The editor of Science has said, in the recent past, we should have censorship of contrary viewpoints.
Opposing political involvement by scientists “gives people the permission to say things like ‘climate change may be real, but I don’t think we should have government regulation to deal with it,’ which is unacceptable,” he wrote in a since-deleted tweet.
That’s a startling claim from someone who is the editor-in-chief of a family of seven academic journals. It only allows for one view on climate change: that it is occurring, is concerning, and requires government intervention to stop
Is the Science journals editor showing remorse? (msn.com)
Previously: Science journal editor: Agree with me on climate change or don’t get published
The message is:
- We know more than you
- You have no right to question anything we impose on you
- We are smarter and more elite than you so shut up
This is not the way to persuade the public – unless, persuading the public doesn’t matter as totalitarian government does not need to persuade the public.
The Science editor has since changed his mind, in light of errors made regarding Covid-19 censorship, and says other viewpoints should be considered.
