Alright, let's trim it down a little bit. I've linked the last post of the full thread if you want a ton of information and links.

@BulletinAtomic makes their #DoomsdayClock Announcement today, January 28, 2025 at 10AM EST.   
But is the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists an unbiased organization? 

Let's take a look at the political donations of its leadership:

Board of Governors: 
Total Members: 21 
Donations to Democrats: 676 
Donations to Republicans: 0

Board of Sponsors: 
Total Members: 30  
Donations to Democrats: 1,004 
Donations to Republicans: 18

Science and Security Board (SASB): 
Total members: 18 (incl. 4 members of BoG)
Donations to Democrats: 209 
Donations to Republicans: 0

The SASB sets the #DoomsdayClock with guidance and direction from the Board of Sponsors and the Board of Governors.

Total @BulletinAtomic Leadership Donations: 
Donations to Democrats: 1,845 (98%) 
Donations to Republicans: 18 (1%) 
Donations Other: 18 (1%)

The data is from 44 members of the Bulletin's leadership who are both American citizens and whose political donations could be found on opensecrets(dot)org. I may have counted SASB Chair Daniel Holz twice as he is also on the BoG, which would reduce Total Leadership donations to Democrats by 28. I did my best with the data. Please forgive any oversights or omissions. I welcome any corrections or additions.

Regardless of the minutiae, clearly the leadership of @BulletinAtomic is heavily biased in favor of Democrats. While we can respect the scientific contributions and efforts of many of the members of the Bulletin of Atomic Scientists, the extreme bias presented by their individual and cumulative political donations casts doubt upon their ability to render an impartial judgement in setting the #DoomsdayClock. 

Can they overcome this bias? We will see in a few hours.