Science

Scientists' March on Washington

Do researchers risk becoming just another leftwing interest group?

|

ScienceLiberalConspiracyACSH
ACSH

In the flush of excitement after the post-inaugural Women's March on Washington, someone in a Reddit conversation suggested, "There needs to be a Scientists' March on Washington." Sensing that a march on Washington might sound too aggressively partisan, the organizers have now renamed the event the March for Science. That march will take place tomorrow, on Earth Day, which the coordinators somehow figured would be the perfect nonpartisan date on which to muster tens of thousands of scientists and their comrades on the National Mall.

"We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely," warns the march's mission statement. "Staying silent is a luxury that we can no longer afford. We must stand together and support science."

From whom do the marchers hope to defend science? Certainly not the American public: Most Americans are fairly strong supporters of the scientific enterprise. An October 2016 Pew Research Center poll reported, "Three-quarters of Americans (76%) have either a great deal (21%) or a fair amount of confidence (55%) in scientists, generally, to act in the public interest." The General Social Survey notes that public confidence in scientists stands out among the most stable of about 13 institutions rated in the GSS survey since the mid-1970s. (For what it's worth, the GSS reports only 8 percent of the public say that they have a great deal of confidence in the press, but at least that's higher than the 6 percent who say the same about Congress.)

The mission statement also declares, "The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue. Anti-science agendas and policies have been advanced by politicians on both sides of the aisle, and they harm everyone—without exception."

I thoroughly endorse that sentiment. But why didn't the scientific community march when the Obama administration blocked over-the-counter access to emergency contraception to women under age 17? Or dawdled for years over the approval of genetically enhanced salmon? Or tried to kill off the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility? Or halted the development of direct-to-consumer genetic testing?

One problem is that many of the marchers apparently believe that scientific evidence necessarily implies the adoption of certain policies. This ignores the always salient issue of trade-offs. For example, acknowledging that man-made global warming could become a significant problem does not mean that the only "scientific" policy response must be the immediate deployment of the current versions of solar and wind power.

The mission statement proclaims that the marchers "unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest." Setting aside the fact that the march was conceived in the immediate wake of the decidedly partisan and specifically anti-Trump Women's March on Washington, how credible are these claims to non-partisanship?

As it happens, I received an email on Thursday from the publicist for Shaughnessy Naughton, who is a chemist, a cancer researcher, and the founder of the activist group 314 Action. Naughton's group is one of the March's 170 partner organizations. 314 Action's political action committee is recruiting scientists, engineers, and other technologists to run for political office, and it plans to provide them with the "resources they need to become viable, credible, Democratic candidates." The publicist informed me that Naughton is "available to discuss this weekend's March for Science in Washington, D.C., which will assemble scientists from across the country to rally against the Trump 'war on science.'" The headline earlier this week in the reliably left-wing Guardian makes no bones about the intent of the marchers: "Science strikes back: anti-Trump march set to draw thousands to Washington."

The 170 partner organizations that have endorsed the march include such stalwart groups as the American Association for the Advancement of Science, the American Society of Ichthyologists and Herpetologists, and the New York Academy of Sciences. But the marchers have also accepted as partners a variety of left-tilting activist groups—not just 314 Action, but 350.org, the Center for Food Safety, the Center for Biological Diversity, and the Union of Concerned Scientists.

Microbiologist Alex Berezow is a senior fellow of biomedical science at a pro-science consumer advocacy organization, the American Council on Science and Health.* I asked him if he thought scientists should participate in the march. "No, scientists and researchers should not participate," he replied. "From the very outset, the march started as an anti-Trump protest. Then it morphed into a solidly progressive movement, embracing all manner of left-wing social justice causes." Berezow added that the march could well end up harming the interests of the scientific community: "For decades, science has received broad bipartisan support. (In fact, Republicans usually funded science better than Democrats.) By biting the hand that feeds them, scientists risk losing funding, as well as alienating taxpayers. That is an awful idea, and it hurts everybody."

I have considerable sympathy with the scientific community's worries about the Trump administration. Indeed, I gave Trump a mostly failing grade on science policy when he was running for president. But Berezow is all too right that the marchers risk turning the scientific enterprise into just another special interest group in the eyes of the public. If that happens, scientists might someday find themselves right down there in the bottom of the polls with the press and Congress.

*Disclosure: In 2008, I researched and wrote the report Scrutinizing Industry-Funded Science: The Crusade Against Conflicts of Interest on a contractual basis with the American Council on Science and Health for a fee of $4,000. The agreement specified that the report would be peer-reviewed, and I am grateful for many insightful comments from reviewers that I incorporated into the report.

NEXT: Premature Babies Are Struggling to Breathe. Why Are Regulators Dragging Their Feet?

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Friend invited me to some “march for science” — I was really leery, because that’s the exact type of shit that progs pull. We are for “science” and “truth” and “(social) justice”, etc. I mean, you arn’t anti-science, are you?

    Sure enough, looked into it and it’s another BS left wing march. Enjoy your unproductive circle jerk

    1. Something tells me there aren’t gonna be many engineers at this march.

      1. This!

        In my facebook feed, I’ve probably got a dozen friends announcing their excitement about participating.

        Every Single Damn One of them is a liberal arts major.

        There are a couple of people with science degrees wishing that they could be there, but couldn’t travel because THEY WERE TOO BUSY WORKING. I also note that all of these people work in some kind of academia or government funded research capacity.

        1. I’m a chemistry teacher. The only other teachers I know who were participating are social studies teachers.

          1. I’m a chemistry teacher

            And a bigot.

      2. Lots of social engineers.

    2. I’m trying to think of something scarier than a march by the Christian Taliban. North Korea came to mind, but that’s only an equivalent.

      1. Hihn, please don’t take this the wrong way: you fucking SUCK dude. You habitually threadjack and never add a goddamned thing to any discussion. Please, for the love of god and all that is holy, open a vein in the bathtub.

        1. Committs aggression. Throws a temper tantrum, like a little child. (yawn)

          1. Crybully cries, shows off pulsating cranium growing ever so dangerously large. LOL!

            1. Commits aggression. Throws temper tantrum, like a little child. (yawn)
              Made an ever biggger public ass of himself here:
              https://reason.com/archives/201…..nt_6826735

              But he’s not stalking me
              (smirk)

          2. ^ The little child is tired and should go to bed. Mikey, that means YOU.

            1. Did your parents teach you that aggression is acceptable behavior for adults? Are they proud of what you’ve become? Did you check the proof I provided?

    3. First marches never lead to real change. People and laws and pushing for change do that. Second, regimes like Trump’s don’t like science because it is fact based and not emotionally or faith based. That’s why people are angry. It isn’t logical to be racist or classist, and yet policies are popping up all over in Congress and via executive orders for discriminate against colored and poor people so that the elite class can get yet more advantage in the government and leave the working class and lower holding the bill. I won’t be marching because it is pointless, but they do have a point, the Trump regime is illogically against immigrants, fair markets, international trade, women’s right to choose, legalizing MJ, and on and on. I don’t know how a person who considers himself a true libertarian could call a march against Trump anti science and anti-logic regime.

      1. Because it’s filled with people who believe Bruce Jenner is female and that the government spending more money than is taken in revenue creates prosperity.

        I mean, science, duh.

        1. I mean, science, duh.

          How does Kaitlyn Jenner create prosperity????
          And for how long have you been so bigoted?

      2. First marches never lead to real change.

        Or change you disagree with.
        The 50s and 60s both caused major changes.

        1. Marches are to make people feel good about a subject.

          1. Tin soldiers etc…

            1. You two sneer at actual history. Inconveeeeeeeeeenyent.

        2. Those marches did not lead to real change. Those forces were all ready at work in the republican party, who started advocating for and drafting civil rights legislation for a century before those “I wanna feel like I’m participating” marches ever occurred. Republicans ramped up this advocacy and legislative advancements starting in the 1940s.

          In short, your statement is ahistoric nonsense.

        3. Those marches did not lead to real change. Those forces were all ready at work in the republican party, who started advocating for and drafting civil rights legislation for a century before those “I wanna feel like I’m participating” marches ever occurred. Republicans ramped up this advocacy and legislative advancements starting in the 1940s.

          In short, your statement is ahistoric nonsense.

          1. FABULOUS HIGH! Who’s your dealer?

          2. I assume you mean Civil Rights, which the Republicans quit supporting during the 1964 Presidential election. Also, conservatives in both parties opposed then and continue to oppose Civil Rights now. The Trump Administraion has emboldened the Nazis who will work as hard as they possibly can to destroy the greatest legislation of the 20th century.

            1. I assume you mean Civil Rights, which the Republicans quit supporting during the 1964 Presidential election.

              Your bigotry is showing.
              He’s wrong … and so are you … which is how tribalism works.

              the greatest legislation of the 20th century.

              Do you also suffer severe denial on

              1) The Depression was over when FDR took office.

              2) The immediate postwar years (1945-1961) saw five back-to-back recessions in a mere 16 years … until Kennedy repealed the New Deal tax rates … across the board tax cuts, but opposed by his own liberals as “tax cuts for the rich” … the same bullshit they leveled at Reagan’s across-the-board cuts … the SAME lie they manipulated their puppets with, after 85% of tjhe Bush tax cuts wents to taxpayers UNDER $250,000 income, who were paying only 45% of the tax!!

              3) The Interstate Highway Project, then lauded as “the largest public works project since the Pyramids” — was immediately followed by the worst of those five recessions? Which had not fully recovered by JFK’s 1961 SOTU (google it, sweetie)

              the greatest legislation of the 20th century.

              I understand your desperation for a victory … after 80 years of humiliation. Maybe next time!

            2. The Trump Administraion has emboldened the Nazis who will work as hard as they possibly can to destroy the greatest legislation of the 20th century.

              Legislation that divides people up by race and treats them differently is, in fact, favored by racists, progressives and fascists, i.e., Democrats.

              Demanding equality under the law, freedom of association, and freedom of contract is conservatism and classical liberalism, i.e., Republicans.

              1. Demanding equality under the law, freedom of association, and freedom of contract is conservatism and classical liberalism, i.e., Republicans.

                If we ignore the fascist the Christian Taliban, the fiscal debacle of Republicans under Dubya …. fiscal conservatism for the past 25 years or so, and ….. TRUMP!

                Zealots on the left and right both say the opposing tribe is brainwashed puppets.
                And they’re both correct, as a growing majority of Americans rejects loyalty to both cancerous growths.

