Untangling the March for Science

by Judith Curry

Pondering some thorny issues regarding science, its place in society and its relationship to politics.

Well today is the much-hyped March for Science. Last month I wrote a post Exactly what are scientists marching for?  Since my previous post, something like a bazillion words have been written about #marchforscience.   Some of them are pretty insightful, and I have been pondering the broad implications of what has been going on here.

What scientists are marching for – revisited

The twitter hashtag #marchforscience provides a wealth of information about the motives of individual scientists for marching.  The naivete of many of these tweets and signs is rather striking – many scientists appear not to understand the process of science or the policy process.

A survey in Science Business  of 1040 scientists who are marching found:

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

Other reasons that most respondents rated as very important included: Protesting cuts to funding for scientific research (90 percent),  Celebrating the value of science and scientists to society (89 percent) Promoting science education and scientific literacy among the public (86 percent). Fewer respondents ranked “Encouraging scientists to engage the public” (70 percent) and “Encouraging diversity and inclusion in science” (68 percent) as highly. Nevertheless, solid majorities said these reasons were very important.

Why Memphis has two marches for science is very illuminating:

The tension in Memphis parallels debates in the larger scientific community over the March for Science, and the relationship between science and politics. After many revisions of its mission statement, the national March for Science now explicitly describes itself as a political movement—and more than that, that it’s officially about diversity in science. But some scientists in Memphis, along with many others nationwide, want to keep the movement’s focus on improving public understanding of science and underlining the importance of funding for research. They wanted to avoid associations with a political movement—and even more emphatically, partisan politics.

Dave Roberts has an interesting take in an article at vox.com that in many ways describes the conflict in Memphis.  Roberts differentiates ‘science-t’ — fundamental science, from ‘science-p’ — applied science.  A better approach would be to frame this in terms of Pasteur’s quadrant

Any ‘war on science’ is related to the bottom half of the diagram — applied research, which relates to values and politics.  In my quadrants post, in context of climate science, I labeled the 4th quadrant as ‘climate model taxonomy’ whereby the output of climate models was used to make alarming proclamations about what would happen in the 21st century.  Note:  it is in the bottom half of the diagram where ‘consensus’ is deemed important and is manufactured and enforced in the interests of influencing policy.

A very different take is provided by March for Science as a microcosm of liberal racism:

You may be asking yourself, why are scientists marching on Washington? Scientists as a collective are generally silent on political battles—until you threaten their research funding as Trump has. Trump’s war on science has been so egregious that it has spurred the dormant scientific community to mobilize and march on our nation’s capital. However, after numerous science-related crises, such as the Flint, Mich., water crisis, it was lost on no one that the scientific community did not stand up en masse until its own interests were on the line.

‘Truth bombs’

Neil DeGrasse Tyson:  “The good thing about science that its true whether you believe it or not”

I was astonished to find a profound statement about ‘dropping truth bombs’ in an article at desmog:

Dropping truth bombs. This is a terrible reason to join a science march. Don’t do this.

Marching for science might seem comfortingly straightforward. Science activism has a shiny allure of certainty. Your placards come with citations. You’re on the side of evidence. You. Have. A. Graph.

But to believe science is that simple is bad science itself. And though it’s not bad as actively campaigning to undermine science, it’s up there.

Those on a science march shouting SCIENCE WORKS, BITCHES, will look like dogmatic, hectoring fools. We’ve got quite enough of them already at the moment. Plus, it’s profoundly misunderstanding the nature of science. And that’s just embarrassing.

Science is about evidence, and it is worth standing up for that. But science is not about absolute certainty and closing arguments. Moreover, the way we do science right now is rife with bullying, exploitation of junior staff, sexual harassment, racism, dealings with the arms trade and oil companies, and a whole host of other problems. All of that shapes scientists’ work.

Modern science is, in many ways, a very beautiful thing which we should celebrate and stand up for. But it has big problems too, and it’s blinkered to ignore them.

Go to the march, just leave the I HAZ TEH DATA HEAR ME ROAR banner at home.

Well, it looks like the organizers of the March for Science didn’t get the Truth Bomb message.

In an article Bill Nye perfect talking head for March for Science:

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.

From A march for conformity:

Organizers describe the march as “a call to support and safeguard the scientific community.” But then they silence and expel those who won’t bow to the community’s majority opinion — the “scientific consensus.”

March organizers say “our diversity is our greatest strength.” They say “a wealth of opinions, perspectives, and ideas is critical for the scientific process.” But they don’t really mean it. Their passion for diversity extends to race, religion, nationality, gender and sexual orientation, but not to opinions, perspectives and ideas.

For a really interesting essay on ‘truth’, see What role values play in scientific inquiry.


John Stossel sums it up succinctly in his article Earth Day Dopes:

The alarmists claim they’re marching for “science,” but they’re really marching for a left-wing religion.

An interpretation of the March as a cri-de-coeur against the Trump administration is provided by Cliff Mass :

Let me end, by saying that there is nothing wrong with marches against the current administration or the current Republican leadership in Congress. But don’t involve science in it.  If folks are honest, they would admit that this is basically a political protest against the current leadership in DC. Perhaps the most problematic leadership in the history of our country.   So have a march, but don’t use science as a cover, and don’t put science at risk.

Its not a war on science is very insightful, well worth reading with lots of history. Excerpt:

What appears to be a war on science by the current Congress and president is, in fact, no such thing. Fundamentally, it is a war on government. To be more specific, it is a war on a form of government with which science has become deeply aligned and allied over the past century. To the disparate wings of the conservative movement that believe that US strength lies in its economic freedoms, its individual liberties, and its business enterprises, one truth binds them all: the federal government has become far too powerful.

Science is, for today’s conservatives, an instrument of federal power. They attack science’s forms of truth-making, its databases, and its budgets not out of a rejection of either science or truth, but as part of a coherent strategy to weaken the power of the federal agencies that rely on them. Put simply, they war on science to sap the legitimacy of the federal government. Mistaking this for a war on science could lead to bad tactics, bad strategy, and potentially disastrous outcomes for both science and democracy.

For conservatives, the enemy is not science itself but the further expansion of powerful, centralized, science-informed government. For them it’s as much a crisis moment as it is for climate scientists: win now or lose the war for another century.

From How the march for science misunderstands politics:

If protesters want to change policies, they need to target the values, interests, and power structures that shape how research is applied. Taking Sarewitz seriously suggests that values, interests, and interpretive frames should be at the center of policy formation. Here, the march organizers offer little help. As they portray the world, there are only two kinds of people: pro-science and anti-science. Likewise, there are only two ways of acting: on the basis of science—facts, truth, data, evidence—or unscientifically, in accordance with ideology, self-interest, or mere caprice. “Political decision-making that impacts the lives of Americans and the world at large,” the march website declares, “should make use of peer-reviewed evidence and scientific consensus, not personal whims and decrees.”

