeochemistry, and a graduate degree in journalism. Not really a scientist, though apparently she did some wetland conservation work.
"She is a firm believer that science is for everyone". Does… pic.twitter.com/xYTNEE6DfV
Not really a scientist.
But an English major.
The post continues:
"She is a firm believer that science is for everyone".
Does 'everyone' include Trump voters? Rhetorical. Yikes, that haircut though.
Just screams 'bitter middle aged shrew with penis envy'.
Recommended
We're going to guess Trump voters are excluded from all the science.
Next up, senior news reporter Meghan Bartels. From her bio she doesn't seem to have any actual scientific training - she's worked exclusively as a "science reporter" and has master's in journalism.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
This is a face that despises ethics in gaming journalism. pic.twitter.com/ikkIbew7xx
Another journalist pretending to understand science. Peachy.
Next we have Sunya Bhutta, the "Chief Audience Engagement Editor", which sounds like she runs social media or something, and is in fact precisely that. Once again she has absolutely no scientific training - she's an English BA, which appears to be her highest qualification.… pic.twitter.com/jm2NxOiBbX
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
Look, this writer has a BA and an MA in English.
She is not a scientist.
These people are cosplaying as scientists.
The first male we find is Lee Billings, senior editor for space/physics. Billings doesn't appear to be a scientist either (journalism degree), but the American Institute of Physics gave him an award for a book he wrote about astrobiology, so there's that.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
This face is screaming… pic.twitter.com/mu2G3lIoGf
We're noticing a trend here: white progressives.
Explains so much.
The senior graphics editor is another middle aged woman, Jen Christiansen. The problem glasses and chainsaw haircut immediately inform you that she has Strong Opinions on politics, and that she will take every opportunity to inform you about those opinions, despite it being… pic.twitter.com/Jz48f2Ge8j
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
The other trend: next to no scientific background or education.
Jeffery DelViscio is the Chief Multimedia Editor. He's a former NYT reporter, but does actually have some scientific experience, having worked on an oceanographic research vessel.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
As an aside, it really jumps out that what small amount of scientific training the editors have… pic.twitter.com/o68CIci15V
A New York Times reporter, with a tiny bit of scientific experience.
Arminda Downey-Mavromatis is the Associate Engagement Editor, i.e. the social media intern. There's an even chance she wrote the tweet the OP QT'd. Hi, Arminda!
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
To her credit, she has a BA (not a BSc?) in biochemistry, but seems to have worked exclusively in publishing. pic.twitter.com/J0xoqVWioW
A science degree, but no scientific experience.
This smarmy-looking character, straight out of central casting for "middle management", is Mark Fischetti, Senior Editor, Sustainability. "Sustainability" is apparently a scientific field now.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
He does, however, have a physics degree - the first hard scientist in the pressroom -… pic.twitter.com/7pFCGztjWm
Finally! A degree in physics. An actual hard science.
But he works in sustainability, which is not a scientific field.
There are dozens more in the pressroom to get through, but the point has already been made.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
Scientific American isn't Scientific American. It's a skinsuit being worn by a cabal of overpromoted head girls and their housebroken soyboys, for whom science is only interesting…
The post continues:
It's a skinsuit being worn by a cabal of overpromoted head girls and their housebroken soyboys, for whom science is only interesting insofar as it can be used to bolster propaganda imperatives for their side's political goals - "sustainability", "equity", and so on. If those goals require "science" to be redefined as "supporting a cackling social-climbing prostitute with the verbal IQ of a parakeet", then that's what The Science means.
Science journalism is desperately in need of a Gamergate.
No lies detected.
There are 28 individuals listed in the SciAm pressroom. Of these, 17 are women, 10 are men, and 1 is a "they".
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
Ctl-F 'physics' yields 3 with physics degrees, of whom 1 has a PhD.
Ctl-F 'Ph.D.' yields a whole 3 hits.
A dearth of scientific background and experience.
— Dr John Carter, PhD (@martianwyrdlord) September 18, 2024
Wokeness has ruined science, including 'Scientific American', and these are the faces of people directly responsible for destroying the reputation of a much-needed field of study.
So keep this in mind when they 'endorse' candidates like Kamala Harris. It's not science. It's a political agenda.
Join the conversation as a VIP Member