                Mass movements do not need a god, but they do need a devil. Hatred unifies the True Believers.”
                -Eric Hoffer, “The True Believers” (1951)

                “Zealots and fanatics. The militant self-righteous.”
                -Mike Hihn, (1994)

      3. My Dear Sir,

        The problem with the ‘Scientists’ March’ is that too many of the things it promotes are utter bushwa,

        1) Climate Change exists. To what degree it is affected by human actions is subject to debate. The ‘Climate Change’ hysterics shifted from science to witch-hunting a long time ago. If – IF – global warming is a problem, the Climate Inquisition will be primarily responsible for ensuring that nothing sensible is done until it is too late.

        2) “Alternative Energy’ is utter bullshit; The methods being promoted most heavily (wind and solar) are unstable, do not materially add to a power grid, and damage the environment in ways the promoters desperately wish to avoid discussing.

        3) The anti-GMO movement is unfounded in science and, i to the degree that it hinders efforts to feed the third world, arguably an example of smug genocide.

        Before you call Trump’s policies racist and classist, look to the Democrat positions for the last half century.

        1. Your comment is bullshit.

          1. This is exactly the type of thoughtless comment expected from someone who thinks marches cause change and who have zero counter arguments to the person to whom you reply. Thank you for such an excellent example of exactly the type of mindless person you actually are.

              1. See? Rather than respond to the actual arguments of Schofield, you call “bullshit”. Getting called on how thoughtless simply cussing is, while steadfastly refusing to engage anything written, you double down, mistaking thoughtless crudity with some sort of argument.

                1. (laughing) You don’t know what the argument means! I’ll go slowly.

                  It’s short for you being a “Pot calling the Kettle Black.”
                  Which means you committed what you accused me of doing. Here’s just one of them:

                  This is exactly the type of thoughtless comment expected from someone who thinks marches cause change

                  THAT is your blatant (even laugfhable) false assumption. Based on …. WHAT?

                  The bullshit was his bigoted comment on Democrats, which you appear to share.
                  Clear enough?

          2. Nurse? Nurse? Hihn has wandered off again and found a keyboard. Get the orderlies and lock him back up again.

            1. Did you parents raise you to believe that unprovoked aggression is acceptable behavior for adults? Are they proud of what you’ve become?

              (They never post substance because I crush them.)

          3. No, YOUR comment is typical liberal bullshit. You have no honest arguments, you just spew. Everything he said is factual.

            Why should we believe anything that comes from those who call themselves “climate scientists” but who REFUSE to follow the Scientific Method? People like Phil Jones, Keith Briffa, Michael Mann, and all the rest of the Lysenkoist cretins whose “work” cannot be replicated because their data and methods are kept secret? Yet they are still IPCC chapter lead authors and control the output of that corrupt organization.

            1. You have no honest arguments, you just spew.

              A deep thinkler would have screamed “liberal bullshit” — and proclaimed himself a genius, (sneer)
              This is the bullshit

              Before you call Trump’s policies racist and classist, look to the Democrat positions for the last half century.

              “He started it, Mommy.”

            2. And if AndrewR thinks I’m a liberal (lol), here’s the archive of my published political writing. Check anything on Taxes, Health Care or Governing, to see what a total, bigoted fool he is.

              http://libertyissues.com/archive.htm

              (Posted In defense of aggression)

              BOOOGA-BOOOGA

        2. Your comment is bullshit.

          1. Deadly hihnfection, run for your lives!

            1. STILL have nothing adult????
              (not that I’d ever expect you to)

      4. He said “colored … people” …

      5. Hmm, there is a lot of science that is based on faith. Just look at quantum physics. Scientific knowledge and facts have always been subject to change. They are limited by not only human thought but the ability to test the theories. Do scientists still believe in a flat earth or bleeding sick people?

        1. Yeah, let’s not forget that most science (quotation marks optional) has turned out to be wrong. Even if you could prove, with science (so trial and error), that Donald trump is somehow singularly unfit to be president, the smart money would be on your results being incomplete, at best.

          1. Yeah, let’s not forget that most science (quotation marks optional) has turned out to be wrong.

            THE EARTH IS FLAT … AND THE CENTER OF THE UNIVERSE … EVOLUTION IS REAL …etc., etc., etc.

    4. I just hate the aesthetics of this. When the pro-science movement adopts the tactics of the pro-life movement or the environmental movement alarm bells should go off. This isn’t about science. It’s about being able to post something on Facebook about how much you love science.

      People who love science hold symposiums, gather in the park with their telescopes, hunt beetles, fire off rockets, or just go into the ally to break something and figure out how it works. Marching around like a pro-lifer? It’s the idiocracizing of science.

  2. The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue

    Woodrow Wilson approves this message. Let the technocrats with their scientific expertise run society and we’ll all be better off. Right after we exterminate all the niggers and the Jews and all those lesser mongrel breeds. For their own good, of course.

    1. It’s not a scientific issue either. So the scientists should tend to their knitting and not pretend to be experts in things outside of their fields.

      1. Especially if their field isn’t a field of science that embraces empiricism, like for example climatology.

        1. Hey, don’t blame the field, blame the players. I’m sure climatology would love to embrace empiricism, given the opportunity. Are there really no climatologists just trying to do good science?

          1. Are there really no climatologists just trying to do good science?

            This assumes there ever were, that if climatology were entirely eliminated that these people wouldn’t just go back to being geologists, ecologists, soil scientists, agronomists, meteorologists, etc.

            1. Ever were what?

              I’m missing what you are trying to say here. Are you saying that the climate is somehow not a legitimate object of study?

              You can only get so far studying the component parts of a complex system. And understanding how the climate functions as a whole seems pretty relevant, interesting and potentially useful.

              1. You can only get so far studying the component parts of a complex system.

                My criticisms of phrenology do not refute the existence of a skull nor even, necessarily, the relation between any particular brain morphology and psychological outcome. Nor does it have much bearing on the achievements of neurology, neurobiology, physiology, behavioral psychology, etc.

                Your assertion again assumes that the parts weren’t being studied holistically before, that there was no overlap among varying fields of science, and that we aren’t just being sold a bill of goods.

                Also, Climate Science is a couple of layers over, built on being greater than the sum of it’s parts while a consensus of scientists throughout history have lectured about the parsimony principle and models being precisely as useful as their predictions.

                I wouldn’t claim this to be anything close to absolute proof, but it’s generally understood that agricultural science has been around much longer than climate science and that agronomy, as a field is specifically devoted to maximizing the extraction of biological energy from an ecosystem and/or the biome as efficiently as possible.

                1. I don’t really see the parallel to phrenology. As I see it, climatology is perfectly legitimate as an area of study. It’s just not being done properly. Phrenology was based on faulty premises. There was never going to be a way to learn things about people’s mental qualities by measuring the skull. But it’s pretty obvious that long term trends in atmospheric phenomena is something that is real and can be studied. So I don’t think the comparison to phrenology is a valid one.
                  Maybe climatology needs to start fresh. But it’s definitely something that is poorly understood and worthy of study.

                  Studying big, complex systems really is a pretty new thing. I think the biggest fault of climatology is in assuming that the field is much more mature than it is. The models that exist now should be seen as interesting but highly flawed first attempts, not definitive predictive tools.

                  1. Essentially Mad.Casual makes an important observation in that Climatology is touted as being greater than the sum parts of which it is constructed, even while Climatology itself is a science still in it’s infancy and the underlying sciences are much older and better understood. The point regarding a model only being as a good as it’s predicts is also a fair mention.

                    I believe Phrenology was intended to be an example of another ‘science’ which purports itself to be greater than the sum of it’s constructed underlying sciences but I’m not sure it’s a very apt one.

                    It’s also true, or at least it was last time I checked, that the Farmer’s Almanac has been a more effective predictive tool than any model yet constructed by Climatology. That’s…not a good sign to say the least. This may no longer be true though, I’ll admit.

                  2. Phrenology was based on faulty premises.

                    Some might call using statistics to study a physical science that explicitly requires or includes the biome to be as at least one faulty premise.

                    You continue to say it’s a nascent field and that it may need restarting or isn’t being done properly when it’s really easy to point to cases where it’s being (or at least attempted) and been done and without convoluted carbon trading schemes or the tippy-toppiest of top-down mandates. Except in those cases, it’s not, for some reason, called climatology or climate science.

                    It’s IMO, a persistent need for progressively-minded people to find something old, slap a new label on it, and call it new (without regard for other conventions and/or ROI or any other specific outcome).

                    1. And to apply such labels at the behest or as part of some other social agenda.

                    2. I wonder how many in the Homeopathy contingent of the march …

                      Aroma Therapists?

                  3. Phrenology wasn’t based upon faulty premise, it was based upon the entirely reasonable idea that there is a direct relationship between form and function. It was also based upon the best data and overall best scientific practices of it’s day.

                    It was just exceedingly wrong.

                    But when you consider what functional MRIs are now teaching us about the relationship between brain structures and functions we can see that the fundamental premise was actually pretty strong.

                    1. It certainly does seem like people are more then the sum of their component parts (a body’s worth of eviscerata is a little different than a living person), but it does also seem like the more we learn about how our brains work, the more physical it becomes, just on a really, really small scale. That does bring up some troubling questions about the relationship between skin (biggest organ in your body) color and brain function, but, regardless, averages don’t say anything about an individual. If we could internalize that idea, we could have a much more honest discussion about this.

                2. The idea that climate science is akin to phrenology is just plain retarded.

                  Some climate scientists are overly political, but then again JBS Haldane was a communist and still a fine biologist.

                  It’s one thing to contend that climate scientists overplay their hand in policy recommendations and that there’s a bias toward publishing research claiming to find higher temperature effects from co2 rather than lower, but even that’s only one area of the field (like not all biologists are evolutionary theorists.)

                  Of course, nearly all climate scientists do think that the earth is getting warmer and human carbon emissions have had some role in that trend. For the same reason nearly all biologists think evolution is real. Because it’s true.


                  1. Of course, nearly all climate scientists do think that the earth is getting warmer
                    and human carbon emissions have had some role in that trend.”

                    The getting warmer bit isn’t in any real dispute, necessarily. However, the ‘extent’ runs between the ‘statistically insignificant’ to ‘destroying the world’. That’s a fake ‘consensus’ as far as the second bit, but technically true on the former.

                    Everyone acts like it’s the first part that people have issues with, but that isn’t it at all. It’s second bit that in dispute by-and-large. It’s just easier for everyone to make a huge strawman and set him on fire.