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.

Something worth marching for

Some snippets that I pulled, but the attribution is lost:

A true “march for science” might tackle problems like the “replication crisis” or “confirmation bias.”

A real “March for Science” would celebrate scientific puzzles, disagreements, and competing ideas rather than fear them.

Andrea Saltelli : March against scientism, deficit model, commodification of science from predatory publishing to domination of corporate interests in science

From the Atlantic:

The most obvious thing that our government can do, and our society along with it, is to help science to flourish in its own right, and accept what it has to teach us. 

The practice of science is one of those human activities that elevates our lives a bit above merely surviving from day to day. Our brains, as wonderfully imperfect as they are, didn’t evolve to solve problems in quantum mechanics or biochemistry. But we haven’t been content to use our intelligence merely to scrounge up food and shelter. We’ve turned our attention to the stretches of the cosmos, the depths of time, and the mysteries of our own consciousness, and returned with remarkable discoveries.

And finally, I’ll repeat a statement that I made in my recent Congressional Testimony:

The ‘war on science’ that I am most concerned about is the war from within science – scientists and the organizations that support science who are playing power politics with their expertise and passing off their naïve notions of risk and political opinions as science. When the IPCC consensus is challenged or the authority of climate science in determining energy policy is questioned, these activist scientists and organizations call the questioners ‘deniers’ and claim ‘war on science.’ These activist scientists seem less concerned with the integrity of the scientific process than they are about their privileged position and influence in the public debate about climate and energy policy. They do not argue or debate the science – rather, they denigrate scientists who disagree with them. These activist scientists and organizations are perverting the political process and attempting to inoculate climate science from scrutiny – this is the real war on science.

The ‘take away’ message

From 538:  Marching scientists will have a lot in common with angry 70’s farmers.  Excerpts:

Starting national conversations by protesting on the Mall is a longstanding tradition, and it’s important, Benton-Short said. But change doesn’t usually happen quickly afterwards, she said, citing early 20th century women’s suffrage marches as an example. The goal is really to make it clear to politicians that this is something people care about, and to start the process of creating political pressure. When it comes to specific political goals, Benton-Short wasn’t sure what the March on Science hoped to accomplish. “I know the big picture,” she said. “But what will be interesting is to also see the reaction to that. How congressmen, senators and Republicans interpret the day and the messages they walk away with.”

From Ron Bailey at Reason:

Microbiologist Alex Berezow:  “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.”

Well it remains to be seen how the folks on The Hill react to all this.  I anticipate that they will ignore it.  I fear that the end result will be that we have a new cadre of scientist/activists, further polluting the objectivity of scientific research in support of policies that they don’t understand.

Its not a war on science articulates why the March won’t have its intended impact.  Read the whole thing, here is a hint:

Know your enemy, Sun Tzu reminds us in The Art of War. Science is in a war, but not the one many think. To avoid costly mistakes, scientists and those who support them need to know and understand the forces in the field. Those forces are not engaged in an attack on science—or the truth.

JC reflections

I think the ‘Memphis split’ is the most illuminating thing in all this.  No one is fighting a war against scientists in the top half of the quadrant diagram, where the concerns are about funding and immigration.  The ‘war’ relates to the bottom half of the quadrant diagram, when there is specific advocacy by scientists for certain policies, not to mention concerns about cherry-picked and biased science.  The attempt by activist scientists and some politicians to scientize policy and political debates is at the heart of the perceived war on science.  The biggest danger for the top half of the quadrant diagram is pollution from activist baggage associated with the bottom half of the diagram.

Ultimately, the scientists have failed in The Art of War, in terms of knowing their ‘enemy’.

The March for Science has unleashed many things, that will be clarified down the road with analyses from different perspectives.  Hopefully some of these things are for the good of science, but I fear substantial backlash on one side and reinforcement as ‘science as dogma’ on the other side may be the main result of all this.

223 responses to “Untangling the March for Science

  1. The organizers of my nearest march in Winnipeg are quite open about how this is an antiTrump march protesting Trump and Trumpian policies and promoting a progressive social justice platform based and justified by climate change science. Further anyone who doesn’t 100% embrace that is either an ignoramus or in the pay of big oil. The theme of ignoramus or in the pay of big oil was like every other post on their Facebook page. *sigh* I did not participate.

    • Oh yes a specific example of the current “war on science” given was the panel including Judith Curry that was invited to speak to Congress recently. The report on was simply that the Republicans brought in antiScience deniers of the grand consensus who are either ignoramuses or in the pay of big oil even though we all know the consensus says human caused climate change is real and urgent and must be addressed now for social justice purposes. No other content. Anything counter to their progressive narrative is “antiScience” and since Republicans are prepared to listen to scientists like Judith Curry, they are anti-science as well. It was really pathetic.

    • I would so much like to be in the pay of big oil. Anyone from ExxonMobil, Chevron or Royal Dutch Shell or Aramco listening? Providing fuel and products for 7 Billion people is a very important, big boy job; and I am up to the task.

    • David Springer

      There was a march? Where?

    • Great article!

    • Science has had different foes over the years: religion (Galileo, Darwin), industry (lead in fuel, tobacco, fossil fuels), and government (muzzling/defunding by Bush, Harper, Abbott). It has had to endure a lot through the years, but always wins in the end and the opposers don’t go down well in history.

      • David Springer

        Nobody wins 100% of the time. CAGW was one of the losses just like Galileo and Darwin won over steady state earth-centric science that preceded it. Like quantum mechanics disputed the atom as the smallest possible division of matter. Like Apollo disproved the science that predicted dust on the moon to be many meters deep. Like computer science in 1950’s predicted world only needed a few IBM mainframes for its computing needs. Like epigentics vindicated Lamarckian inheritance of acquired characteristics. Like the expanding universe showing that physics is incomplete. The list of losses for science isn’t a null set and some of the big losses are fairly recent.

      • David Springer

        It always wins in the end because even the some of the most widely held beliefs eventually get proven wrong by empirical means. CAGW is one of those.

