{"id":264348,"date":"2023-06-28T14:36:36","date_gmt":"2023-06-28T12:36:36","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264348"},"modified":"2023-06-28T14:36:50","modified_gmt":"2023-06-28T12:36:50","slug":"the-new-scientist-cancels-former-bbc-science-correspondent-because-of-his-links-to-the-global-warming-policy-foundation","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/climatescience.press\/?p=264348","title":{"rendered":"The New Scientist Cancels Former BBC Science Correspondent Because of His Links to the Global Warming Policy Foundation"},"content":{"rendered":"\n
\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

<\/p>\n\n\n\n

From The Daily Sceptic<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

BY\u00a0RICHARD ELDRED<\/a><\/p>\n\n\n\n

\"\"<\/figure>\n\n\n\n

Renowned, multi-award winning science writer Dr. David Whitehouse \u2013 who has an asteroid named after him \u2013 has slammed the New Scientist <\/em>as \u201coffensive and prejudicial\u201d for rejecting a feature it commissioned from him on the Earth\u2019s inner core after it discovered that he serves on the Academic Advisory Board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation (GWPF). The GWPF is a climate contrarian think tank founded by the former Conservative Chancellor Nigel Lawson.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In an email exchange seen by the Daily Sceptic<\/em>, Daniel Cousins, Head of Features at the New Scientist<\/em>, made the focus of the proposed piece clear:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026it would be first about how we\u2019ve finally confirmed the existence of this inner core\u2026 then I guess it becomes about what we know about it\u2019s structure (speculation about iron crystals, etc.) and how it formed\u2026 And finally, I guess we\u2019d want to explore what the various scenarios for how it formed might inform how we think about habitability on other planets.<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

However, just 21 minutes after the commission was agreed, Dr. Whitehouse received a follow-up email from Mr. Cousins informing him that his affiliation with the GWPF rendered him \u201cunsuitable\u201d to write for the magazine:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Hi David,<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am writing with bad news, I\u2019m afraid.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Barely a moment after I sent the email around my colleagues regarding that commission, one of my managers called to ask me if I was aware that you are on the board of the Global Warming Policy Foundation and therefore not someone we can having writing for us. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

I am of course as disappointed as you, because this is a good idea for a story \u2013 and we now can\u2019t do aid [sic] story, because it not be fair [sic] to have someone else report and write it. Regardless, we can no longer proceed. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Clearly, I should have done my due diligence on this \u2013 and I am sorry to have wasted your time.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Thanks,<\/em> Dan<\/em><\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Dr. Whitehouse wrote to Nina Wright, the New Scientist<\/em>\u2019s Chief Executive, demanding an explanation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

The reason given for the cancellation of the contract was stated to be my association with the Global Warming Policy Foundation \u2013 a policy organisation that is in broad agreement with the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. In the absence of any further explanation, it is clear that New Scientist <\/em>has censored and reneged on a contract based solely on my professional affiliation. The cancellation of the article, which was on a completely unrelated topic, after it was negotiated and commissioned, is offensive and prejudicial treatment. More alarmingly, it could be taken as evidence of New Scientist<\/em> exhibiting media bias and a cancel culture that would belittle its reputation.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Eventually, the Editor-in-Chief, Emily Wilson, responded:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

\u2026whilst it is a matter of regret that the New Scientist was not able to proceed with the proposed commission, we do not agree that the cancelling of the commission was \u201coffensive\u201d or \u201cprejudicial\u201d. Furthermore, any suggestion of a media bias is firmly denied.<\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n

Instead, it is simply the case that each and every item published in the New Scientist <\/em>is done so at the Editor\u2019s discretion and with the final approval of the Editor.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

Needless to say, Dr. Whitehouse was unimpressed by this explanation:<\/p>\n\n\n\n

\n

Your reply completely fails to address the serious issues I have raised of media bias and censorship at New Scientist<\/em>.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Having been an editor myself, and at one time was approached to consider applying for the Editorship of New Scientist<\/em>, I find your lengthy explanation of the rights of an editor rather patronising. New Scientist <\/em>can cancel a commission for whatever reason it wants, but in this instance you told me the reason. It had nothing to do with the subject or the quality of the commissioned article about which you were very enthusiastic, and having written a book on the topic I was an ideal contributor.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The reason New Scientist <\/em>gave for cancelation after the commission was agreed, along with submission date, possible publication date and fee, was, you wrote, that you had just become aware of my association with a think tank \u2013 the Global Warming Policy Foundation \u2013 that, as its name suggests, considers climate change policy. The GWPF is supportive of the reports of the Intergovernmental Panel On Climate Change. Whilst I understand that some of New<\/em> Scientist<\/em>\u2019s environmental reporters would take issue with the GWPF on some matters, science thrives on debate and scrutiny. Developing policy of course depends upon many factors of which science is but one.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

According to New Scientist\u2019<\/em>s intolerance this meant that I should be censored even though the commissioned article was about a subject about as far removed from climate change as it is possible to get.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

In so doing New Scientist<\/em> has demonstrated clear prejudice, censorship and a no-platforming seen so often in examples of cancel culture. It is irrelevant you maintaining a firm denial of media bias when it was clearly expressed on two occasions in the email New Scientist<\/em> sent me. I am sure anyone who reads the email would be in no doubt as to its prejudicial nature.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n\n\n\n

The snub echoes one received by Professor Norman Fenton earlier this month and reported in the Daily Sceptic<\/em><\/a> when an NHS conference cancelled his presentation over an unrelated \u201cTwitter vaccine controversy\u201d, citing fears that \u201cit may distract\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

The cancellation of eminent science writers and statisticians like Dr. Whitehouse and Professor Fenton for \u2018wrongthink\u2019 highlights the ever-shrinking boundaries of the discourse around science and medicine and the unwillingness of science\u2019s gatekeepers to challenge groupthink and politically sensitive dogmas. As Dr. Whitehouse says, \u201cscience thrives on debate and scrutiny\u201d. Silencing those who challenge prevailing orthodoxies was the approach favoured by the Catholic church in 17th Century Italy and is completely at odds with the scientific method.<\/p>\n\n\n\n

Stop Press:\u00a0<\/strong>The corruption of science by politics is the theme of a\u00a0brilliant essay<\/a>\u00a0in the July\/August edition of the\u00a0Skeptical Inquirer<\/em>\u00a0by the scientists Jerry Coyne and Luana Moraja, who raise the alarm about the capture of biology (their subject) by critical social justice ideology. They argue that \u201cthe science that has brought us so much progress and understanding\u2026 is endangered by political dogma strangling our essential tradition of open research and scientific communication\u201d.<\/p>\n\n\n\t

\n\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t\t\t
\n\t\t\t\t\t