    2. Eugenics is a “sCiEnCe”, amIrite?

  3. unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.

    How you know they’re full of shit is that they can’t even put out a mission statement that doesn’t reveal their goal isn’t advocacy for Science.

    The only value Science upholds is the truth. Upholding the Good is the job of a Theocracy.

    1. The only value Science upholds is the truth. Upholding the Good is the job of a Theocracy.

      They seem to have merged the two

      1. They have only pretended to, since these two things cannot be merged together.

    2. What does Science want? How can we avoid angering Science? What collective sacrifices does Science require us to demand of others to ascend to the next level of wokedness?

      1. For starters you must sacrifice your first daughter to Science in a pyre.

    3. It’s especially amusing since, as a generic group, the left is less likely to believe there even is an objective truth at all. RE: Post-Modernism.

      Of course, the right thinking there is objective truth because of a God is probably not a great comparison.

      1. I would wager that a “god” of any monotheistic type (Not going to further that part of the statement here) is closer to true than subjectivism. This god, or more likely this “concept”, must exist outside of man and his thoughts. It can be discovered and studies in the hopes of understanding it. This thing may be a god or it may simply be logic or reason. Whatever the “why” of the universe, it exists even when man is not present or aware and thus exists on its own outside the physical world. Even if all mankind where to die, there would be concrete rules such as 1+1=2.

        The only honest counter would be that nothing exists at all, not even you people reading this. And if nothing exists, nothing can be morally wrong. If nothing is wrong, nothing needs to change (like climate law for example).

        1. I don’t know, going down that rabbit hole seems like a cripple fight if ever I’ve seen one.

          At the surface layer, it’s basically the difference between “It’s true because I say so” versus “it’s true for me because I say so”.

          That way madness lies.

          1. I was afraid I broke a student once by getting him to understand such worldviews and asking him which was right. He couldn’t “prove” that he existed. I felt bad… until the next day he came to class happy to learn more “cool stuff.”

  4. The big problem I have with this crap is that a lot of the scientists who will attend this march, and other advocates for government response to climate change is that they ignore or misrepresent the stronger arguments from people who are skeptical of both the science and the proposed solutions.

    Not many people will deny that humans have any effect on climate at all, but they way a lot of people talk about it, you would think that all skeptics are in fact “deniers”.
    But with the models that exist now and the record of making predictions that don’t come true, there is lots of reason to be skeptical about the certainty with which claims about climate are made. And there is even more reason to be skeptical of the policies being proposed to combat climate change.

    1. You don’t know what the fuck you’re talking about but what else is new.

      1. So if a field of science has repeatedly put forward projections, and every one of those projections has been wrong, we are to believe that the next one is going to be correct because…?

        1. To quote Crusty, after betting all of his money on the Generals beating the Globetrotters: “I thought they were due!”

        2. That’s not true and you don’t have any idea what the fuck you’re talking about.

          Read something besides I’maDumbFuckDenier.com.

          1. How is it not true?

            No AGW model has accurately predicted future warming.

            1. Citation please.

              1. You want me to cite something that’s never happened?

                1. It’s ok, Tony doesn’t understand burden of proof. If he did, he wouldn’t be Tony.

              2. Psst – Tony,

                Pro tip on logic:

                You can’t prove a negative, but you can disprove Spinach Chin’s statement quite simply by pointing to the one AGW model that has accurately predicted future warming.

                1. Define ‘accurately.’

                  Some models do better than others. Whether one does well depends on the null hypothesis.

                  One very simple model has been very successful. The model that posits that mean temperature will go up over time. There’s a wide range of possible coefficients, to be sure, on co2 emissions, but the fact that it can’t be pinned down doesn’t mean it can’t be deduced that it is definitely greater than 0.

                  1. Define ‘accurately.’

                    Try with reality falling inside the models error bars.

                    One very simple model has been very successful. The model that posits that mean temperature will go up over time.

                    Correlation does not equal causation. This is especially true when there are only 3 possibilities, temperature going up, down, or staying the same. Since temperature has done all three prior to mans existence I would say that “simple model” is quite worthless.

                  2. There’s a wide range of possible coefficients, to be sure, on co2 emissions, but the fact that it can’t be pinned down doesn’t mean it can’t be deduced that it is definitely greater than 0.

                    I don’t think that’s what anyone here is talking about.

                    We’re being told that if we don’t accept that the Earth is warming catastrophically and that CO2 is the primary driver, then we are anti-Science.

                    We are objecting that the actual science supports the former statement, not the latter.

                    We are also routinely told that the “97% consensus” applies to the latter statement, when in fact it only asserts that 1) the world is warming and 2) human activity of some type contributes in some way.

                    1. Ding Ding Ding!

                      If I had a prize I’d give it to you Square. I love it when people actually point out what the ‘consensus’ is about. The entire ‘consensus’ is one giant strawman argument rolled up in an appeal to authority.

                    2. “We’re being told that if we don’t accept that the Earth is warming catastrophically and that CO2 is the primary driver, then we are anti-Science.”
                      1) That may be the case for some people, but for others “it’s a hoax.” The term ‘hoax’ does not connote that you think the temperature coefficient is lower that some particular number. It suggests one thinks the phenomenon is simply not occurring at all.

                      The rhetoric of many ‘skeptics’ (including the president) strongly suggests they hold the ‘straw man’ position.

                      @Greg F: “Correlation does not equal causation.”
                      Hence why people run regressions accounting for confounding variables. Believe it or not, some climate scientists do know enough basic statistics to understand that, and the ones who don’t don’t discredit the ones who do, any more than the number of biologists who don’t understand basic statistics (I know from first hand experience there are many of these) doesn’t discredit the entire field of biology or its most important discoveries.

                    3. Would those statistically competent scientists include those who used a single, outlier tree in Yamal to generate unprecedented warming? Or perhaps you’re referring to Mann’s Nature “trick” of splicing two data sets together when the dendro proxy diverged (showed cooling) from the desired outcome? No, it must be Marcott who made the claim that 20th century warming was unprecedented and then was forced to write a soft retraction in realscience because his proxies low-passed only century+ length scales. Or maybe it’s IPCC AR5 which lowered the lower limit of ECS (and thus expanded the likely range), removed a best estimate mean ECS, and claimed that certainty is higher than ever than the majority of warming is man made. It’s surely a bedrock in science that degrading certainty in estimates means you have a much better understanding.

                      So go ahead and give more some more principle component studies that reach the same output regardless of inputs, just don’t call them statistically competent.

                2. You people are so dumb about basic reasoning it boggles the mind. But then you do believe in the stupidest political philosophy outside of a preschool.

                  He made a positive claim: no model has accurately predicted future warming. He got this “fact” from somewhere. He doesn’t just get to say it and proclaim it true. So I just want a fucking citation how about?

                  1. You people are so dumb about basic reasoning it boggles the mind.

                    Holy fucking shit, Tony, your lack of self-awareness is truly a heroic thing to behold.

                    Basic fucking reasoning:

                    You cannot prove a negative. That’s as fucking basic to reasoning as “if a = b and b=c, then a=c.”

                    You can disprove an categorical statement like “no model has accurately predicted future warming” by producing just one fucking example.

                    But you don’t seem to be able to, so you just insult people, tell yourself that you’ve won, and smugly walk away.

                    Do you think you’re actually persuading anyone with this shit?

                    1. Minus, unfortunately, the walking away part.

                    2. Do you think you’re actually persuading anyone with this shit?

                      Watching a debate between too flaming assholes is hysterical.

                    3. You’re two much…

                    4. Watching a debate between too flaming assholes is hysterical.

                      So how did you arrange those mirrors again?

                    5. You cannot prove a negative.

                      He asked for a “cite,” so you just made a public ass of yourself.

                      But you don’t seem to be able to, so you just insult people, tell yourself that you’ve won, and smugly walk away.

                      (snicker) He crushed your sorry ass.

                      Do you think you’re actually persuading anyone with this shit?

                      Here’s a link to the defintion of cite, chump.

                      http://www.dictionary.com/browse/cite

                  2. https://reason.com/blog/2016/05…..-two-new-s

                    This very site published these articles last year offering evidence to the contrary.

                    1. He was mistaken.

                    2. He was mistaken.

                      It’s no true, The universe does NOT disappear if you refuse to open your eyes.

                    3. Did it?

                      “Two new studies look at the long-run projections of climate computer models and suggest that they are running too hot.”

                    4. Did it?

                      You just proved Tony correct. The assholes here will HATE you.

                      “He made a positive claim: no model has accurately predicted future warming.”

                  3. It’s not a “fact”, you spastic. It’s a claim that a FACT doesn’t exist.

                    One that’s easily disproven by producing evidence of an AGW model that has predicted future warming accurately.

                    If you were knowledgeable on this subject, you would be able to cite one off the top of your head… but you can’t.

                    You’re merely spouting talking points because you’re a gullible fucking moron.

                    1. It’s not a “fact”, you spastic. It’s a claim that a FACT doesn’t exist.

                      Your own cite proves you a liar.
                      Or illiterate.

                      You’re merely spouting talking points because you’re a gullible fucking moron.

                      (sneer)

              3. itations:

                Exactly zero of the predictions made by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth came true; inconvenient indeed. Here is the record of predictions made by so-called environmentalists, including many climate “science” predictions on all sorts of issues that were spectacularly wrong:

                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.”

                1. #4. Is an interesting one because at the time it certainly seemed true. And it is a triumph of science that we can keep the world population fed. But its the kind of science that the Marchers *hate* (as evidence the the Marchers snuggling with the anti-GMO dipshits). You can’t feed 7 billion + people via family-run organic farms.

                  1. You can’t feed 7 billion + people via family-run organic farms.

                    What can you do with childish tribal analogies?
                    Is it true that blatant negative stereotypes are among the purest examples of bigotry?

                    1. Is it true that blatant negative stereotypes are among the purest examples of bigotry?

                      What kind of twisted mind you must have to equate noting the failure of scalability of so-called “organic” farming with “blatant negative stereotypes” and “the purest examples of bigotry”.

                    2. behold the retard, khm001!

                      Is it true that blatant negative stereotypes are among the purest examples of bigotry?

                      What kind of twisted mind you must have to equate noting the failure of scalability of so-called “organic” farming with “blatant negative stereotypes” and “the purest examples of bigotry”.

                      (laughing) It’s only a STEREOTYPE — negative or otherwise …. by definition, Sluggo — if one applies it to an entire group. Like …. wait for it … THE MARCHERS!