      • Harper did not silence science. He did silence leftists who used they positions as government scientists to promote an ideological position opposite to that of their employer. The main (and almost only) ideological battleground was climate science and whether climate science, and especially travel to attend climate science conferences in Paris and such, and “research” solely to promote a one sided approach to climate science, and programs to “educate the public about the dangers of climate science” should be funded instead of things like snow pack analysis for flood forecasting for the prairies. There were other issues as well, such as whether or not institutes established as liberal patronage appointments and largely unproductive even though they had huge staffs and lots of research should continue. These institutes had salaries, equipment, support staff, librarian and travel funding university scientists could only dream of and yet they produced almost nothing in comparison to university scientists. Also institutes formed to address specific problems that were long since solved (such as acid rain) were also shut down while scientists screamed they were being suppressed. Many Canadian scientists working for government screamed bloody murder and government suppression of science when Harper got rid of several small libraries across the country in patronage institutes that functioned as archives of multiple copies of obscure government reports. Harper created a modern single centralized on line system for accessing these reports digitally. This meant many salaried government scientific librarians who typically saw less than a dozen patrons a year got laid off or more often pensioned off or moved to other jobs. There was some legitimate science that was shut down in the process but compared to the fat cat waste, repetition and lack of productivity in a lot of these patronage institutes, it was a much needed house cleaning. It was especially important to do such a house cleaning because Canada had enormous deficits that needed tackling. Unfortunately for Canada, the leftists are back in power spending like crazy and the government fat cat scientists are now purring happily again secure in their funding to travel to climate change conferences.

      • In Canada, reality has set in after Harper was booted out. What was Environment Canada is now Environment and Climate Change Canada. Science wins again.

      • My brother is a Canadian businessman and a liberal, now retired. During the GW Bush administration he was invited to a state dinner so that he could give Bush one of his Canadian-made products. Since I figured his father would likely have enjoyed the same gift, I told my brother to make two of them, one for 41 and one for 43. We were told that the President very much appreciated the additional gift for his father. Anyway, thankfully Canada is out of Harper’s incompetent hands.

  2. Some 93 percent of respondents said they would be marching to Oppose ‘political attacks on the integrity of science.’

    Donald Trump has made some noises but where else have there been political attacks on the integrity of science?

    Various people point out that, for example, the scientific case for diesel vehicles was flawed or that foods at one time thought to be bad for you are now good and vice versa. But this hardly amounts to political attacks.

    The marches have occurred in a number of countries so perhaps someone here can clarify who and where are mounting these attacks?


  3. They tried to have a march for engineering once, but the engineers thought marching was an inefficient use of human resources and just sent robots instead.

    • David Springer

      Neo-cons tried to have wars with boots on the ground but we said that’s an inefficient use of human resources and sent robots instead. Teaching and fighting are the next industries after auto assembly lines to become roboticized. The machine takeover will be complete when politicians are made of silicon & aluminum.

  4. Just wait …
    When the fog clears, the only casualty will the reputation of academic science.

    • will be

      • I agree. At least in Winnipeg the organizers clung to a straight climate change/social justice/Trump is evil narrative while patting themselves on the back for being such great scientists. To quote one of the main organizing group’s Jan 28th tweets “colonialism, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ableism, queer-trans-intersex phobia, & econ justice are scientific issues”

  5. The war metaphor has been worn out. We can no longer have different opinions about anything without it being deemed a ‘war’. I’m sick to death of protests and marches whose participants are clueless regarding so-called facts and who would rather spit in your face and split your head open than listen to a different perspective or seek mutual understanding. There is nothing less convincing to me than someone shouting in my face.

    • The war metaphor is also dangerous, because it encourages people to view each other as enemies instead of neighbors. You’re far more justified in attacking your enemy than your neighbor. I’ve spent too much time on real war (about two years in Iraq and Afghanistan) to find the metaphor appealing at all.

  6. “Ninety three per cent of respondents said, “Opposing political attacks on the integrity of science” is very important to them as a reason for participating, ”

    Where were the marches and letters and protests when Senator Whitehouse (D-RI) and several state Attorneys General sought to use RICO against scientists and their employers? Crickets. I can’t get the ACS to say squat about it, despite ExxonMobil employing a good number of chemists, many whom are ACS members. This March for Science is 93%, (or even 97%) political, knee jerk anti-Trump.

    • And even more bizarre is that this march and the women’s march were also held in other countries. Imagine if we held marches in the US against the president of France or PM of England.

      • That is the down side of being the most powerfull country in the world, the only country who’s choice of leadership affects the while planet and the ONLY country with military bases all over the world.
        Deal with it.

      • I think it comes down to Trump’s policy of trying to make US emission rates great again using his and Pruitt’s favorite fuel which is coal, and this is a global issue.

  7. Roger Knights

    This march (and the explicitly climate-science march next weekend in DC) provides Trump with a PR setup for stating that he will direct a government agency (the NSA?) to host and moderate a thorough, multi-faceted, online and on TV public debate on climate-change-related topics (all 40+ of them). That would forcefully put the ball in the alarmists’ court, and be a big PR win. As Tom Paine wrote, “It is error only, and not truth, that shrinks from inquiry.”

  8. I am delighted to be able to report that all of 250 people showed up in Winnipeg, about the usual number for a standard leftist marches they hold here every other Saturday. The fact that it snowed last probably sent a lot of winter weary Winterpeggers back to bed.

  9. Everyone should be concerned with this overt demonstration of the politicization of science. There is no way for this to end well.

  10. I see that Michael Mann spoke at the Washington event


    It seems to have been organised largely ascavreaction tondonald trump


  11. Curious George

    100 German Scientists Oppose Einstein!

  12. There were about 3k people at the Fort Worth march. Crowd was mostly younger folks with lot’s of signs and posters. Showed my electric bill to several people who were amazed that I have a $1,100 credit on my account because of my solar array. Made the trip with 3 other friends in my Volt for less than 5KWh of electricity. Very enjoyable experience.

    “Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.”

    • jacksmith4tx – I drove by the Fort Worth march on the way to Target. I was stunned at the size of it marching down Camp Bowie, and then I got a glance through the buildings and saw that the line extended well down the street on the far side of Camp Bowie. Stuck my thumb up as a I drove by and got a huge cheer going. Fort Worth is redder than any other big city in Texas.

    • jacksmith said:

      Showed my electric bill to several people who were amazed that I have a $1,100 credit on my account because of my solar array.

      Jack, given the variety of tax rebates and power purchase agreements in Texas, it’s clear that you, like many others, are living off of a combination of government largesse and screwing poor people who cannot afford solar.

      In Texas, the money you make comes from electricity savings and a huge federal tax credit equal to 30% of the cost of your solar installation at tax time next year.

      And you think that gives you the moral high ground? Think again. Due to my frugal nature, solar doesn’t make monetary sense for me … but of course, my rates go up to pay for you and the rich. Given that the tax credit is Federal, you are personally getting wealthy off of my labor.

