‘March for Science’ invokes God, Hitler, Gay Marriage, Racism, Sexism – Blames GOP for making climate worse
Climate Depot’s Round Up of Coverage of the alleged ‘March For Science’
Climate Depot’s Marc Morano: “Having spent the day in DC on April 22 interviewing the marchers, it struck me about how this is first and foremost a march for endless government funding, ideology and in support of a no dissent policy. (Another new study gives plenty of reason to dissent: New Climate Study Calls EPA’s Labeling Of CO2 A Pollutant ‘Totally False’) The Trump administration can help make science great again by resisting these pay up and shut up demands for taxpayer research money.” See: Bloomberg News: Obama ‘stashed’ $77 billion in ‘climate money’ across agencies to elude budget cuts
Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’ – Dr. Will Happer on Fox News: Asked about more government funded science? Happer: “We’ve had 8 years of very highly politicized so-called research on climate. It’s not what most of us would recognize as real scientific research. Something where the outcome was demanded before the funding was provided. We should tend to real environmental problems and fix them and stop chasing these phantom problems that are really just religious dogma.”
#
Pictures and reports about the ‘March for Science’
‘March for Science’: Politics Disguised as Science: When to Doubt a Scientific ‘Consensus’ – The early claims of 97% ‘consensus’: In 1992, former Vice President Al Gore reassured his listeners, “Only an insignificant fraction of scientists deny the global warming crisis. The time for debate is over. The science is settled.”
Climatologist Dr. Roger A. Pielke Sr: “If there was any doubt the “March on Science” is political – The march is explicitly a political movement” See full article
Anti-Trump ‘March For Science’ Protest Has Problems W/ Bill Nye Because He’s A White Guy
13 Most Ridiculous Predictions Made on Earth Day, 1970
March For Science To Bill Nye, The Science Guy: Take A Back Seat, You’re White.
The March is over:
Prof. Roger Pielke Jr.: ‘The smartest people on the planet want to oppose Trump & the best they can come up with …
REPORT: 7 Gunshots Fired into Skeptical Climatologists’ Office at University in Alabama – ‘March to Silence?!’
Via: Climatologist Dr. Roy Spencer
Shots Fired into the Christy/Spencer Building at UAH
April 24th, 2017 by Roy W. Spencer, Ph. D.
A total of seven shots were fired into our National Space Science and Technology Center (NSSTC) building here at UAH (University of Alabama Huntsville) over the weekend.
All bullets hit the 4th floor, which is where John Christy’s office is (my office is in another part of the building). (Note: Climatologist Dr. John Christy recently testified to Congress. – Climatologist Dr. John Christy tells Congress: ‘Consensus Science is not Science’)
Given that this was Earth Day weekend, with a March for Science passing right past our building on Saturday, I think this is more than coincidence. When some people cannot argue facts, they resort to violence to get their way. It doesn’t matter that we don’t “deny global warming”; the fact we disagree with its seriousness and the level of human involvement in warming is enough to send some radicals into a tizzy.
Maybe the “March For Science” should have been called the “March To Silence”.
Campus and city police say they believe the shots were fired from a passing car, based upon the angle of entry into one of the offices. Shell casings were recovered outside.
This is a developing story. I have no other details.
#
End Dr. Spencer report.
Watch: Princeton Physicist Dr. Will Happer criticizes ‘March for Science’: ‘It is sort of a religious belief for them’
…
Why This Scientist Did Not Attend The ‘Science March’ – ‘Hijacked’ by ‘political partisanship’
Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science
Dr. Alex Berezow joined the American Council on Science and Health as Senior Fellow of Biomedical Science in May 2016. Dr. Berezow is a prolific science writer whose work regularly appears in BBC News, The Economist, and USA Today, where he serves as a member of the Board of Contributors. With Hank Campbell in 2012, he co-authored the book Science Left Behind, which was an environmental policy bestseller. Formerly, he was the founding editor of RealClearScience. He holds a Ph.D. in microbiology.