                      DO YOU STEREOTYPE THE MARCHERS AS TRYING TO “FEED 7 BILLION + PEOPLE VIA FAMILY-RUN ORGANIC FARMS.” SKIPPY?

                      HOW MANY WERE SNUGGLING WITH “ANTI-GMO DIPSHITS”?

                      What kind of twisted mind …

                      REPEAT: Pot Kettle Black
                      (sneer)

                      .

                  2. D. D. Driver,

                    Is an interesting one because at the time it certainly seemed true.

                    Only to fools, since Malthus had been definitively proven wrong for well over a century by that time.

                    it is a triumph of science

                    It is a triumph of capitalism and economic progress against which people like Paul Ehrlich fight against.

                2. Exactly zero of the predictions made by Al Gore in An Inconvenient Truth came true

                  Oh.

              4. 10. Ecologist Kenneth Watt told Time that, “At the present rate of nitrogen buildup, it’s only a matter of time before light will be filtered out of the atmosphere and none of our land will be usable.”

                11. Barry Commoner predicted that decaying organic pollutants would use up all of the oxygen in America’s rivers, causing freshwater fish to suffocate.

                12. Paul Ehrlich chimed in, predicting in 1970 that “air pollution?is certainly going to take hundreds of thousands of lives in the next few years alone.” Ehrlich sketched a scenario in which 200,000 Americans would die in 1973 during “smog disasters” in New York and Los Angeles.

                13. Paul Ehrlich warned in the May 1970 issue of Audubon that DDT and other chlorinated hydrocarbons “may have substantially reduced the life expectancy of people born since 1945.” Ehrlich warned that Americans born since 1946?now had a life expectancy of only 49 years, and he predicted that if current patterns continued this expectancy would reach 42 years by 1980, when it might level out. (Note: According to the most recent CDC report, life expectancy in the US is 78.8 years).

                14. Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate?that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

              5. 15. Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

                16. Sen. Gaylord Nelson wrote in Look that, “Dr. S. Dillon Ripley, secretary of the Smithsonian Institute, believes that in 25 years, somewhere between 75 and 80 percent of all the species of living animals will be extinct.”

                17. In 1975, Paul Ehrlich predicted that “since more than nine-tenths of the original tropical rainforests will be removed in most areas within the next 30 years or so, it is expected that half of the organisms in these areas will vanish with it.”

                18. Kenneth Watt warned about a pending Ice Age in a speech. “The world has been chilling sharply for about twenty years,” he declared. “If present trends continue, the world will be about four degrees colder for the global mean temperature in 1990, but eleven degrees colder in the year 2000. This is about twice what it would take to put us into an ice age.”

        3. So if a field of science has repeatedly put forward projections, and every one of those projections has been wrong, we are to believe that the next one is going to be correct because…?

          That’s like asking if your bullshit has any relevance at all to what he said!

      2. Tony,
        I believe in global cooling ala the 1970s type global cooling brought on by pollution made by over industrialization, emissions, and corporate greed.

        The sun’s warming properties are being blocked out by the high levels of pollution and CO2 in the atmosphere.

        I have consensus from a very high proportion of the same scientists who offer consensus on global warming today.

        I can’t lose.

        1. Problem is the vast majority of emissions absorb long wave radiation rather than short wave, so they don’t block solar radiation coming in near as much as they block it going out after being reflected off the surface, hence the term ‘greenhouse gas.’

          I don’t know if you’re joking or not, but while you’re at it you may as well also dump Darwinism for Lamarckism.

          1. Except for those precious aerosols which the models have used as a tuning factor to balance out their excessive ECS/TCR for CO2. Nice try though.

          2. The problem with the problem is that aerosols do block ISWR. In fact the models rely on that as a fudge factor tuning variable to compensate for their excessive ECS/TCR sensitivity to CO2.

            But, hey, the photoelectric effect, Planck’s Law, and quantum are only a century old, so they’re easy to overlook.

      3. Which part?

        I’m pretty sure I do know what I’m talking about when I say what problem I have with something.

        As far as I can tell, not many people actually deny that humans have some effect on climate.

        I’m also pretty sure that climate models have a pretty bad record of making accurate predictions.

        And, while it’s tough to make any empirical argument about it, there are pretty good arguments that currently proposed fixes for climate issues are either unlikely to succeed or are likely to do more harm than good.

        So what have I got wrong?

        1. Your fixation on “bad predictions.” If anything the predictions have been rosier than the actual outcomes. But climate science is primarily observational, and it’s observing a bunch of stuff certain to have catastrophic effects if left unchecked. And actually the catastrophe is already happening. Heard about coral reefs? Your grandchildren might not.

          1. I know tony. It has been getting so cold here since 1976 that all of the coral reefs off the north florida coast have been dying due to persistent cold water patterns.

            If only we could shutter these factories and stop them from emitting CO2, we could let the sun’s warming rays deter us from a freezing cold miserable end.

            1. Do you even know what point you’re trying to make?

              1. Only that I am a firm believer in consensus and consensus can never be wrong.

                I just have more patience than the scientists from the 70s. Its going to get colder until we stop this CO2 emission stuff from these damn capitalists.

                1. You’re a peddler of strawmen and a sucker for rightwing horseshit.

                  1. Global cooling is not right wing bullshit fellow freedom fighter. Look up global cooling from the 70s. There was mass consensus among university scientists that the earth was getting too cold due to human causes.

                    That is hardly right wing. Many of the same scientists that warn of global warming today were offering their consensus then. I guess they just got confused.

                    Let’s catch up tomorrow after Rachel maddow show .

                    1. There was mass consensus among university scientists that the earth was getting too cold due to human causes.

                      No there wasn’t. There was like one magazine article.

                      Stop feeding me bullshit that I know is bullshit.

                    2. Were you even alive in the 1970’s Tony? Because if you had been, you wouldn’t say this revisionist bullshit.

                    3. Cooling in the 70s — as described here — is indeed bullshit. No widespread consensus at the time. But it’s Tony, so the puppets stand together, all sharing the same ventriloquist.
                      Tribalism Uber Alles!

          2. I might argue with you about the predictions.

            None of the rest of what you say actually contradicts what I’m saying though. If coral reefs are dying, then that’s what’s happening. I’m not going to deny an observable fact. I still don’t think that any of the policies being proposed have any chance of making any significant changes. People just aren’t going to stop using fossil fuels in the short term.
            In fact, haven’t many climate scientists been declaring that if such-and-such happens it’s “game over” for the climate? Well those things have happened. Keystone XL, fracking, etc. etc. So hadn’t we better accept that we aren’t going to change the direction things are headed and learn to adapt to whatever is coming?

            You are actually demonstrating my point here. Just focusing on my take on the quality of the models and ignoring the rest of the arguments I’m making about the feasibility and utility of proposed solutions.

            1. Wringing hands about the feasibility of policy solutions is just the latest step in the goalpost-moving process that science deniers always engage in. Don’t you recognize this exact pattern from when creationism was having its heyday? As scientific fact become more and more obvious to more and more people, they kept inventing excuses for not accepting smaller and pettier bits of it until they eventually stopped being part of the conversation. With any luck that’s exactly where you guys are headed too, though fossil fuel companies have undoubtedly spent a lot more money even than the Christians on making people stupid.

              So anyway, we’re at the “there are no policy solutions/all policy solutions are worse than doing nothing” stage of this particular brand of science denial. I can’t say it’s not progress.

              What you can’t say is that doing nothing is the best possible way to address the problem. If you can get it out of your head that choosing the status quo is some kind of default position instead of an active, consequential act of agency, then we’ll get somewhere. Right now you’re peddling in bogeymen about evil socialism taking over in the climate change Trojan Horse that’s just so much stupid bullshit. You don’t like any of the proposals? Don’t think we can fix the problem? Okay, then what? Blindly hope the market takes care of things just in the nick of time? Do nothing? What are you contributing here?

              1. Wringing hands about the feasibility of policy solutions is just the latest step in the goalpost-moving process that science deniers always engage in.

                That may be true of some people, but it’s been my consistent position for a long time. I’ve moved from pretty firm belief in the orthodox view of climate to slightly more skeptical. But you have no idea what I think. So fuck you and your presumption that you have the slightest idea what I believe or what motivates me.

                1. You apparently believe that we shouldn’t do much about the climate problem. Since I believe that there isn’t really any such thing as inaction, that means you are proposing a vast, global policy of mass death and disruption. So my presumptions are the least of my problems with you.

                  1. And since I believe there isn’t any such thing as action, that means that you’re proposing doing nothing at all about all of the horrible things that are happening in the world.

                    /I have no understanding of logic whatsoever

              2. You’re head is in your ass Tony. Whether evolution is true is not the same question as what should be done about it. If someone proposes we eradicate the genetically inferior and you object on ethical grounds, are you an evolution denier?

              3. That goalpost moving garbage is one of the more laughable CAGW believer tactics.

                Attacking the various links in the long, weak chain of events that form the backbone of the bed-wetters’ story is the only consistent response this brand of science fiction merits. Why do you think we Deniers are skeptical in the first place? The whole catastrophe theory is built on the weakest thread of cause-effect events (minus error bars, of course).

                Want some examples? Go back and listen to the NPR/National Geographic Climate Connection series. It’s mind-boggling how anything can be tied to CO2 butterfly wings.

          3. Your fixation on “bad predictions.”

            If what you’re doing is repeatable and predictable, it’s not science.

            If anything the predictions have been rosier than the actual outcomes.

            Really? How about this one:

            “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.”

            Or this one:

            Ecologist Kenneth Watt declared, “By the year 2000, if present trends continue, we will be using up crude oil at such a rate?that there won’t be any more crude oil. You’ll drive up to the pump and say, `Fill ‘er up, buddy,’ and he’ll say, `I am very sorry, there isn’t any.'”

            Or this one:

            Harrison Brown, a scientist at the National Academy of Sciences, published a chart in Scientific American that looked at metal reserves and estimated the humanity would totally run out of copper shortly after 2000. Lead, zinc, tin, gold, and silver would be gone before 1990.

            1. None of those are climate related.

              1. They are part and parcel of the false “environmental” movement that is simply misanthropic; an easy example, which I’m shocked you’re pretending didn’t happen, is the utter failure of all IPCC model predictions. And you’re ignoring the 18 points I provided above. Further, you have yet to provide any actual evidence of anything remotely like an accurate prediction from these fraudsters, which is to be expected, since they are simple fraudsters.

