March for Science – Whine on the Go

Posted by Tina

Today groups of scientists (and friends) walked around in various parts of the country and around the world holding up signs in a “March for Science” protest. Science Business conducted an informal study to determine the reasons for the march and found the following:

Ninety three per cent of respondents said, “Opposing political attacks on the integrity of science” is very important to them as a reason for participating, 97 per cent said that “Encouraging public officials to make policies based on scientific facts and evidence” was a top priority, and 93 per cent said the same for, “Encouraging the public to support science.”

Others reasons included a protest of funding cuts (aha), celebrating and valuing science and scientists, promoting science education and literacy, encouraging scientists to engage the public, and (of course) encouraging diversity and inclusion in science.

The March for Science movement originally claimed to be nonpartisan. That is apparently no longer true, “After many revisions of its mission statement, the national March for Science now explicitly describes itself as a political movement—and more than that, that it’s officially about diversity in science.”

Scientist Jonathan Wells titles his take on this march, “The March for Science is Really a March for Conformity”

That seems to have been the goal all along…to march in favor of forced conformity, conformity of thought in the masses and within the scientific community. Sympathetic politicians have attempted to enforce conformity through legislation and the courts. Think as we think or pay! It’s creepy. And it isn’t representative of sound science. It’s dangerous. And it’s wrong.

This march is turning out to be just another day for a few liberal nuts and science nuts to wonder the streets and whine about (funding) conformity and diversity. Old whine…not news.

Almost forgot! Related article: Remembering the first Earth Day…with 18 predictions of the day! Here are a few:

1. Harvard biologist George Wald estimated that “civilization will end within 15 or 30 years unless immediate action is taken against problems facing mankind.”

2. “We are in an environmental crisis which threatens the survival of this nation, and of the world as a suitable place of human habitation,” wrote Washington University biologist Barry Commoner in the Earth Day issue of the scholarly journal Environment.

3. The day after the first Earth Day, the New York Times editorial page warned, “Man must stop pollution and conserve his resources, not merely to enhance existence but to save the race from intolerable deterioration and possible extinction.”

4. “Population will inevitably and completely outstrip whatever small increases in food supplies we make,” Paul Ehrlich confidently declared in the April 1970 issue of Mademoiselle. “The death rate will increase until at least 100-200 million people per year will be starving to death during the next ten years.”

5. “Most of the people who are going to die in the greatest cataclysm in the history of man have already been born,” wrote Paul Ehrlich in a 1969 essay titled “Eco-Catastrophe! “By…[1975] some experts feel that food shortages will have escalated the present level of world hunger and starvation into famines of unbelievable proportions. Other experts, more optimistic, think the ultimate food-population collision will not occur until the decade of the 1980s.”

ERlich also predicted “…that between 1980 and 1989, some 4 billion people, including 65 million Americans, would perish in the “Great Die-Off.” Read them all. Hilarious! And these are the “scientists” we’re supposed to revere and believe?

This entry was posted in Global Warming/ Climate Change, politics, Protest and Agitation, science. Bookmark the permalink.

16 Responses to March for Science – Whine on the Go

  1. Tina says:

    Excellent related article here

  2. Peggy says:

    Fake scientist Bill Nye gets upset when confronted by real scientist.

    Bill Nye Slams CNN For Putting Climate Change Skeptic On Earth Day Panel:
    “I will say, as much as I love the CNN, you’re doing a disservice,” Nye said.

    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/bill-nye-cnn-climate-change-denier_us_58fc08a6e4b06b9cb91767f1?bbc

  3. J. Soden says:

    Nobody marches for “science.” That’s just the current name of this week’s organized and pay-for-protest groupies.
    Ho hum.

  4. Pete says:

    The author of the article is Joe Bastardi. That’s a funny name.

  5. Chris says:

    And these are the “scientists” we’re supposed to revere and believe?

    I don’t know, are they? Are any of the quoted scientists still publishing peer reviewed work today? Were any of them cited by organizers of the march for science? A few quotes from a few scientists spanning decades doesn’t tell us anything about how we should regard the scientific consensus today. This is like pointing to the “fact” that “scientists in the 70s predicted global cooling” in order to rebut global warming, even though only a handful of scientists ever did that and their work was never accepted by a majority of scientists. It’s anecdotal evidence, nothing else.

  6. Tina says:

    Sure, uh huh…all righty then!

    “This is like pointing to the “fact” that “scientists in the 70s predicted global cooling” in order to rebut global warming, even though only a handful of scientists ever did that…”

    Not to my knowledge. They were just alarmists looking to make a name for themselves. One of them was a zealot for cooling who switched to become a warming zealot later on.

    The marcher scientists, their activist hoard, and the so called consensus scientists are the ones running around claiming they have THE answers and that others should just shut up.

    You are the one bragging about the near 100% number of scientists in the so-called consensus…>i>as if that were a fact and reflective of the entire scientific community. A LIE!

    You are the one claiming the near 100% to be absolute authority…and bullying any “denier” on these pages.

    The consensus is crap science. This march was political crap pretending to be supportive of science, a lie. And your huffy superior attitude is the usual crap.

    But thanks for sharing Chris.

    • Chris says:

      Not to my knowledge. They were just alarmists looking to make a name for themselves. One of them was a zealot for cooling who switched to become a warming zealot later on.

      Maybe, but those who cast doubt on global warming bring them up as a reason to distrust global warming scientists. That doesn’t make sense.

      The marcher scientists, their activist hoard, and the so called consensus scientists are the ones running around claiming they have THE answers and that others should just shut up.