By Alex Berezow
While a march to support science sounds like a good idea, given the agenda, this scientist will not be attending.
I wrote previously of my concern that the Science March would be hijacked by the kind of political partisanship it should instead be concerned about – and that has indeed come true. This fear was based on not-so-subtle hints provided by its Twitter feed, such as embracing “intersectionality” (a concept taught in classes on feminism) as a core principle. To its credit, the march’s Twitter account has stopped dropping hints; now, it’s openly stating what its agenda actually is:
If you’re wondering what this has to do with science, you’re certainly not alone. The answer, of course, is nothing. These issues are the primary concern of revisionist historians and social justice warriors, not empirically-minded scientists.
The group’s updated website* sheds no new light on its cause. The front page is full of trite platitudes, such as: “We are scientists and science enthusiasts… Our diversity is our greatest strength.” This screenshot is from the diversity page:
It’s curious that a website that seeks to include everybody conspicuously left men, whites, and Christians off the diversity list. Similarly, the site’s mission statement is odd:
The march supports publicly funded science. That’s good, but what about privately funded science, where the majority of basic research and the overwhelming bulk of applied research, is done? Non-academic science makes up the vast majority of research in America. According to R&D Magazine, last year the U.S. spent $514 billion on research and development, 64% of which ($328 billion) came from industry. Why don’t those scientists count? Despite an enigmatic commitment to “diversity,” the march leaves out the majority of scientists. And the private sector is actually far more diverse in science than universities are.
Claiming to support evidence-based policies is nice, but …
Bill Nye, The Cognitive Dissonance Guy – ‘He is a junk science guy’
Bill Nye Says Climate Change Deniers Have a Bad Case of Cognitive Dissonance | WIRED
By Tony Heller – Real Climate Science
Had Bill ever actually looked at the data, he would have known that the frequency of February 70 degree days has actually declined since 1920. The warmest February was 1976, which came immediately before the three coldest winters on record in the US.
Less than one year after the warmest February in 1976, it was snowing in Miami
20 Jan 1977, Page 3 – Valley News
The warmest February temperature on record in the US, was 104 degrees at Rio Grande City, Texas on February 26, 1902. The average warmest February temperature at all 1,218 USHCN stations is 78 degrees.
It is painfully obvious that Bill is unfamiliar with both the data and the authorities he claims to represent. He is a junk science guy, and because of his influence on trusting children, his disinformation campaign is a threat to both science and civil society.
…
Physicist: ‘March For Science’ is deeply misguided, unethical – Trying to get money for left-wing activists & pretend it’s money for science
…A real ‘March for Science’ would celebrate scientific puzzles, disagreements, & competing ideas’
Nye is a good example of someone who promotes science as a close-minded ideology, not an open search for truth.
…
A real “March for Science” would celebrate scientific puzzles, disagreements, and competing ideas rather than fear them.
Just ask Italian philosopher of science Marcello Pera. In his book The Discourses of Science, he writes that science advances as scientists argue about how to interpret the evidence. They can only do that, though, if they are free to challenge established ideas and advance new ones.
Those who truly want to support science should defend the right of all scientists — including dissenters — to express their views. Those who stigmatize dissent do not protect science from its enemies. Instead, they subvert the process of scientific discovery they claim to revere.
…
Ron Bailey at Reason reminds us of an important point:
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.…
Neil deGrasse Tyson: Elected Science Deniers Are a Threat to Democracy
Bill Nye, Barack Obama, and Neil DeGrasse Tyson selfie
Guest essay by Eric Worrall
Neil deGrasse Tyson has claimed that the refusal of the Trump administration to bow to every scientific demand presented to politicians is a threat to democracy.
Neil deGrasse Tyson says science deniers in White House are a profound threat to democracy
The scientist spoke out as thousands around the world prepare to march
One of America’s most influential and popular scientists has issued a stark warning over what he termed the Trump administration’s rejection of science – saying it is a threat to the country’s “informed democracy”.
Neil deGrasse Tyson, host of the StarTalk podcast and TV show and director of the Hayden Planetarium at the American Museum of Natural History, said when he grew up, the US had relied on science to drive its innovation. But no longer.
“People have lost the ability to judge what is true and what is not, what is reliable, what is not reliable,” he says in a video posted on Facebook. “That’s not the country I remember growing up in. I don’t remember any other time where people were standing in denial of what science was.”
…
In my opinion, the problem with people like Tyson is they think they have a monopoly on being right. And there are a lot of reasons for thinking Tyson is not right about everything.
Climate Science in particular has an atrocious track record of failed predictions, dating all the way back to James Hansen’s exaggerated Scenario A.
The Anti-Science ‘March for Science’: ‘Soviet-style central planning of economy in name of ‘saving’ Mother Earth
The latest sign-carrying, slogan-shouting, leftist mob to clog the streets of Washington, D.C. in a “march for science” is in reality a march against science.” These are the global warming nutcases, the overwhelming majority of whom have no education or credentials whatsoever in “science” of any kind. They are the useful idiots of the Democratic Party puppet stringpullers like George Soros, Hillary Clinton, John Podesta, etc. They want to “save the world” with huge carbon taxes that would skyrocket the prices of gasoline, electricity, natural gas, every product that utilizes petroleum products in its production, etc., which would be especially cruel to “the poor” whom they always claim to be speaking for.
Besides that, the premise of this latest leftist “march” is quintessentially anti-science. The science of global warming is “settled,” they say. That is the theme of the whole “march.” But to real scientists nothing is ever “settled” because most scientific studies are based on statistical analysis, and statistics is based on the study of probabilities. That’s why even your doctor is never 100% sure of most of the advice he or she gives you; his advice is based on probabilistic studies in the medical field that he learned of in medical school or in his continuing education. Furthermore, the world is constantly changing, so that statistical relationships that existed years ago are often vastly different today. In the field of economics, for example, the simplest of concepts — elasticity of demand — is studied by observing, historically, consumer demand responses to changes in prices. A particular relationship that held in the past (a 30% increase in purchases of a product for every 10% price cut, for example) says nothing about that same relationship in the future. New substitute or complementary products are constantly coming onto the market or leaving the market, which changes all of those relationships. Estimates of the elasticity of demand for a product or service do not “settle” anything, not to mentio far more complex economic relationships. The same is true of climate science and all other sciences.
Climate Marches Aren’t About Science — They’re About Trump
Organizers promised that hundreds of thousands would participate in an April 22 March for Science planned for hundreds of cities worldwide and an April 29 People’s Climate March in Washington, DC.
These events have no more to do with science or climate change than do UN programs or the Paris climate treaty. Their own leaders make that perfectly clear.
A climate website asserts that marchers intend to mark President Trump’s 100th day in office “with a massive demonstration that shows our resistance is not going to wane.” They intend to “block Trump’s entire fossil fuel agenda,” with Berkeley-style tantrums and riots, most likely.
A science march website says this is “explicitly a political movement, aimed at holding leaders in science and politics accountable” for trying to “skew, ignore, misuse or interfere with science.”
That pious language really means they intend to allow no deviation from climate cataclysm doctrines.
It means everyone must accept claims that fossil fuel emissions, not powerful natural forces, now govern Earth’s climate; any future changes will be catastrophic; despite growing wealth and technological prowess, humanity will somehow be unable to adapt to future fluctuations; and mankind can and must control the climate by regulating emissions of plant-fertilizing carbon dioxide, regardless of costs.
Equally revealing, former UN climate convention director Christiana Figueres has said the UN goal is to “intentionally change the economic development model” that has reigned since the Industrial Revolution.
“Climate policy has almost nothing to do anymore with environmental protection,” former IPCC mitigation group co-chair Ottmar Edenhofer has stated. It is about negotiating “the distribution of the world’s resources.”