                1. khm001 goes even MORE RETARDED!

                  None of those are climate related.

                  They are part and parcel of the false “environmental” movement that is simply misanthropic

                  As crazy bulshitters as you!

                  which I’m shocked you’re pretending didn’t happen

                  (laughing) I only said they were not environmental, Skippy.

                  And you’re ignoring the 18 points I provided above.

                  Ummmn, I a totally different thread, Skippy.

                  Further, you have yet to provide any actual evidence of anything remotely like an accurate prediction from these fraudsters

                  (laughing harder) None of the predictions cam true … and you seem compelled to fuckup.
                  Repeatedly.

                  I JUST SAW ANOTHER ONE!

            2. If what you’re doing is repeatable and predictable, it’s not science.

              Not your finest day, eh?

              1. Even on my worst day, I understand what science is, unlike you, who doesn’t understand what it is on your best day.

                1. If what you’re doing is repeatable and predictable, it’s not science.

                  Not your finest day, eh?

                  Even on my worst day, I understand what science is, unlike you, who doesn’t understand what it is on your best day.

                  Shame on me … on MY worst day I believe …. wait for it ….

                  IF IT’S REPEATABLE AND PREDICTABLE, THEN IT ***IS*** SCIENCE!!!!
                  i feel SO ashamed by your repeated … bullshit

                  (dances away laughing)

          4. “But climate science is primarily observational, and it’s observing a bunch of stuff certain to have catastrophic effects if left unchecked.” Completely false. The vast, vast majorities of “climate science” papers are computer models, which is NOT “observations”.

            1. What are the models based on?

      4. Well you’re certainly an expert on not knowing what the fuck you’re talking about.

    2. People act like this is strictly about climate change. It’s not. It’s about the rejection of all science and studies that don’t follow the faith/emotional base for the current Regime’s policies that they will be trying to enact over the next few years. Ending public school for people who can’t afford it, taking back women’s right to choose, assuming that all immigrants are criminals out to rape you (when they have a much lower crime rate than average Americans), pro anti-vaxxer laws, etc. Whether you believe in global warming or not, this is a much bigger platform than hippy dippy climate science, it’s about science in general and how the current presidency is trying to undermine it for his evangelical bible thumping base.

      1. Pro-life and pro-choice are not scientific positions. They are ethical and philosophical positions often informed in part by science.

        1. Not everything is about pro-life and pro-choice, although I suspect it truly is for far too many people. You all base your entire political views on one issue, which the wealthy count on. Divide and conquer.

          1. although I suspect it truly is for far too many people

            It’s a BLATANT assault on the Constitution and the founding concept of Unalienable Rights, Plus forbidden by the Ninth and 14th Amendments.

            You all base your entire political views on one issue, which the wealthy count on. Divide and conquer.

            Like you just did, by lying about the wealthy?

    3. The big problem I have with this crap is that a lot of the scientists who will attend this march

      I doubt a lot of actual scientists will be attending this march, or a lot of people who actually have full time jobs.

  5. So now scientists are marching to show, at best, how important they are to policy and, at worst, their support for specific policy.

    Remember this when someone accuses someone else of politicizing science.

  6. I think scientific method is one of the greatest knowledge seeking endeavors for humankind.

    I think scientific fields are loaded with people who narrowly apply scientific method to their lives, like ignoring historical government tyranny and thinking government can solve or even help problems. The evidence should clearly illustrate that governments historically grow too big, spend too much and limit too many freedoms. Its like these scientists are not even trying to be as objective as possible.

    Science is being used as a hammer to further political motivations.

  7. I am now, and have long been, very decidedly pro-science.

    Leftists keep using that word, “science,” but it does not mean what they think it means.

    1. Isn’t one of the prime claims to fame of most science-minded people a hefty amount of skepticism?

      Yet with all the empirical proof of the MILLIONS of dead bodies the same people who “effing-love-science” can’t seem to muster a rat turd’s amount of skepticism about the efficacy of states.

      Nor can they muster that much skepticism about science. After all… Copernicus challenged consensus. What an idiot he turned out to be… am I right?!?!?

  8. Science is not a liberal conspiracy. Pants-shitting Gaia-worship, on the other hand, is.

  9. But Obama! doesn’t work as an excuse for anything, especially when it’s something like “But what about Obama’s salmon policy!”

    Science has become partisan in that Republicans don’t believe in it. Nobody forced them to do that, and whatever problems Democrats have there is no equivalence, and asserting one is the behavior of a fucking hack. Someone who might, say, consider the flawed and largely discredited work by a couple of fringe climate scientists as the only information worth reporting on the subject for this publication.

    But I digress. Trump thinks climate change, the biggest problem the human species is facing, is a Chinese hoax. His party is full of a bunch of Bible-thumping cousinfuckers who think the earth is younger than the pyramids (which stored grain). His government has a stated policy of using outdated dirty energy sources basically out of spite alone.

    But waah scientists might tip their hand to reveal a little bit of anti-Trump bias. They should probably sit down and shut up while real voices of reason like Ronald Fucking Bailey do all the talking.

    1. See, there’s lefty justification again. Republicans don’t disbelieve science. They disbelieve junk science, which is politicized science that is not objective as possible. In other words, the majority of Americans are being more skeptical of “studies” that try and encourage Americans to do something because the study supports the politicized cause.

      The left is losing control and they don’t know what to do except more biased articles and studies.

      1. How could any right thinking person argue against the government science that produced nutrition guidelines?

      2. And there are lots of Republicans who do believe the orthodox view on climate science is true too.

      3. So Exxon and their puppets in the GOP spend decades spreading lies and propaganda about climate science, and now it’s liberals’ fault that the topic is politicized.

        1. So Exxon and their puppets in the GOP spend decades spreading lies and propaganda about climate science

          [citation needed]

    2. “climate change, the biggest problem the human species is facing,”

      Sounds very scientific.

      1. Wonder if he ever heard of the Cold War… you know… that event that could have ended nearly, if not all, life rather rapidly? As compared to the remote and as of yet unobserved outcome of it getting hotter in what… 100 years? By a few degrees? Try living in the midwest… life does not end when it gets hot, or cold, or changes rapidly. It’s been 70 degrees in the afternoon and freezing at night where I live. Over 120F heat index and drought… then a week of floods. Man, and earth, can adapt… Isn’t that what St. Darwin tells us anyhow? Why the freakout? We can just evolve some internal cooling, bro. It will be legit!


    3. Which country, specifically, has massive problems with widespread pollution and actual industrial waste? Is it:

      A) The United States of America

      B) The People’s Republic of China

      Sub-question, which of the following two countries releases more CO2 per year:

      A) The United States of America

      B) The People’s Republic of China

      I think it’s weird you only seem to condemn the country that is actually doing what you want. Very weird indeed. It’s almost like you don’t fucking love science.

      1. Would you mind quoting the bit where I said that climate change was entirely the fault of the US? I can’t seem to locate it.

        1. Your position assumes the US government has the capacity to ‘solve’ it. Which of course is false. The net impact of Obama or Trump’s environmental policy will be negligible.

          Best thing we could do is develop nuclear power more. But bringing that up would force you to reflect on who the opponents of nuclear power are.

          1. My position is no such thing. I believe it to be a global problem solvable only by unprecedented global cooperation. With plenty of room for the market mechanism, if it makes you feel better. I’m sorry that this is a problem that it can’t solve in its entirety, but maybe free-market fundamentalism doesn’t solve every fucking problem. God forbid you entertain that notion.

            But wait, you do! Nuclear power, a thing that could not exist without government subsidy on a large scale. And I’m all for it. Have never been against it. I get that you think there is a big anti-nuclear force among liberals, but that’s just another excuse you’re trotting out for why you’re continuing to be a curmudgeon on this issue.

    4. Tell me, SCIENTIFICALLY, how feelings trump genetics in regards to trans folks. How can you tell if the trans is serious, going through a phrase, or just lying.

      I want SCIENCE here.

      1. It’s OK, you can dress however you want. Don’t beat yourself up because you’re confused. You don’t need science to justify how you want to live your life.

      2. It’s generally polite to take people at their word about how they self-identify.

        What science has to say about this subject is that the biology and psychology of sex are much more complicated than your “the peepee goes in the hoohoo” level of understanding you’d prefer to maintain.

        1. “The peepee goes in the hoohoo” was my nickname in college…

        2. “It’s generally polite to take people at their word about how they self-identify.”

          Given Progressives’ desire to pass laws to protect these people, manners seems to be an exceptionally weak justification for penalties to be handed out for somebody refusing to play along with a delusion and, instead, opting for reality.

          “What science has to say about this subject is that the biology and psychology of sex are much more complicated ”

          Psychology is hardly a science and nobody cares what they think. Biology is notoriously unable to provide hard evidence that transgenderism even EXISTS. Not really in the genetic makeup of people. All you have is their feelings and their feelings don’t equal science.

          1. None are so blind as those who refuse to see. And who believe that, if they shut their eyes VERY tight .. the entire universe disappears!
            Book-burners for the 21st century.

    5. Tony just proved quite well what the agenda of the catastrophists is.

      Plug in the word marxism for every time he says science in his posts.

      1. timbo just proved quite well the agenda of tribal bigotry.
        Plug in the word marxist for every time he says Tony in his posts (a lie, but typical)
        Then scroll back and try to figure out what the FUCK timbo is babbling about,

    6. Trump has not done anything specifically “anti-science” yet Tony, so calm down. We are still part of the Paris agreement and he has not targeted any scientific agency for elimination or budget cuts. That doesn’t seem to stop you and the science cultist marchers from getting their panties in a bunch though.

      1. That hair could be classified as defying gravity.

      2. I was against him for the pussy grabbing alone.

        1. You were against anyone that MSNBC told you to be against.

    7. Uh oh, now you’ve done it, Bailey. You’ve triggered Tony.

    8. the flawed and largely discredited work by a couple of fringe climate scientists

      But enough about Michael Mann . . .

      1. I dont get the incentives…

        Why fake science if real science would get you the same results, the same accolades, and the same ass kissing from Top Men along with the same share of other people’s money?

        That just doesn’t make sense. The thing that does make sense is if… gasp!… the science isn’t ACTUALLY replicatable (I think I may have made that word up… But it’s cool) thereby necessitating the need to fabricate desired results that are not normally obtainable under strict scientific procedures supported with reason, logic, unbiased observations, And skepticism.

