The New Scientist Admits Political Bias

I read and subscribe to the New Scientist because I consider myself an amateur scientist of sorts and like to keep abreast of everything from dung beetles navigating by the Milky Way (seriously, the idea of these critters wearing tiny hats to block their view of the sky warms my heart and contrary to what you might think, increases my support of such esoteric research) to the idea that our reality is a computer simulation. But New Scientist still manages to drive me crazy and to the keyboard where I bang out letters to the editor in complete futility. Science should be a non-partisan effort, and scientists should reflect the political leanings of the general population as a whole, but it doesn’t and they don’t. Scientists are inevitably leftists, and New Scientist is about as left wing as Mother Jones, the only difference being that latter doesn’t claim to be non-partisan while New Scientist believes it is and that those of us on the Right who point out it’s leftward bias are “anti-science.”

So imagine my surprise at reading the leader of this issue of New Scientist, “Challenge unscientific thinking, whatever its source.”

Berezow and Campbell further claim that progressives who endorse unscientific ideas get a “free pass” from the scientific community. The suspicion must be that this is because scientists themselves lean towards the left, as does the media that covers them. (Both friends and critics of New Scientist tell us we lean in that direction.)

NewScientist then prints Alex Berezow and Hank Campbell’s oped, “Lefty nonsense: When progressives wage war on reason,” in which they point out that today’s liberals are not liberal in the Lockian sense but social authoritarians. “Unlike conservative authoritarians, however, they are not concerned with banning “immoral” things like sex, drugs and rock and roll. They instead seek dominion over issues such as food, the environment and education. And they claim that their policies are based on science, even when they are not.”

This has dangerous implications as when the Left champions the anti-vaccine movement that has killed unvaccinated children, and its war against GM foods has contributed to malnourishment and premature death in the Third World. And don’t get me started about Rachel Carson’s “Silent Spring” which killed millions indirectly through malaria by banning DDT.

As Berezow and Campbell note, “But conservatives don’t have a monopoly on unscientific policies. Progressives are just as bad, if not worse. Their ideology is riddled with anti-scientific feel-good fallacies designed to win hearts, not minds. Just like biodegradeable spoons, their policies often crumble in the face of reality and leave behind a big mess. Worse, anyone who questions them is condemned as anti-science.”

I always get a Generation X irony-high whenever global warming alarmists equate the anthropogenic cause of global warming hypothesis to evolution, as if the former idea is as proven as the latter theory, then try to paint AGW deniers like myself using the same brush as they do creationists. Of course that doesn’t stop them from exhibiting the same anti-science attitudes towards fracking, where science backs the safety of the practice against concerted and deeply entrenched Green opposition, the result of which is that Germany is about to blow it’s CO2 emissions sky-high by resorting to coal to replace nuclear instead of clean burning natural gas. Oh, and if you didn’t know it, fracking is why the USA is on track to meet CO2 goals unlike the anti-fracking Europeans. I’m even so sure of the safety of the practice I’d welcome it on my property where we rely upon a freshwater well for our drinking water. Unfortunately there’s no natural gas in these parts (now gold? Maybe…)

So why are scientists lefties? The terminology used by Berezow and Campbell provides a hint. “Social Authoritarians” implies a more realistic and nuanced view of one’s political belief system, showing the dichotomies between authoritarianism and libertarianism, and socialism/capitalism aka “Left” and “Right” as shown in the diagram below.

Two dimensional political belief system

In this view the Moral Majority and the environmental movement would appear in the upper right and left quadrants, both showing a keen affinity for authoritarianism. While the current Chinese government calls itself Communist, is is far more neo-liberal or Capitalist than it will admit. In fact one could make the case that is much more capitalist at this moment than the USA, and certainly more than Europe.

Scientists often are employed by large institutions in government, healthcare or academia. These institutions tend to fall on the upper side of the chart towards Authoritarianism. The bottom of the chart is sparser for a reason: it is the area where individualists, entrepreneurs, artists and philosophers live and these tend to fly under the radar. But for scientists there isn’t much money or opportunity on the bottom of the chart. The days of the experimenter or the Amateur Scientist are for the most part gone although the ideal lives on today with amateur astronomers who do much of the heavy lifting in their field including the tracking of near-earth objects. The recent approach of asteroid DA14 had NASA using live feeds from amateur run telescopes in Australia for example. But most of the jobs for scientists today are with large institutions who can afford the equipment and relatively high salaries scientists demand, and that can only be found in the upper half of the chart. When you add in the fact that scientists today are highly educated, and academia itself is an authoritarian institution with deep ties to Communist and Leftist ideals, it should be no surprise that scientists find themselves in the upper left quadrant of the matrix.

