Genetics for a warming world

This email chain-evoked such a strong outcry (of support) that I feel obliged to share with everyone some of the highlights. 😊 I chose just the “top ten.” To protect everyone’s career, all comments are anonymous. Additional supportive comments, unfortunately, had to be censored — for this mixed audience. 😉

[1] Thanks, Dan. I agree with you.

[2] I would think the Nature Genetics scientific editorial board….if it is truly scientific….and I realize that is a big “IF”….would welcome dialogue.

[3] Dan, your email is an excellent response to the Editor of Nature Genetics. The speed of her “rejection email” indicates that she did not even consider your submission, because it ran contrary to their “prevailing climate ideology.” We should not be surprised, because the entire Nature Publishing Group (now called Nature Research or Springer Nature) is completely opposed to rational discussions on climatology, i.e. “if it does not fit their political world view, then you are out of luck; science be damned!”

Online, here is how they describe themselves: “Nature is a weekly international journal publishing the finest peer-reviewed research in all fields of science and technology on the basis of its originality, importance, interdisciplinary interest, timeliness, accessibility, elegance and surprising conclusions.”

And, as you know, they publish many scientific journals, as well as the quasi-journal for nonscientists, Scientific American.

Based on their statement, how did you miss their mark? Were your conclusions so surprising that the editor had a heart attack? Were you disrespectful for daring to question an editorial that they had already published? Were they worried that too many would have access to your heretical thoughts and might stray from the gospel? Were they worried that your submission was too timely, during their annual summertime push to sell climate hysteria? Was your Letter-to-the-Editor too “interdisciplinary” for a journal that covers genetics and climate change? Is climate science of little importance to them, even though that August editorial claims otherwise?

And then, what about “originality?” In their Orwellian world, “originality” to them means “never challenging the party line.” That is clearly where you are guilty. You should know better than to stray from their fantasy of “97% consensus- approved” climate hysteria!

Within the Nature Publishing Group, hysteria rules supreme. If any of their 800 employees were to question the prevailing paradigm, their staff would instantly shrink to 799.

[4] Nature Genetics has chosen to distort fact with convenient innuendo, and now itdistorts truth by diversion. Very sad…

[5] Good job, Dan. Hopefully you planted a seed of doubt (at least, among those who were fortunate enough to have viewed your submission).

[6] It is unfortunate that Nature Genetics could not find a way to comment on their editorial’s introduction to their perceived global warming, and also unfortunate they had no comment on the content of your editorial… The Chief Editor apparently needed only to justify the attendant research in her own mind…

[7] I think the reason for Nature’s then-Editor, rejecting a climate science paper, was worse in the case reported here (from Nov 2003):

Nature magazine obviously joined “the global warming closed shop” … decades ago.

[8] Dear Dan, THANK YOU for forwarding this on.

I am not at all surprised by this Nature editor. In my area (preclinical sciences), we have repeatedly seen the impact of these so-called “top-tier journals,” perverting and distorting science into flashy, superficial, incorrect reports that simply serve to sell advertising (and careers) in these journals.

Thank you for your attempts to at least balance the record. Warmest regards,

[9] Wow, Well Done, Dan . You called them out on their PREMISE. And she had the audacity to respond in a mealy-mouthed way, saying that the main point of the article was not actually to discuss whether global warming is real, but to discuss the genetic solutions for it. SERIOUSLY???? I am so glad you responded back again. These dishonest charlatans need to know that not everyone is buying their crap. Worse yet, these “scientists” refuse to publish opposing views, even those of renowned researchers like you. Shame on them. And kudos to you!

[10] Keep fighting the good fight. You have to be part John the Baptist, part Don Quixote, and part Rambo. 😊

This entry was posted in Center for Environmental Genetics. Bookmark the permalink.