        1. I don’t think Mann’s ever really done any experiments on anything, so there wouldn’t be anything to replicate.

          These things tend to evolve over time.

          It may be that Mann started as a true believer, but I find it just as plausible that he saw an emerging field and found a way to place himself at the forefront of it. His tree-ring proxies got him some pats on the head and some funding, so he went all-in on that.

          Once you go all-in and hang your reputation and your career on something, and you find after some years that you were maybe a little young and over-eager, you have to decide whether to admit that you were being sensationalistic, and thus sacrifice your career, or you double down.

          99% of academics double down.

          But with Mann, I do believe it’s 100% self-serving, and that his eye is on his academic career. I think the politics are pretty secondary to him, other than that he’ll support whatever politician takes him seriously and advocates for more funding for him.

    9. “Science has become partisan in that Republicans don’t believe in it.”

      Does “science” = AGW for you.

      1. He has a whole mythology about Bible-thumping right wingers who instinctively oppose all things science-y. Climate skeptics are exactly the same people who were against teaching evolution in schools.

  10. “We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence [sic] , but seek to eliminate it entirely,” warns the march’s mission statement.

    Read: people may stop heeding the warnings of the Angry Volcano God’s priests and we can’t have that.

    Becausr it is clear they’re not talking about science per se but about Angry Volcano God worship.

    1. They’re talking about you dude.

      1. Tony,
        Is there any chance that the ACW theory is not true?

        Theories are just theories. Not laws.

        Should I be forced to change my life or endure coerced costs that I did not agree to for a theory rather than law?

        1. “It’s just a theory!” is too fucking retarded even for this place.

          1. Gosh Tony, old Merriam Webster sure had it wrong then huh?

            a
            :
            a hypothesis assumed for the sake of argument or investigation
            b
            :
            an unproved assumption
            :
            conjecture

              1. Yes, Tony, because as any ACTUAL scientist will tell you science can not prove anything but merely disprove things leaving behind those things that become ever likelier, yet never certainly, true.

                If it can not be disprove, it is not something for the realm of science. It is something else.

                1. Thank you. I always know I can count on Reason to get a kindergarten lesson on what science is.

                  You know what’s been disproved in the realm of climate science? That there are any other potential culprits for observed warming besides human activity. Yeah, they checked.

                  1. that is a far cry from AGW resulting in cataclysm. Nor is it a claim about the degree to which it is happening. Or how we have had heating periods in the past when we didn’t have human output to the degree we have today. All you have said is that mankind produces waste.

                    Nor does it explain how the predictive models have failed repeatedly in resulting in what actually occurs outside in the real world. Nor does it account for the lack of skepticism in the GW crowd given the various cases of fraud. Does fraud disprove the whole? No… But it does create a requirement for more stringent review before accepting the claims.

                    Talk about a kindergarten level of thinking.

                  2. Let’s see big tony. A few things that have been disproven in science are…..every single doomsday prophesy predicted buy the al gore scientists of the world and the other scientists who offered consensus that this was a done deal. It is just not that hot out there big guy.
                    Let’s have a Cosmo and watch maxeen waters on tv tonight.

                  3. Thank you. I always know I can count on Reason to get a kindergarten lesson on what science is.

                    And for some reason Tony seems incapable of absorbing even a kindergarten level of what science is.

                  4. Like under the bed or somewhere else?

                  5. You know what’s been disproved in the realm of climate science? That there are any other potential culprits for observed warming besides human activity.

                    Wow. That’s just . . . 100% wrong.

                    How do you make these statement and never engage in self-reflection?

                    What is your source for this poppycock?

                    1. I guess that big ball of fire in the sky has been ruled out as a possible culprit. That’s good to know.

                  6. “They” checked. “They” ignore the sun, water vapor, volcanoes, etc. Then ‘they” changed the calibration of sea buoys because the buoys were reading too cold for their theory. The change affected a mere 70% of the Earth’s surface – a nice way to boost global warming. As long as the facts are properly updated the theory will survive – until people see food shortages.

                  7. “You know what’s been disproved in the realm of climate science? That there are any other potential culprits for observed warming besides human activity. Yeah, they checked.”

                    Please cite these studies that eliminated ALL other possible culprits but people. That humanity is 100% the cause of all warming isn’t something that seems remotely plausible.

                    It should be quick and easy to cite the studies that show climate change is 100% AGW. Since none exist.

    2. Oh, I love that analogy, Old Mexican. Climate “scientists” are the priesthood of the left.

  11. “The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue”

    Science is a process – not an entity that endorses any particular view or policy.

    Policies involve trade offs and personal opinions regarding the relative value of outcomes and not least what is or isn’t Constitutional for the federal government to be involved in.

    “Science” doesn’t speak to any of that.

  12. In other words, the AGW crowd can’t win based on rational discussion, so they try to make it all about emotion and ‘defending science’. No one is attacking /science/ we are attacking YOU, because you are wrongly using ‘science’ as a club to beat down opposition to your social policies.

    I’m an economist. Analysis of complex systems is an everyday activity. The entire climate modelling regime is bullshit. The wrong statistical tools are used wrongly and the ‘results’ treated as if they were the word of God (I mean YOU, Michael Mann…).

    1. Your field is not immune to being used for political purposes that go counter to history and facts.

      *ahem* Paul Krugman

      1. Oh, don’t I know it…

        Paul Krugman is a jackass.

        I’m not saying I am a better macro economist than he is. I’m saying that when I was a 20 year old undergrad walking out of my first class that covered the Keynes model thinking, ‘this is bullshit’ I was a better macro economist THEN than he and his Nobel Prize* are now.

        *awarded in a completely different and unrelated field of economics


  13. “Do researchers risk becoming just another leftwing interest group?”

    No, it’s way past ‘risk’ and well into the territory of pseudoscience being recognized as defacto empiricist science. Most don’t even realize there’s a difference these days, especially the IFLS crowd.

  14. Science is just a tool of he white man’s patriarchy!

    1. Yeah-some of the marchers were upset at first that Bill Nye (the science guy) was picked to lead it because he is a white dude. So they added a couple of token African American ladies.

      1. Who is the bigger douche, Bill Nye or Neil de Grasse Tyson?

        1. Bill Nye.

          While I absolutely detest the sentiment behind “it’s true whether you believe it or not,” I do believe that Tyson is, in fact, a scientist, and not just playing make believe.

    2. Check yo science privilege!

  15. I’m curious as to why leftists “believe in science” so much — except when it comes to nuclear energy (whether new, safer atomic power plants or fusion energy), GMOs, allowing common folks access to information on their OWN genetic profiles, the cost/benefits of any agricultural chemicals, and the evolution of robots and AI. And then there’s the whole anti-vaccination crowd, which seems to be predominantly (though not exclusively) leftist.

    Seems to me they only support science when it happens to support their existing biases. It’s an extremely selective support. Science is not supposed to be rooted in politics.

    1. I like it when they use science to support the argument that men with dicks can be women.

    2. I think that as far as the items you list goes, people think that there is science behind their beliefs too. And for some of it there is. But people are overly emotional and bad at assessing relative risk. And some are just misanthropes who hate people doing what people do.

    3. And then there’s the whole anti-vaccination crowd, which seems to be predominantly (though not exclusively) leftist.

      The hardcore science worshippers have tried hard to make the anti-vaxxers out to be an alt-right group dominated by Alex Jones conspiracy nuts. Even though the place with the fewest vaccinated kids is the progtopia of Marin County.

      1. They might not be Alex Jones conspiracy nuts, but they are conspiracy nuts.

    4. Glaciers, gender, and science
      A feminist glaciology framework for global environmental change research

      http://journals.sagepub.com/do…..2515623368

      Glaciers are key icons of climate change and global environmental change. However, the relationships among gender, science, and glaciers ? particularly related to epistemological questions about the production of glaciological knowledge ? remain understudied. This paper thus proposes a feminist glaciology framework with four key components: 1) knowledge producers; (2) gendered science and knowledge; (3) systems of scientific domination; and (4) alternative representations of glaciers. Merging feminist postcolonial science studies and feminist political ecology, the feminist glaciology framework generates robust analysis of gender, power, and epistemologies in dynamic social-ecological systems, thereby leading to more just and equitable science and human-ice interactions.

  16. “We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence, but seek to eliminate it entirely,”

    But enough about the IPCC.

    1. We are talking eliminating scientific evidence and erasing history. We are regressing back to the dark ages under the auspices of saving the planet and ending inequality.

      It is just so obvious that the whole SJW, climate change, equality crusade is the rabid anti-capitalists lynch mob.

      1. That is the crux of the thing. They want to take your money to make life more difficult for you via force.

        1. Yep. Not a lot of successful business owners marching in these things.

      2. But believers in mainstream climate science are the alarmists.

        1. Appeal to authority is a logical fallacy. I suggest you stop doing it.

          1. Appeal to rightwing horseshit talking points is hardly better.

            1. What is right wing about liberty, free markets, and individual achievement above all else?

            2. Who here has appealed to rightwing talking points? There is an honest debate to be had about human’s impact on the climate. But you are dishonest/disingenuous and, as such, are incapable of having said debate.

              1. There’s not an honest debate to be had about human contribution to climate change. There’s an extremely dishonest one, though, and it involves singling out climate science as being unreliable because so many scientists all believe the same thing (“appeal to authority”).

                You don’t get to get out of the fact that you’re making a counterclaim: that the miniscule number of scientists who disagree with the consensus are at least equally likely to be right.

                You don’t treat any other field of science this way. Scientific conclusions are, in fact, what we call the consensus of relevant experts. You’re simply distracting from the facts on the ground by using Logic 101 vocab words.

                If you’re interested in the facts there are plenty of resources a Google search away. Why not start with Wikipedia? Just try it. Stop mucking around in stupid horseshit not even the oil companies are interested in anymore.

                1. OK, let’s say the science is settled. There is still an honest debate to be had about appropriate policy responses, likelihood of any response being actually effective and under what conditions, if any, it is appropriate for government to impose solutions on people. Climate change could well harm a lot of people. Curtailing economic productivity also harms lots of people. There is more to the debate than “this is bad, so it must be fixed at all costs”. You can’t just assume that the costs are worth it.

                  1. Well how nice that we waited needlessly for decades as the problem got worse before we got around to deciding, welp, nothing we can do about it now!

                    Should I get to punch the nearest denier for contributing to that disaster, or what?

                    Climate change will harm a lot of people. It is the disrupter of the status quo. Policy attempts to mitigate it are by definition means of maintaining as much of the status quo as possible (status quo being the environmental norms for the human species over its entire lifespan).

