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… 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?