Is this a good thing for Science as a whole? Berezow and Campbell don’t think so and neither does the New Scientist. It’s candor surprised me, but I don’t expect it to let go of the bias and the dogma that compels it to support large, authoritarian schemes to find solutions to problems from Global Warming to Cancer any time soon. Still it was refreshing, and I hope that more than a few readers realizes that Science ultimately should be a non-partisan effort. But I’m not holding my breath…

No TweetBacks yet. (Be the first to Tweet this post)


  1. Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Sequestration Boogie Man Edition… Boo!:

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  2. Watcher’s Council Nominations – Sequestration Boogie Man Edition… Boo! | askmarion:

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  3. Watcher’s Council Nominations – Sequestration Boogie Man Edition … Boo! |

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  4. This Week’s Watcher’s Council Nominations |

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  5. FresnoJoe:


    “There is a generation, whose teeth are as swords, and their jaw teeth as knives, to devour the poor from off the earth, and the needy from among men.” Proverbs 30:14

  6. Watcher’s Council Nominations – Sequestration Boogie Man Edition..Boo! » Virginia Right!:

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  7. Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council nominations for the end of February 2013:

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  8. Written Egg Foo Young |:

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  9. The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results |

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor- The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  10. The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results » Virginia Right!:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor- The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  11. Trevor Loudon's New Zeal Blog » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results – 03/01/13:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  12. The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results | askmarion:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  13. Ένα νόστιμο γεύμα! |:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor- The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  14. Watcher Council Winners! | Independent Sentinel:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor- The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  15. Bookworm Room » Watcher’s Council winners for the first day of March 2013:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor- The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  16. Watcher of Weasels » Watcher’s Council Nominations – Sequestration Boogie Man Edition..Boo!:

    [...] The Razor – The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  17. Watcher of Weasels » The Council Has Spoken!! This Week’s Watcher’s Council Results:

    [...] Second place t with 1 2/3 votes – The Razor- The New Scientist Admits Political Bias [...]

  18. Ymarsakar:

    You’ll find, if you look at long lineages of martial arts and other institutions, that the first generations that started the institution or began the concept were the innovators and explorers. Then later on people became complacent and started living off the interest of the work done by their ancestors, rather than trying anything new or breaking the bank. Because there have been many cases where people veered off from accepted practice and they bankrupted themselves, losing the fortune they inherited from their ancestors.

    This became so ubiquitous that human cultures started using phrases for it, like rags to riches, riches back to rags. Prosperity and safety, living a good life off the foundation built by one’s ancestors, has certain deleterious effects on risk taking, because there’s no reward proportionate to the risk as compared to what one can obtain by letting authority and tradition keep going along via inertial.

    Eventually though, authority and tradition breaks down and loses its power to fix modern problems. Which then requires people to step up and come up with new ideas, for once, on how to fix old and new problems.

    The Japanese visual novel, Steins;Gate, presents a good introduction for scientists that want to follow a solo or independent route. It also presents information that most normal Americans wouldn’t ever hear about, such as the ionic plasma hover effect. Or the Braun tube’s capacitor potential.

  19. David:

    New Scientist is one of the most scientifically corrupt politically motivated rags I’ve ever read.
    Initially I liked it and subscribed. Then as I woke up to the real politics in the world and the agenda of the Oligarchic central banking elite and their machinations toward world government I saw key globalist propaganda agendas manifested in the articles of New Scientist, Man made global warming, overpopulation, female dominance, supporting the offical 911 fairytale, even psychology of religion!

    911 is scientifically proven to be a controlled demolition by Basic Newtonian physics (symmetric freefall of a steel high rise from moderate office fires that had burned out) yet you won’t see that in New Scientist.

    The worst and most unscientific example of New Scientist corruption is man made global warming. All the evidence supports the skeptics, there is literally zero evidence to support man made global warming.

    1. The Mediaeval Warm Period was hotter than today with much less CO2
    2. It hasn’t warmed for 17 years.
    3. No mid tropospheric hotspot disproves the warmists’ positive feedback hypothesis and proves the models wrong.
    4. No sea level rise increase.
    5. No sea temperature increase (ARGO buoy data).
    6. Outgoing Longwave radiation increases with surface warming cooling the planet (ERBE satellite)
    7. Low level cloud from water evaporation creates and albedo effect reflecting short wave radiation cooling the planet.
    8. Arctic ice was at a lesser extent thousands of years ago with far less CO2.
    9. Antarctic ice is at record levels.
    10. CO2 lags 800 years behind temperature rise in the climate record showing temperature drives CO2 not the other way round. (Vostok ice cores)
    11. GCMs (Global Circulation Models) are consistently producing results at least 3 times that of the observed temperatures, showing the models have their climate sensitivity parameter drastically wrong. In other words there are zero to negative feedbacks in the climate system, not positive as the models assume.

    They have yet to explain the pause with explanations varying from Trenberth’s ocean-trapped heat (for sudden inexplicable reasons) to volcanoes. They’ve yet to have any scientifically supported explanation. The main fact is that the rate of increase is the same form the early part of the century to the late twentieth, it is also similar hundreds of years ago after the Maunder minimum when the current warming started, well before CO2 could’ve been a cause.

    New Scientist is corrupt.

  20. AJP:

    I will put this as simply as possible for you all. Fossil fuels are derived from millions of years of carbon based growth, it is condensed in to a very dense amount of carbon, that is why it is so powerful when burned. One of the foundations of all science is the idea of conservation of mass, momentum, and energy. Therefore, you cannot burn millions of years worth of carbon based growth and not expect there to be any consequence. The mass and energy burned do not just disappear, just as when you have a fire in your fireplace, smoke escapes the chimney and heat is given off in your home, not multiply that by the huge amount of carbon being burned in our industrial society and you will see why there is a scientific concensus that burning fossil fuels will impact the climate. Noone will argue that scientists have a consensus on exactly how the climate will change, it is an incredible complex system, but there is no doubt that we are changing the climate through this extraction and combustion. It’s really that simple.

Leave a comment