                    Say you want to do nothing but don’t claim that it’s taking the precautionary route. It’s the most radical action available.

                2. You do realize that there was at one point a scientific consensus that the world was the center of the universe, right? The best minds of the time with the best educations. It was the voice of the minority, though years of work and a number of volumes, that turned out to be right in saying that the earth did not in fact sit at the center of everything.

                  Then there was the scientific communities of the late 19th and early 20th centuries who believed that blacks where less human than whites. People from the most respected schools and governments based policy on this even. It was, afterall, SCIENCE!!

                  You see… science, the real kind, never says “this is a universal truth that is proven for all places in all times” but rather “This may be right…. But that over there… that’s wrong.” What claim has been disproven that irreversibly undermines skeptics? The fundamental claim they make is that global warming is not leading the the outcomes the priests say therefore the priests are wrong.

                  1. You do realize that there was at one point a scientific consensus that the world was the center of the universe, right?

                    False. There was never any such consensus among people who could be considered scientists by standards of modern science.

                    Even if that were true, and yeah all praise to the work of tireless minorities, that doesn’t not imply anything about this specific subject. You might as well be saying “people all thought the world was flat, therefore the moon is made of cheese.” You’re making a positive claim (that observed warming isn’t actually happening, or it’s happening by means other than what observations strongly suggest are causing it).

                    You’re saying you’re right because you say so and then claiming to be a purveyor of scientific thinking.

                    1. I didn’t say it isn’t happening. I am saying I have not been convinced it isn’t happening.

                      Try not putting words into people’s mouths.

                      You have cited the consensus as a verification of your claim that warming is happening. I am pointing out that consensus, even in science, is no grounds on which to accept anything.

                      There are bad apples in the consensus. The consensus defends those bad actors which speaks to some level of their own credibility.

                      There are a litany of predictions that have not come true. Those predictions are still defended in the face of reality by the consensus. That speaks to some level of the credibility of the consensus.

                      There are honest skeptics who believe that under further testing and review that the current theory is not true. Some even have their own models and experiments to back up such claims. I am not saying they are right… But they do bring a level of uncertainty to the “consensus.”

                      Then there is the added flair of witch burning by the consensus. They are imprisoning Galileo again… even if he may be wrong this time that doesn’t make it right nor scientific.

                      Skepticism is healthy and should be applauded in the scientific community, not told to shut up or go to the gulag which is what you seem to want to do (given your predilection to violence against those who are not yet convinced… Your desire to “punch” deniers).

                    2. Let’s face it, the “Consensus ” is also bullshit. Cook’s paper was exposed as garbage.

                      He’s just repeating what he’s been told.

                    3. False. There was never any such consensus among people who could be considered scientists by standards of modern science.

                      Well. There’s some pretty fucking circular reasoning for you.

                      Is this like your “nothing is Good until Progressives advocate it” thing?

  17. The event’s mission statement proclaims that the marchers “unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group to call for science that upholds the common good and for political leaders and policy makers to enact evidence based policies in the public interest.”

    Public interest as in true and accurate scientific findings no matter what? Or public interest as in revealing only enough data and producing only research findings that support policies of certain type? This sounds dicey.

    1. “unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group ” that just wants a bunch of politicians do what we say and pass laws against our enemies via volcanic rhetoric.

      This sounds like a good time on a Saturday. Anyone want to carpool through the heart of Atlanta at 4:30 next Friday for fun?

      These people are beyond losers. I really would not know the word that adequately makes fun of their breed. Not geeks, dorks, dweebs, douche, dipshits,….

      What is the word?

      1. Ayn used “Moocher”

    2. “unite as a diverse, nonpartisan group ” that just wants a bunch of politicians do what we say and pass laws against our enemies via volcanic rhetoric.

      This sounds like a good time on a Saturday. Anyone want to carpool through the heart of Atlanta at 4:30 next Friday for fun?

      These people are beyond losers. I really would not know the word that adequately makes fun of their breed. Not geeks, dorks, dweebs, douche, dipshits,….

      What is the word?

  18. Why don’t you fucking fuckers love the fucking science, damnit?!?!?!

    1. There was a guy back in the 30s who said the same thing over and over again, got everybody all ginned up and angry and used the government to enforce his agenda at the expense of a lot of people’s liberty.

      Turns out he was wrong.

  19. Are they gonna wear their lab coats?

    1. There better be a lot of lasers.

      1. You two sickos can get off on your own time.

        1. You know damn good and well there will by psycho feminists blaming the woes of african women on climate change.
          There might be a few angry black people blaming their woes on climate change
          Chances are there will be some LBSGTQIC people that will somehow contort science to cross dressing.

          I cannot even remember all of the mad groups of people anymore but they will be wearing vile costumes while at it.

          Who have I forgotten.

          1. Who have I forgotten.

            I forget how intersectionality works, if you named blacks, Africans, and women you’ve still excluded the #ScienceMustFall movement, right? Your black Africans and women were pro-science and these are anti-science so I’m pretty sure the answer is ‘Yes’.

            1. Wow man. My head just exploded. Come to think of it, I going to DC.

  20. I’m sure all the student, green card, and H1B visa holders will be diligently working in their well-respected and high-paying positions, content in merely having the right to protest the Native’s President but otherwise choosing to remain neutral.

  21. Speaking of science day tomorrow. I saw something really cool the other day at a science university very similar to ACW.

    A student got accepted into a school, not by merit or achievement or grades but rather by the color of his skin.

    When I saw that I thought, there must be science involved right?

    It also appears to be happening in the workplace and even in government contracts.

    This must be that kind of science that is nonpartisan and uniting under diverse backgrounds to support equal justice for all

  22. Naughton’s group is one of the March’s 170 partner organizations. 314 Action’s political action committee is recruiting scientists, engineers, and other technologists to run for political office it plans to provide them with the “resources they need to become viable, credible, Democratic candidates.”

    Hmmm-so what if I were to approach them asking for their help to run as a good little proggie tool, then took libertarian positions once I was elected? I could just tell them that I have considered their position and, as a scientist, do not believe they are supported by facts and evidence.

  23. Will there be hats?

  24. I do wish these scientists would explain the whole thing better. I realize that I’m just a dumb hick, and my getting old and crotchety isn’t helping matters. But for all of the “science” I see getting thrown around, I never see any studies showing how expanding the government’s control over the economy is going to help matters. You would think with all these geniuses on the case somebody could do that. But I get the impression that it’s considered rude to even ask the question.

  25. There is something ironic about people travelling to this march and using massive amounts of fossil fuel and spewing CO2 into our atmosphere. Another typical liberal double standard, not to mention it’s all a bunch of BS anyway. I wonder how many of the march participants even know the Earth’s atmospheric makeup.

    1. I think a lot of scientists are being coaxed by the promise that it’s a non-partisan, “Pro-Science” affair. Many scientists are very na?ve when it comes to politics. You can bet, though, that after the fact it will be packaged as a climate change protest.

      By the way, your handle – is it a reference to this?

    2. This march is about Science and not about Global Warming, that’s why it’s called the march for Science. The current regime has it out for science based reasoning for laws extending far beyond carbon controls. They are against women’s rights, immigration, international trade, freedom of sexual choice, MJ legalization. All points easily supported by logic and science, but they don’t believe in any of it because they are against anything that is “bad” in the Bible.

      1. I’m a gay atheist scientist, and I don’t believe in most of that crap that you claim is “easily supported by logic and science”. So try a different ad hominem.

        1. I’m a gay atheist scientist, and I don’t believe …..

          Was he talking about gay atheist scientists???? Republicans indeed believe what he listed, You defend them above as a beacon of liberty. Then scroll down here and trash mainstream GOP values.

          (That was a supported argument, not an ad hominem)

  26. I’m pro-good-science and anti-bad-science. The author seems confused about political decisions and what he calls science. How, for instance, would it be “anti-science” to oppose selling an abortifacient over the counter to a “woman” under the age of 17, a minor, in other words. Some would say a child. Some would say that child should be under medical care, not doing a procedure on herself. But hey! They’d be “anti-science,” I suppose.

    It’s boring but what if the projected catastrophic man-made warming is just wrong? What if the way the numbers are gathered and crunched are wrong? If it were a mass-hysteria movement, how would anyone know? Frankly, this march does look just like hysteria.

    1. How, for instance, would it be “anti-science” to oppose selling an abortifacient over the counter to a “woman” under the age of 17, a minor, in other words

      Not anti-science, but fascist, Statists are all alike. Mary was most likely 12 or 13 when she gave birth to The Christ Child (else she would not have still been a virgin), before the state began labeling adults and minors.

      Some would say a child. Some would say that child should be under medical care, not doing a procedure on herself. But hey! They’d be “anti-science,” I suppose.

      Anti-liberty. Statist interference.

      t’s boring but what if the projected catastrophic man-made warming is just wrong?

      Not boring, ignorant. Like the wacky example about the 17-year-old.

      What if the way the numbers are gathered and crunched are wrong?

      Ummm, then the pace and severity would be off.

      If it were a mass-hysteria movement, how would anyone know?

      Some of us have functioning brains. Others are essentially helpless.

      Frankly, this march does look just like hysteria.

      Like your abortifacient hysteria?

      I’m pro-good-science and anti-bad-science

      You had me believing you. Until the very next sentence.

  27. It’s too late. Too many scientists have become political activists in scientific costume. We see this, for example, in their refusal to apply the scientific method to global warming aka climate change aka climate disruption. Indeed, the less the evidence supports their theory, the more hysterical claims they make for it — and the more they seek to criminalize skepticism. That, in and of itself, should be enough to prove that a scientific theory has degenerated into a fraud.

  28. “We face a possible future where people not only ignore scientific evidence…”

    That’s what happens when you politicise science and pervert it into a propaganda tool for, for example, “climate change.”

  29. When the Minority President claims that global warming is a hoax and sets out to destroy the EPA while giving coal comapnies the right to pollute streams and rivers- then the opinion of the American people in support of “science” doesn’t really matter. Mr. Trump is acting from political motivations not scientific facts and he must not be allowed to continue.

    1. Let us all know when you get around to stopping him.

      1. Let us all know when you get around to stopping him.

        He’s already stopped himself, snowflake.

    2. Amogin|4.21.17 @ 6:58PM|#
      “When the Minority President…”

      The one elected by the rules of the Constitution? That one?
      Hint: You lost, loser, Fuck off.

      1. “When the Minority President…”

        The one elected by the rules of the Constitution? That one?

        (laughing) By a minority of voters. 10 million voted against him. 10-15 million voted AGAINST Hillary, NOT for him.
        And a tiny 36% minority approve of his presidency, the LOWEST approval in the 72 years that Gallup has polled the question.

        Hint: You lost, loser, Fuck off.

        Same self-righteous attitude that’s now destroying you hero .. the guy who said he could murder someone with a crowd of witnesses, and you’d still defend him.
        He insulted the hell out of you, but ….

  30. Science “HAS BECOME” a liberal conspiracy.

    If “modern” day popular “JUNK” science had to be peer reviewed by a judicial system – I have 0% doubt that 90% of it would be found guilty of FRAUD. Its really sad actually how distorted this once legitimate term has become polluted and shamed by political agendas.

    1. This message brought to the world using silicon-based microprocessors, electrons and fiber optics. Thanks science!

  31. If they were genuinely concerned about global warming, they’d be marching for more nuclear power.

  32. On the money Ron!

  33. After reading the comments here it’s even more bizarre to me that people view attacks on science as a characteristic of those on the right. But more seriously, the GOP should be particularly grateful to science. Prior to modern medicine the average human lifespan was like 35.

    1. But more seriously, the GOP should be particularly grateful to science. Prior to modern medicine the average human lifespan was like 35.

      Yep, modern medicine created mostly by rich, racist, white males. They must have known over 100 years ago that they would be ensuring the future of the GOP.

      1. They must have known over 100 years ago that they would be ensuring the future of the GOP.

        Is your ilk still wearing hoods and forming lynch mobs?

    2. So science is what turned Social Security into a giant Ponzi scheme.

      Got it.

    3. “After reading the comments here it’s even more bizarre to me that people view attacks on science as a characteristic of those on the right.”

      If that’s what you think you’ve read, you have very little reading comprehension. The left merely asserts its ideology is based on science. Attacking leftists for their full throated attack on liberty and science through their use of pseudo-science is not an attack on science. Your comment is mere projection and why the left is defined by #fakenews.

      1. If that’s what you think you’ve read, you have very little reading comprehension.

        (laughing) You “read” the exact opposite of what he wrote.!

        1. Of course, his second sentence makes clear that he does think that the GOP attacks science, where he says the GOP should be thankful for science, implying the GOP isn’t thankful for science.

          Try harder, if you’re going to be snarky.

          1. Of course, his second sentence ….

            (smirk) Which sentence did you quote and reply to?

            ….clear that he does think that the GOP attacks science, where he says the GOP should be thankful for science, implying the GOP isn’t thankful for science.

            BULLSHIT ALERT.
            He stated a REASON why they should be grateful to science. So did you lie … or presume a stupid implication? You suffer denial as badly as Trump does.

            Try harder, if you’re going to be snarky.

            Strike THREE. You’re out.
            And kinda LAME,

  34. Most Americans are fairly strong supporters of the scientific enterprise.

    Especially the dumb ones.

  35. “Or tried to kill off the Yucca Mountain nuclear waste storage facility? ”

    Really? That’s supposed to be an example of anti-science policy? As a scientist who has actually been inside the Yucca Mountain facility I can assure you the only reason the place was selected was political. It has no scientific merit as a nuclear waste storage site, and will leak like a sieve. You can measure atmospheric pressure changes immediately within the tunnels even when the doors are sealed because the rhyolite tuff is one of the most porous and permeable rocks on the planet. Multiple studies have proven that the location could easily contaminate aquifers that extend across two states. This is the worst example of “good science policy” you could have named. It only exists because of the political expedience of using a location where nuclear bombs have already been tested that is both surrounded by government property and in an area of little to no population, except for a few whorehouses. And politicians never support competition from other whores.

    1. I believe Texas was once explored as an option, with all the salt diapirs being seen as promising. I recall one of my professors saying he completed a study on a proposed location saying it was reasonably good. Another team of scientists was called in that came to the opposite conclusion, and the idea was abandoned

      Nuclear waste is so politically unpopular I imagine the very best location ever will probably be rejected by a politician with a tight reelection race coming up

      1. Thorium reactors produce less waste and are considerably safer, although more expensive, than traditional reactors. That said, anything with the word “nuclear” in it is a non-starter for “science”-loving proggies and their pals, so I don’t see it going anywhere.

  36. I don’t have to March for Science, I already voted for Science and Science won.

  37. “314 Action’s political action committee is recruiting scientists, engineers, and other technologists to run for political office, and it plans to provide them with the “resources they need to become viable, credible, Democratic candidates.”

    Interesting idea, but I’d prefer they start with experienced project managers, specifically trained and experienced servant leaders.

  38. “One problem is that many of the marchers apparently believe that scientific evidence necessarily implies the adoption of certain policies. This ignores the always salient issue of trade-offs. For example, acknowledging that man-made global warming could become a significant problem does not mean that the only “scientific” policy response must be the immediate deployment of the current versions of solar and wind power.”

    This really cannot be said often enough. And also deserves extensive unpacking, eg. scientific evidence is often not proof, especially when dealing with controversial, and already highly politicized issues; and the implicit arguments that the existence of such evidence all but mandates a preselected policy is really nothing more than a form of bootstrapping. One that often results in entirely reasonable questions about the validity of the science employed within the process.

    Which gets us to where we stand today.

  39. When people try to politicize science, it is usually because they misunderstand what science is. Science is not an ideology, religion, philosophy, or belief system of any kind. Science is a tool; nothing more, nothing less. When used properly, science provides increasingly optimized approximations of the truth. It does not advocate policy, declare canonicity of beliefs, or dictate how its findings should be applied. Science has but one ironclad rule: never falsify data or present your findings in a deliberately misleading manner. A scientist’s first allegiance must always be to the truth. Beyond this, consensus in science is nonexistent. If science is to maintain its integrity moving forward, it MUST persist in a wholely apolitical manner. While individual scientists are human beings who carry and act upon any number of personal beliefs, the enterprise of science itself can never take sides. Those who assert otherwise are deliberately misleading the public, and are thus guilty of science’s sole cardinal sin: the subversion of truth. As such, these individuals should not be considered “scientists.”

    1. Just yesterday, I read something quite similar by Neil deGrasse Tyson.
      On his Facebook page and it got 11 million hits in the first day. (Different topic)

    2. Well put. Many people mistakenly think of science as a body of knowledge. But even holding the right opinion merely because someone told you to isn’t really something to be proud of.

      Rather than accusing people of being ‘anti-science’, one should simply accuse one’s opponents of being wrong, and then argue why.

  40. I burned a tire today.

  41. I’m not going to pretend to know and understand the data in peer-reviewed scientific journals or know more from a blog than a scientist who has spent almost a decade in school alone, who lives and breathes research. But the general tone and anti-Trump signage leads me to believe that this march is indeed political, and will be translated as such, which is worrying. This could be doing far more harm than good, considering that they’re giving crackpots “evidence” – crackpots who believe the worldwide scientific community is a “conspiracy”.

    1. Oppenheimer and several other physicists were asked by Truman (or his staff) regarding the targets for the nukes to end WWII.
      The reply was simple: ‘We are physicists, we have no expertise in target selection or other policy issues’.

  42. The application of science to policy is not a partisan issue.

    In fact, whether or not to make a particular policy is only a partisan issue. After making this partisan decision, how to implement that policy is only a partisan issue.

    Scientists, just like everyone else, are corrupted by the power to impose their own views on the world. Any advocacy for any policy is only partisan. Any doubt as to how corrupt or flawed any scientist is, simply talk to him beyond small talk and outside his narrow area of expertise. Within minutes, he will say something gobsmackingly stupid, just as anyone else does when talking outside their area of expertise. Being a scientist on any topic does not make you an expert in how to pry into other people’s lives or how to use the levers of governmental powers.

  43. Liberalism corrupts everything it touches.

    1. Just like conservatism.

      1. Sorry the left has far more blood on it’s hands…. something like 100 million plus just in the 20th century. Looks like they’re aiming to top that in the 21th century.

        1. I call you out. You change the subject. Tribalism among the goobers,

  44. I am creating $100 to $130 systematically by carrying down facebook. i used to be unemployed a pair of years earlier , but currently I actually have a very extraordinary occupation with that i build my very own specific pay .I am very appreciative to God and my director .If you wish to induce a good quantity of wage per month like ME , you’ll check my details by clicking the link

    >>>> http://www.JobBiz5.com

  45. like Victor explained I’m dazzled that people able to profit $9827 in 1 month on the internet .
    see this page…………. http://www.net.pro70.com

  46. they Blinded me with SCIENCE!

  47. Here is an example of the type of “science” the Marchers for “Science” march for. They don’t march for the advancement of human knowledge. The march for the political power to force tax payers to fund their feathered nests for the purpose of feathering their nest. Publishing sciency sounding articles to get politicians to use their coercive tax collection powers to funnel money into their greedy pockets, knowing they are intellectually devoid and fraudulent.

    1. How is that any different (morally) from how conservatives seek to feather their nests?

      their coercive tax collection powers to funnel money into their greedy pockets, knowing they are intellectually devoid and fraudulent.

      Nobody has ever done that worse than Trump’s greedy pockets!!
      (Not to imply that anyone would confuse him with conservatism.)

      1. Leave it to the great Michael “Crybully” Hihn to inject conservatives (specifically and intentionally) into an otherwise sound argument against the system as a whole.

        Bravo, good sir! /s

        1. Leave it to the great Michael “Crybully” Hihn

          THAT is bullying, chump.

          You’re also full of shit — up to your ears — that he was making an argument against “the system as a whole.” Which part of his rant has TOTALLY befuddled you? (assume you’re not a shameless liar)

          the type of “science” the Marchers for “Science” march for. They don’t march for the advancement of human knowledge. The march for the political power to force tax payers to fund their feathered nests for the purpose of feathering their nest. Publishing sciency sounding articles to get politicians to use their coercive tax collection powers to funnel money into their greedy pockets, knowing they are intellectually devoid and fraudulent.

          READY …. FIRE … AIM!

          (my tone and boldface in defense of unprovoked aggression, laughable in content, by a bully)

  48. These people aren’t marching for science, they are marching for scientism and technocracy.

    It’s really just the traditional fascist/communist/socialist agenda.

    1. Goobers get SO pissed, shout down all who dare to disagree, and troll hatred down the entire page.
      Imagine the shame of their parents, at how their kid turned out.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.