      Not clear to me why you think that’s a fair, decent, or desirable system, but hell, you’re the big winner, so screw me and the rest, I guess …

      That BS obviously impressed the rubes and scientific illiterates on the March. For those of us who can add and subtract, it just pisses us off that you’re living off of our hard-earned tax dollars. Not something to boast about, amigo …


      • Dead right. Well said, Willis

      • Jacksmith should be embarrassed to be taking money from others to support his lifestyle. Especially when it comes from those who can least afford to support him.

      • Willis, we have been over this before.
        I designed my own system. No tax credits/grants/rebates were used – 100% my own cash – $24,000 for a 6.7KW ground mounted array built in 2012. The system has generated 53MWH in just over 5 years which is about 30% above my usage hence the credit on my Green Mountain electric bill.
        Consider this:
        I won the state-wide contest “Texas Biggest Energy Saver” 2 years in a row. In fact my system was so efficient Pecan Street (http://www.pecanstreet.org/about/) came to me to install a complete energy monitoring system so they could apply the techniques I developed to their ongoing research projects.
        Some people have hobbies like golf, collecting guns or fishing. I like make suckers like you look like fools.


        “Science is a thought process, technology will change reality.”

      • lets see, wholesale electric prices in Texas have dropped to $30/MWhr. So Jack’s $24,000 dollar solar power system has produced $1590 worth of electricity in 5 years. That is just about the kind of return on investment I got from golf :)

      • Capt,
        Who would you want to be? Me or these lucky guys:

        “At times the gas prices are so low and the post-production costs are so high that the drilling companies stop sending checks at all. Instead, upon request, they provide their landowner partners with statements that reveal a negative balance — meaning the costs of moving and marketing the gas that month were more than the money made selling it.

        “So you know there’s thousands of people out there in this situation,” said Jackie Root, president of the Pennsylvania chapter of the National Association of Royalty Owners. “It is not something here and there. There are people that have accrued those negatives into tens, hundreds of thousands, and over a million dollars.'”

        PS: I have a gas lease with Chesapeake that over the same 5yrs has paid out less than $500. Considering it took millions of years for that gas deposit to develop and it will all be gone in a geologic blink of the eye, forever, I think they are flat out stealing that gas from private citizens. Fact is if you don’t sell it to them they take it anyway. Research Texas Railroad Commission & unpaid royalties.

      • Since WillisE’s after government largesse and screwing poor people (whom he isn’t) he may be willing to pay due diligence to Texas oil industry: Master Limited Partnerships, Intangible Drilking Costs, Royalty “reduction”, Depletion Allowance, Foreign Tax credit, Domestic Manufacturing Deduction, etc.

        But what is 50 billions among friendly Freedom Fighters?

        Cue to WillisE’ bold shrieking about how oil producers are stealing his hypothetical labor.

  13. Yes, Judith, the most insightful part was about the alliance between the Federal Government and Big science and how that leads advocates of smaller government to appear to be attacking science funding. In a rational world, questions about how much science we should fund would be completely mainstream. As science has become more and more dependent on government, it takes some real risks to its long term credibility and objectivity.

    • It would be different if they were real scientists. Real scientists do question things and learn new things and learn that they were wrong about some things and change their conclusions from time to time.

      So called Consensus Climate Scientists settled the science decades ago and have not done actual science since. Now, they only work to destroy everyone who disagrees by any means possible. The pay huge numbers of people to brainwash as many as possible and the streets were full of the victims of the efforts of the scam. The alarmists own most of the media and the media must promote the alarmism or be totally silent. After they retire, people like Neil Frank do speak out against the alarmist consensus, but not many can keep a job if they don’t go along with the alarmism.

  14. The whole thing is disgusting and makes me embarrassed to say I am a scientist. It’ also a publicity stunt.

    George Devries Klein, PhD (Geology), PG, FGSA

  15. russellseitz

    All things considered, I’d rather come down next Saturday for the Maryland Hunt Cup.

    Watching 4,000 people cheer 8 horses is always more edifying than seeing 40,000 scientists make asses of themselves, although a Heartland Climate Conference afffords nearly as great an opportunity on a more confined scale

    • I am not sure I understand what you are saying about Heartland Conferences. Heartland Conferences are where people who are skeptical of the consensus do talk to and listen to people who disagree with the consensus and who disagree with each other. These are the real scientists. The consensus people are invited sometimes, I think, but they generally do not take part or attend.

      • russellseitz

        Having seen one such conference, I have a higher opinion of the scientific acumen of those attending the Hunt Cup, who seem on the whole far more sincere.

  16. The entire “March” concept proves what Iain Murray wrote long ago:

    “In a world increasingly devoid of moral authority, the supposed impartiality of science provides a seemingly objective source of authority. That authority is a major threat to the environmental movement.”

    Iain Murray , “The Really Inconvenient Truth” P. 51-52.

    George Devries Klein, PhD (Geology), PG, FGSA

  17. russellseitz

    Here are directions:


    I’m afraid this year’s field affords little hope of seeing James Delingpole crash into another brick wall at the gallop.

  18. This is a relevant article. Trump’s appointments don’t inspire confidence in his approach to science-informed policy.
    Also this. More people in politics need to be scientifically literate.
    Otherwise we get these constant debates about how much science should be taught in schools. Promoting STEM education is needed for the real issues of the 21st century, more so than ever. If the politicians don’t understand advances in science and technology, what hope is there of them making informed decisions on health, the environment, or new technology.

    • Most of Trumps cabinet are rather competent and center right. Mattis is a prime example. Establishment types worry because many are outsiders. The shakeup may be a good thing.

      • Yes, the military are taking climate change seriously, and I doubt Mattis will reverse that course. More on Trump today.
        Will he even hire a science advisor? Would anyone be surprised if he doesn’t?

      • The military has to take climate seriously because on any given day they might be air dropping troops into northern Norway or the middle of the Sahara desert. It’s important to know the local temperatures within plus or minus 20 degrees.

      • Yes, the military are taking climate change seriously

        Yes the military is doing a lot of stupid things to prepare for climate that will never happen. we need to stop that junk.

      • The biggest climate threat to the military is sea level rise. Our current fleet’s water lines are designed for a 1980’s-1990’s sea level. As global warming proceeds, those ships will sit lower and run slower. Some of our older submarines will likely not even be able to look around when running at periscope depth, so they’ll have to be refitted with taller sails to support taller masts. By 2030 or 2040 their crews probably won’t be able to safely open hatches on deck.

        The Marines will also be unable to assault enemy beaches because all the beaches will be under water, so we might as well just fold them into the Army.