      No, they’re saying that when our government makes decisions about scientists they should listen to the vast majority of scientists.

      You are the one bragging about the near 100% number of scientists in the so-called consensus…>i>as if that were a fact and reflective of the entire scientific community. A LIE!

      Huh? It is a fact that almost 100% of climate scientists believe in some form of AGW. That doesn’t represent the entire scientific community, it represents a majority of them. If I had meant the entire scientific community, I wouldn’t have said “majority.”

      You are the one claiming the near 100% to be absolute authority…and bullying any “denier” on these pages.

      I haven’t bullied anyone. Your reaction is totally disproportionate.

      The consensus is crap science.

      You can’t know that; you’re not a scientist.

      • Tina says:

        “…those who cast doubt on global warming bring them up as a reason to distrust global warming scientists. That doesn’t make sense.”

        Of course it does! These are scientists that afford themselves the luxury (whim?) of changing their position but deny a voice to any scientist that disagrees. Refusing to consider the arguments of other qualified scientists, and then declaring your position is “settled science” is not acting like a responsible scientist.

        The consensus argument is POLITICAL.

        “…they’re saying that when our government makes decisions about scientists they should listen to the vast majority of scientists”

        Not true. The scheme to claim a near 100% agreement is as phony as the warming science evidence, in particular the man made warming science evidence. The campaign to silence dissenting opinion has been extraordinary. As I wrote…it’s POLITICAL. The idea that public policy should be based on this scheme is ridiculous…and wrong No American should be subjected to economic hardship, loss of wages, jobs, and businesses for what amounts to an immeasurable fractional improvement.

        “It is a fact that almost 100% of climate scientists believe in some form of AGW”

        Forbes:

        Since 1998, more than 31,000 American scientists from diverse climate-related disciplines, including more than 9,000 with Ph.D.s, have signed a public petition announcing their belief that “…there is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gases is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate.” Included are atmospheric physicists, botanists, geologists, oceanographers, and meteorologists.

        So where did that famous “consensus” claim that “98% of all scientists believe in global warming” come from? It originated from an endlessly reported 2009 American Geophysical Union (AGU) survey consisting of an intentionally brief two-minute, two question online survey sent to 10,257 earth scientists by two researchers at the University of Illinois. Of the about 3.000 who responded, 82% answered “yes” to the second question, which like the first, most people I know would also have agreed with.

        Then of those, only a small subset, just 77 who had been successful in getting more than half of their papers recently accepted by peer-reviewed climate science journals, were considered in their survey statistic. That “98% all scientists” referred to a laughably puny number of 75 of those 77 who answered “yes”.

        That anything-but-scientific survey asked two questions. The first: “When compared with pre-1800s levels, do you think that mean global temperatures have generally risen, fallen, or remained relatively constant?” Few would be expected to dispute this…the planet began thawing out of the “Little Ice Age” in the middle 19th century, predating the Industrial Revolution. (That was the coldest period since the last real Ice Age ended roughly 10,000 years ago.)

        The second question asked: “Do you think human activity is a significant contributing factor in changing mean global temperatures?” So what constitutes “significant”? Does “changing” include both cooling and warming… and for both “better” and “worse”? And which contributions…does this include land use changes, such as agriculture and deforestation?

        Larry Bell ,

        Contributor

        I write about aerospace, environment, energy, Second Amendment policy

        Opinions expressed by Forbes Contributors are their own.

        Continued from page 1

        No one has ever been able to measure human contributions to climate. Don’t even think about buying a used car from anyone who claims they can.As Senator James Inhofe, Ranking Member of the Senate Committee on Environment and Public Works has observed: “The notion of a ‘consensus’ is carefully manufactured for political and ideological purposes. Its proponents never explain what ‘consensus’ they are referring to. Is it a ‘consensus’ that future computer models will turn out correct? Is it a ‘consensus’ that the Earth has warmed? Proving that parts of the Earth have warmed does not prove that humans are responsible.”

        Senator Inhofe also points out, “While it may appear to the casual observer that scientists promoting climate fears are in the majority, the evidence continues to reveal that this is an illusion.

        A lie…consensus is a carefully crafted and widely disseminated lie.

        “You can’t know that; you’re not a scientist.”

        You aren’t a scientist but that doesn’t stop you from repeating the politicalized consensus opinion or defending an unscientifically derived conclusion.

        Why the double standard? Or has it just become natural for you to stand behind the idea of silencing those who disagree with you?

        • Chris says:

          “Of course it does! These are scientists that afford themselves the luxury (whim?) of changing their position but deny a voice to any scientist that disagrees. Refusing to consider the arguments of other qualified scientists, and then declaring your position is “settled science” is not acting like a responsible scientist.”

          My understanding is that these scientists didn’t “change their position;” again, those who argued for global cooling were a tiny minority. I’m also not sure they are “refusing to consider” opposing arguments.

          I’ve rebutted many previous Forbes articles on climate change in the past; it’s generally a terrible place to get information on this subject. Larry Bell has not produced any peer-reviewed articles on climate change, and his claims about the 97% consensus are untrue. The number has been reproduced by multiple surveys of scientists, so his claim that it comes merely from one survey is false.

          “You aren’t a scientist but that doesn’t stop you from repeating the politicalized consensus opinion or defending an unscientifically derived conclusion.”

          I repeat the conclusion of the vast majority of scientists. Because I’m not a scientist, so I choose to trust those who are.

  7. RHT447 says:

    Computer science at it’s best. Heh.
    4chan is Hunting Antifa

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DTlyOB_I7yc

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *