Biden Climate Change Trump Paris Agreement

by Leslie Eastman at

The progressive attempts to push pseudoscience on Americans are reaping some unintended consequences.

I have been following the ideological capture of our scientific institutions, and today I have some fascinating data to share.

The progressive attempts to push pseudoscience on Americans are reaping some unintended consequences.

In 2020, the British weekly scientific journal Nature decided to weigh in on the general election and endorsed Biden for president.

The reasoning is laughable now, especially in light of the economy-crushing, liberty-depleting, and unscientific policies the current administration unleashes.

If elected, Biden would have the chance to reinstate and strengthen the climate and environmental regulations rolled back under Trump; restore the EPA’s depleted scientific capacity; and return the CDC’s leadership role in the pandemic. He should also move to reverse egregious policies on immigration and student visas, and hold the United States to its international commitments — not least its membership of the WHO and UNESCO.

Donald Trump has taken an axe to a system that was intended to safeguard and protect citizens when leaders go astray. He has become an icon for those who seek to sow hatred and division, not only in the United States, but in other countries, too.

A new study published in a Nature Human Behavior paper by Floyd Jiuyun Zhang of Stanford University shows that the endorsement came with diminished trust in science and its “experts.” In his research, Zhang asked both Trump and Biden supporters to read a summary of the Nature editorial, a screenshot of the editorial’s headline, and the first paragraph of the endorsement.

Zhang, a Stanford Graduate School of Business student, then asked the participants to complete a survey after being told a set of questions. Participants were also informed that the publication is “one of the most-cited and most prestigious peer-reviewed scientific journals in the world.”

His online survey of 4,260 people demonstrated that Nature’s political endorsement did not influence votes and reduced trust in the publication among voters of the endorsed candidate’s opponent.

This study shows that electoral endorsements by Nature and potentially other scientific journals or organizations can undermine public trust in the endorser, particularly among supporters of the out-party candidate. This has negative impacts on trust in the scientific community as a whole and on information acquisition behaviours with respect to critical public health issues. Positive effects among supporters of the endorsed candidate are null or small, and they do not offset the negative effects among the opposite camp. This probably results in a lower overall level of public confidence and more polarization along the party line. There is little evidence that seeing the endorsement message changes opinions about the candidates.

While the above conclusion could lead one to conclude that only Trump supporters find scientific experts substantially less credible nowadays, let’s turn to the second data point.

Social media is now streaming footage from a promotional video for the latest season of PBS’ biographical television series “American Masters,” featuring former White House Coronavirus advisor Dr. Anthony Fauci and Washington D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser in newly released footage of the pair campaigning for covid vaccinations around in 2021.

One resident was not buying anything Bowser or Fauci were selling.


Leave a Reply