      • The Russians may also be eating our lunch in the Arctic with their escalation of its usages as ice disappears, and the military are likely well aware.

      • George Turner, I am unfamiliar with the effect you cite. If sea level rises enough, net salinity will go down. I would guess that the effect is pretty small since the total volume of new water is very small compared to the existing volume of the oceans. Is that what you are referring to? Of course sea level has been going up for at least 24000 years.

        And as to there being no beaches, that’s probably wrong. Beaches simply reform further up the coastal area where the new sea level is.

      • Never forget your irony marks when addressing to fellow Denizens, GeorgeT.

        In a rational world, questions like how many times we should bail out arms producers with silly contracts would be completely mainstream.

    • Even if this congress and administration are beyond hope, the march can at least promote teaching science at school over the primitive belief systems that they still have in some areas of the US, so that those in future governments are more open to it.

      • Jim, Are you a little prejudiced about some parts of the country? Primitive belief systems? You can do better than that I think.

      • Is it prejudiced to prefer geology, paleontology and evolution over creationism?

      • I would say Jim, you may be viewing this matter in a very black and white way, with no sympathy or understanding of religious points of view. There are all kinds of views about the origin of the world ranging from literal 7 day creationism to belief in the big bang. I’m afraid that by trying to find witches to burn, you are not contributing to diversity, but to monochromatic scientism.

      • I think it is astounding that they still try to teach this stuff in schools in some areas. Churches can do what they want, but schools should be immune to this. On top of that, some don’t want the role of CO2 in climate to be taught at school, even as one of the most relevant science topics of all today.

      • What stuff are you referring to Jim? In Islamic schools kids are taught that Jews are evil and to be terminated and that women are little better than property and that Sharia law is the only acceptable system of laws in any country where Muslims live. You are perhaps fighting a battle from your long ago youth that is completely irrelevant to the modern world’s problems.

      • I’m talking about teaching science in schools unsullied by any belief systems. Science is science and that is easy to define.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D apparently is a firm believer that chaos caused the incredible complexity and nano-machinery we see in the cell. e.g., Genetic Code Complexity Just Tripled. Furthermore, Jim D seeks to coerce all others into being force fed his beliefs – whatever evidence to the contrary or the preservation of unalienable freedom of religious belief in the First Amendment.

      • Science should not have to be a First Amendment issue. It is completely secular. People should be allowed to teach it, and be unfettered by local belief systems when doing so.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D By “completely secular”, you are requiring materialism and excluding imposing atheism. Almost all the scientists who launched the modern scientific revolution were Christians who understood and searched for order in nature.

      • Science is secular. That doesn’t mean the scientists can’t have a religion, but it means you shouldn’t be able to tell their religion by their work. Indeed, if someone did invoke religion to explain anything, it would raise red flags in the profession.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D
        “Open Science” vs “Closed Science “Closed Science” presumes ONLY materialistic causes, (natural laws and stochastic processes) excluding all others. “Open Science” examines observable evidence to see if materialistic causes are sufficient, or whether it reflects an intelligent agent. Thus arson investigation and crime investigation apply Open Science. When applied to origin of the universe and the origin of life this difference between Open and Closed Science reflects the different beliefs in the possible existence versus the exclusion of an Intelligent Cause. That has corresponding differences in religious beliefs between the atheism of a priori excluding all intelligent causes versus theism which can allow for such causes. Your assertion that “science is secular” imposes “Closed science” on any explanation of origins of the universe and of life. Your imposition is consequently a “religious” argument – that raises red flags to all who you thus exclude. It is today’s bigoted “Lysenkoism” marching in a white lab coat. Let us know when you recognize Open vs Closed Science and allow Open Science models for the origin of the cosmos and of life. For example, do your recognize Isaac Newton as a scientist, and president of the Royal Society, the first modern scientific organization? Do you acknowledge that Newton’s gravitational theory and laws of motion are foundational to physics and engineering?
        What then of Newton’s observation:

        “In the absence of any other proof, the thumb alone would convince me of God’s existence.”

        He observed the hand, the thumb and its functions. From those facts, he made an inference to an Intelligent Cause. Because he infers God, do you a priori exclude his inference as unscientific due to your presuppositions? Or will you allow that others may apply Open Science to so examine evidence and infer agency? Are you thus “open” or “closed” minded on the science of origins?
        For further discussion, see Philip E. Johnson The Unraveling of Scientific Materialism, First Things, Nov. 1997

      • Jim D,

        I’m talking about teaching science in schools unsullied by any belief systems.

        Does your brain has no control over what you type? Do you have any idea what a belief system is?

      • Yes, but it may not be what you think it is.

      • Jim D writes,
        “primitive belief systems that they still have in some areas of the US”

        Ah, the sweet sounds of tolerance and inclusiveness.
        Hard to believe us primitives voted the way we did
        BTW, we prefer to be called “Pre-Clovis Americans”.

      • Religion has its place and it is not in science. See Galileo.

      • JimD, I really think if there are some school systems that don’t teach the “latest” science but some Christian doctrine instead, that’s not a big deal. It’s far more important to teach students to think critically than to teach them “facts” no matter what the origin of those facts is. My concern is that leftist doctrine and political correctness is teaching intolerance and absolutist political dogma.

      • Science is neither political nor religious, except to those who don’t know what it is. Right and left wing governments have used science, but don’t blame the scientists for policy decisions.

      • And schools should teach Marx’s scientific economic theories, not that primitive voodoo about an Invisible Hand. Am I right?

      • Science is about objective facts and how to determine them.

      • Jim D say “Science is about objective facts and how to determine them.”

        Please reread the OP. Science is about evidence and how to use the evidence to support theories. Your own temperature measurement is a “fact” and temperature increases are factual (no need to add any adjective). Where the science goes astray is when declaring that a prediction of a future temperature increase is a fact or similar theory is factual.

      • There is a new collective statement on Earth Day by meteorological and climate societies which again talks about the science and where it leads. They also mention the role of climate services in all this, and they would not have a role if the climate was not changing in a rather predictable way. Skeptics hate this stuff and all it stands for, so I link it here.

      • My son attended an inner-city high school… a school district with a very bad academic reputation. HIs physics teacher was a physicist, apparently orphaned, from the former East Germany. He’s now a resident physician in a physics-based specialty.

        So when we fire all of our physicists, maybe they will be teaching at high schools in China.

      • some don’t want the role of CO2 in climate to be taught at school



        We have six grandchildren in five different schools, I talk to teachers, principals, other parents, and school district administrators fairly frequently. The real roll of CO2 is to make green plants grow better while making better use of water, that truth is what must be taught in schools.

      • Those teachers have to speak to all sorts. What do they tell you?

      • When our oldest granddaughter was in fourth grade, she was watching a video in class. When the video stated that manmade CO2 has caused most of the warming we have had, she raised her hand and said, “NO, IT DID NOT!” Her teacher went to her, gave her a high five and said, “YOU ARE RIGHT!”

        We elected Trump to keep that alarmist CO2 junk out of our schools.

      • Poor girl. What do the teachers tell you?

      • Those teachers have to speak to all sorts. What do they tell you?

        Most agree, some say nothing, none have disagreed. We are in Texas, we thrive on fossil fuels. We eat green things that grow and we eat other things that eat green things that grow. Taking away CO2 is taking away fertilizer that makes our food supply more abundant and more affordable. The war against CO2 is a war against life on earth. We came out of the last major ice age about 20k years ago. In that cold time, the CO2 had been adsorbed by the oceans and the CO2 level was dangerously close to the low level that all life on earth was in danger. The better life on earth gets due to more CO2, the more you anti life alarmist panic. CO2 is not harmful in any way and it is really good for life as we know it.

      • OK, so you were not complaining about the school teachers. Good. Now you just have to stop them showing those videos from outside your enclave. What were they thinking?

      • The do need to show that junk, but help the children learn to recognize it as junk so when they watch the main stream media, they will know that much they see is not true.

      • It’s a conspiracy.

      • Jim, I think the point is that there is no artificial clean dividing line between the “completely secular” and the religious or metaphysical. This is an error of secularists who are often ignorant of religion and tend to attack that which they don’t understand. Each religion has a different vision of what man is and what he can become.

        Certainly, Dawkins and his intellectual ancestor, Bertrand Russell, show sophomoric ignorance and tremendous bias.

      • It should not be controversial that nature exists apart from religion. Religion is a purely human construct. Nature just is, whether humans are there or not. Science is the understanding of nature, and the laws of science don’t need religion. Often religion has just a placeholder explanation of something until science comes along to explain it in more fundamental terms.

      • I disagree as do most religions. Religion and its cousin metaphysics also claims to be about nature too and science also is about metaphysics. Most scientific theories contain metaphysical concepts like the concept of force to “explain” the data.

      • You don’t need religion to understand Newton’s Laws, Einstein’s theories, thermodynamics or why CO2 absorbs at wavenumber 666 cm-1, though some may want to invoke it.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D See my response above to your assertion that “science is secular”.
        Is not your further assertion: “Religion is a purely human construct. Nature just is” just another a priori atheistic (“religious”) presupposition excluding all intelligent causes to the cosmos and life? Is it not another atheistic (“religious”) assertion that there has never been any intelligent cause in human history, nor has any such cause had any observable impact on humans?
        I find your assertion untenable by the evidence of revelation to Moses on Mt Sinai, and of Jesus’ resurrection etc.

      • I am not saying religion has no place, just that it is more often an obstacle to science, and never a help to it. Science transcends religion, rather than being part of any one, and in that sense is secular.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D Your assertion is again contrary to the facts that the modern scientific revolution was launched primarily by Christians in a Biblical world view of creation. The life and writings of world reknowned chemist Henry Schaefer III disproves your assertion. See Scientists and Their Gods. See his book: Science and Christianity: Conflict or Coherence?

      • The Greeks and Hindus did well under polytheism, and the Arabs and Chinese also made significant contributions to advancements. Besides which my assertion is that religion in general helped none of these with science, not that just Christianity didn’t.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D Contrast “The Book that Made Your World“, Vishal Mangalwadi.

      • He’s entitled to his opinion.

      • David L. Hagen

        Jim D Better yet, Mangalwadi marshals the facts and builds on them. Try actually understanding what transformed and founded Western civilization.

      • Science stems more from what the Greeks did with logic and then axioms and theorems which was rather secular. A lot of today’s problems are with people who can’t distinguish their religion and politics from science.

      • Jim D:

        How are the inner city schools doing, the ones in cities controlled by liberals? The ones controlled by rural rednecks who voted for Trump are doing better. Some of them are going to church too. You think all these farmers don’t care about the science that goes into the seeds they plant? That goes into grain spoilage? Our founders couldn’t have been too bright, citing god given rights.

      • Ragnaar, the founders tried to make the government secular. What were they thinking, right?

      • JCH:
        At your livescience link, liberal MN well above average. I guess my son has the liberals to thank. Thank you.

      • Yes Ragnaar, the only way to find an equivalent school in Texas to what you have up there was to find ones created and run by liberal federal judges:

        Dallas TAG and Houston’s Debakey.

      • Jim D:
        I suppose our founders reached a compromise between the religious and the secular. There is science and applied science.

      • The compromise is to keep them apart in schools.

      • > The ones controlled by rural rednecks who voted for [teh Donald] are doing better.

        Citation needed.

      • The uneducated are his base. He said he loves the poorly educated.

      • Willard:

        Yes, I am guilty of shooting from the hip:


        That last Republican Mayor of Minneapolis was in 1973. Somehow he lasted one day. I am not picking on Minneapolis. I lived there for about 10 years. Bring the immigrants I say.


        Where one take away is, bring 5 million Chinese to rural Minnesota. They’ll make money, probably vote for Trump and their children will graduate at high rates.

      • Jim D,
        I’ll never understand why otherwise smart and well-educated people insist on sticking to the narrative that Galileo was persecuted by the Church. In fact, he was supported by the Church for much of his career (as was Copernicus, whose theory he supported). His early research was quite good, when he did important work on gravity and his astronomical observations were also solid.

        When he decided to advocate for heliocentrism, Galileo apparently abandoned good science to pester people to accept it without providing solid evidence. First, he pestered people until Cardinal Bellarmine told him not to talk about it any more without evidence, then he flogged a broken hypothesis about tides and finally, his biggest mistake, he used the words of his friend the Pope as the dialogue of a character in a book named Simplicio, who was portrayed as rather stupid.

        Even then, he wasn’t tortured or held in bad conditions. He was held in a large apartment with his own servant until the trial was over, then under house arrest in a comfortable home for the remainder of his days. He even continued to publish, despite the fact that he had been ordered not to and had to smuggle his manuscripts out of the country.

      • OK, maybe Darwin is a better example because that is where science more directly challenged biblical beliefs.

    • Jim, as usual you have the problem exactly backwards. The problem is that far too many of those holding themselves out as scientists are no such thing.

      You are right, however, about the need for scientific education in schools. Now all you have to do is to find somebody capable of teaching it. You know, somebody who actually understands that science is a mode of enquiry, who actually comprehends the scientific method, and who is not intimidated by the forces of anti-science.

  19. Pingback: Untangling the March for Science – NZ Conservative Coalition

  20. Unfortunately, it would seem that a large number of scientists that are participating in the marches are promoting the concept that all scientists should be advocates for particular political policies as a duty, because of their position in society. They feel that it is the responsible thing to do. However, political advocacy is not the duty of scientists. The real duty of scientists is to seek the truth about nature in the specific subjects or disciplines individual scientists are trained and certified to work in (BS, MS, PhD).

    Scientific advancement is never linear, and comes in spurts with long periods of slow, incremental advance. Major scientific advancements usually occur through minority thought challenges to the prevailing scientific dogma that has been established by the elites in a given discipline. Major advancements usually do not occur without some sort of conflict among scientists concerning the dogma and the new paradigm. Importantly, the conflict is among scientists that are advocates of a particular scientific interpretation, and does not involve politics (left or right).

    When the practice of science gets embroiled with political advocacy, and in the process political advocacy becomes the norm in science, then the advancement of science toward the quest for the truth about nature will be obfuscated in favor of political outcomes. This will be the end of science as we know it to be in the present and have known it to be in the past.

    Using science for political advocacy is bad for science in general, and bad for scientists as a group.

    • Geoff Sherrington

      You summarised the ideal world neatly, thank you. There are still many places where this happens, more than might be imagined because the scientists there tend not to go on loud, collective, public rants. Or so I imagine, with little evidence.

  21. I have a niece who is participating in the march for science. She is not a scientist but is doing it as part of her emotional derangement over the election results. When you engage her on details of her emotional reaction, a lot of it is driven by fake news from left wing web sites.

  22. We’d have climate change all figured out by now what with all of the computing power at our disposal and billions of dollars invested in endless filing cabinets full of global warming research but, nature keeps getting in the way.

  23. Recently I was in Berkeley California when the Ann Coulter v UC Berkeley administration conflict became public with the UC Berkeley administration canceling Ann Coulter’s lecture/appearance because the Campus and City of Berkeley police would not guarantee Ms. Coulter’s safety. In fact, both police Departments have recently had riots in the City and on Campus whereby they took a non-interventionalist policy fear making the riots worse. A number of UC Berkeley guest lecturers were “heckled vetoed” and hurried out of town.

    Reading the San Francisco Chronicle and the East Bay News the vehemence against the lecturers is predicated upon the idea that the guest’s opinions are not fit for others to hear and the protesters and subsequent violence by the protesters is justified as a stand against the fascist ideas, hate, and Donald Trump as a supporter of hate, homophobia, racism, capitalism, xenophobia,etc. There have been comments in the SFC by people who are concerned that there is also a war on free speech which has gained traction like at Middlebury College, Wellesley College, as well as on the UC Berkeley campus, the 1960’s site for the Free Speech Movement.

    Taking today’s lesson from the Climate Change science March, we understand that the climate scientists who will “redefine what peer review is” and other well spoken instances of intolerance and information manipulation are no different than those who are intolerant on the various campuses. Indeed, the college “safe place” folks reflects a diversity of people who will not address ideas to which they disagree.

    From my perspective, the growing social disrespect for science as a process and endeavor, is a more generalized disrespect now common in society, particularly a willingness to demonize others AND believing they are justified in such behaviors, dogmatically asserting they “are right and all others are wrong. We are in a religious war.

    As we march down this road to conflicting ideologies and intolerance for others to think let alone speak, I do not see on the horizon when there will be: The Peace of Westphalia 1648.

    “Those who truly want to support science should defend the right of all scientists — including dissenters — to express their views.”

    The solutions are obvious: talk less and listen more.

    • This is an interesting train of thought. Have we become more intolerant or are we just feel freer to express it anonymously on the internet or by wearing masks? Not being familiar with British politics, I had always assumed that it was quite partisan and nasty and that recent American politics had simply returned to its English and 19th Century roots.

      I do agree however that science should be tolerant and that Universities particularly have a duty to defend viewpoint diversity. The whole social justice viewpoint is itself very corrosive to becoming an adult and functioning in an unfair world. The sooner Universities free themselves from this harmful doctrine, the better off we will be. I was reading something earlier today saying that it may be almost too late and that this idea had infected many other institutions in America anyway.

    • As far as I can tell, they believe that racism, sexism, and the other isms are the fault of underlying ‘structures’ in society,
      They seem to think they can erase these structures from the body politic and eliminate wrong thinking.
      Removing historical monuments, negative images, and shunning discussion of certain subjects can purify the future.
      We mistakenly disagree with them because these structures still persist.
      It is similar to the justification for blowing up Buddhas.

    • There was a very recent article in City Journal about current French politics that delved into a bunch of social forces at work regarding France, the UK, the US, and the rest of the world. It discussed the pressures of immigration, globalization, the new urban elites, rural decay, and the increased hostility and social stratification. It’s very long but well worth reading. One thing it mentioned is that urban elites are trying to restrict discourse to disallow topics or viewpoints they find unacceptable, in effect permanently entrenching themselves as the cultural, political, and economic arbiters. The March for Science seems to be part of that trend.

      • > One thing it mentioned is that urban elites are trying to restrict discourse to disallow topics or viewpoints they find unacceptable

        That’s the weakest part of an otherwise insightful analysis, GeorgeT. Taboos are as old as humans, and contrarian networks have their own Omertà practices. This very site provides ample evidence of how Freedom Fighters control their playbook.

        It’s easy to document why populist crap is populist.

  24. March For Politics, Scientism & Scidolatry

  25. Pingback: The March For Scientism, The Religion | Fuzzy little things that I find interesting.

  26. Pope Francis appears in ‘climate change’ movie featuring Obama, Clinton, Leonardo DiCaprio

    The film’s climactic ending shows DiCaprio, the United Nation’s Messenger of Peace, being received at the Vatican by Pope Francis. According to the film, they spoke about the necessity of the “world community” accepting the “science” behind so-called climate change. The meeting took place in January 2016.
    “One of the most important spiritual leaders on the planet…has now called upon the world community to accept the modern science of climate change. A pope has never done anything like this in history,” related DiCaprio in the film.
    “He feels we all need to be speaking out about this issue as loud as we can, that we must immediately take action,” he said.
    DiCaprio described Francis’ leadership on climate change as “inspirational and essential” in the inscription of a book that he gave to the pope during their visit.

    DiCaprio can’t get over that chinook!
    GUNTER – Leo, Leo, Leo. It was a chinook for crying out loud, not a sign from the earth goddess Gaia. Get over it.

    Leonardo DiCaprio witnesses a ‘terrifying’ sign of climate change in Calgary — a Chinook

    Leonardo DiCaprio’s chinook climate change comments mocked by Alberta politicos on Twitter


  27. Are the marchers bringing their hockeysticks?

    • The question is whether the shiny pate of Mann will be reflecting the shining and bright light of heavenly sentiments. Perhaps a Noble prize is in order.

  28. Looking at pictures of the marchers and placards they held, it was difficult to tell if they were Middle Schoolers for Recess Justice, Clowns International or Michael Moore groupies.

  29. richardswarthout

    Dr Curry

    Been reading the transcript of the APS Workshop. Dr. Koonin was an excellent moderator. One question: although Dr Held accepted that modeling has serious flaws, he has a problem with GHG warming not being being the prime source of the warming. His reasoning is that if wasn’t, an extreme amount of heat flow would have to come from the oceans. I don’t understand his reasoning, couldn’t the extra warming come from other sources, like clouds being less opaque?

    Thank you,


  30. Right in there with the war on Christmas

  31. Thanks for a generally good post, Dr. J. However, I found the following one so bad it’s not even wrong …

    Science is, for today’s conservatives, an instrument of federal power. They attack science’s forms of truth-making, its databases, and its budgets not out of a rejection of either science or truth, but as part of a coherent strategy to weaken the power of the federal agencies that rely on them. Put simply, they war on science to sap the legitimacy of the federal government. Mistaking this for a war on science could lead to bad tactics, bad strategy, and potentially disastrous outcomes for both science and democracy.

    To start with, I haven’t a clue which “conservatives” he is fantasizing about … and apparently neither does he, or he’d give us an example.

    Just who, for example, is “attacking science’s databases”? Which “databases” are they attacking? I mean, people raise questions about every scientific dataset, that’s integral to science, but “attacking” them? What does that even mean, to “attack” a database? Storm the database’s defenses and batter down the walls?

    And who would attack a database in order to “sap the legitimacy of the federal government”? How would that even work?

    Sap the legitimacy? That’s just nasty handwaving to try and convince us that the author is on the side of the angels. This screed has nothing to do with science, and everything to do with someone unwilling to accept that their candidate lost.

    I never realized how long the five stages of election grief would last for these scientific snowflakes.


    • Willis Eschenbach, good post.

    • Steven Mosher

      Attacking a database is a metaphor.

      The basic datasets being attacked as fraudulent are..
      Our database. Noaas. And giss.

      The list of people attacking and facilitating attacks..
      Pretty long.

      Starts with Steve goddard. Extends from there.

      • The basic datasets being attacked as fraudulent are..
        Our database. Noaas. And giss.

        To appreciate the essence of science and what sets it off from doctrine is to understand that bias does not need fraud. Comparing bias to Pilt Down Man is a straw man.

        From The Guardian

        The march has proved controversial within the science community, which is typically reluctant to be overtly political. Some scientists have raised concerns that the marches will invite attacks by Trump and his supporters, or will fail to convince the public that science has inherent value.

        Here is another straw man. We need to convince the public that science has inherent value. Paahleezz…

      • Is arguing that a database is in error considered an attack?

      • Steven Mosher

        No evan.
        The data has errors.
        All data has errors.
        All methods have errors.

        Calling people and their work frauds is an attack.

        Improving the data and work by doing your own work is not attack

        Here is my request. You have stations in the USA classified.

        I have new meta data and a classification method.

        It has been almost 5 years since you published results on the web. I request a SAMPLE of your site data.

        You rated over 1000 station 1-5. For my work I need.

        1.A sample of class 1-2. Say 30 stations
        2. A sample of class 3-5.. say 30 stations

        That’s it. Just a random sample.

        So here in front of climate etc… Please give your answer. It’s almost been 5 years since steve mcintyre and Anthony denied my request for all the data…now just share 60 out of 1000 data points…

      • Apparently you must just want to find fault with their work.

  32. Way mix politics and science. Politics seem to always have a bias. These marches appear quite political, yet are about science?

  33. This is what politicized science looks like.

    And it will only get worse unless, IMHO, the funding process is changed. As long as you have centralized decision-making in DC, there’s no way to avoid politicization. If you put the funding decisions at the states, labs and universities, you will create more agile and competitive R&D with far less politics.

    • Yes larger baseline funding without strings for all qualified scientists would go a long way towards restoring science. When I started out, your department covered lots of things like postage stamps, administrative assistance, a telephone and even the electricity for your lab. In my alma matter today a new incoming scientist has to raise grant money for all of that plus funds from somewhere to finish his/her new office and lab space. Newcomers have to bring in grants for stuff like installing drywall, electric plugs, and flooring. Meanwhile the number of grants funded by the major Federal grants system for medicine had dropped below 10%. One study has shown that the major Federal funding source for non medical science in Canada should simply give everyone who applied the amount of their grant application because continuing to run the massive bloated administration of the grant competition costs much more than the amount they actually give out.

  34. David L. Hagen

    Heading into Today’s March, Here’s When to Doubt a Scientific “Consensus” Jay W. Richards

    “Consensus,” according to Merriam-Webster, means both “general agreement” and “group solidarity in sentiment and belief.” That sums up the problem. Is this consensus based on solid evidence and sound logic, or social pressure and groupthink? . . .
    (1) When different claims get bundled together
    (2) When ad hominem attacks against dissenters predominate
    (3) When scientists are pressured to toe the party line
    (4) When publishing and peer review in the discipline is cliquish
    (5) When dissenters are excluded from the peer-reviewed journals not because of weak evidence or bad arguments but to marginalize them.
    (6) When the actual peer-reviewed literature is misrepresented
    (7) When consensus is declared before it even exists
    (8) When the subject matter seems, by its nature, to resist consensus
    (9) When “scientists say” or “science says” is a common locution
    (10) When it is being used to justify dramatic political or economic policies
    (11) When the “consensus” is maintained by an army of water-carrying journalists who defend it with partisan zeal, and seem intent on helping certain scientists with their messaging rather than reporting on the field as fairly as possible
    12) When we keep being told that there’s a scientific consensus

    • March for cli-science,
      march for 18C,
      march for gate-keeping
      ‘n more constraints on liberty.

      March for Tiljander
      and hide the decline,*
      the right to refuse data
      because it’s mine.

      *Of course, each of us has to decide
      what the right balance is between
      being effective and being honest.

      H/t Stephen Schneider.

      • Beth

        “*Of course, each of us has to decide
        what the right balance is between
        being effective and being honest.”

        In the minds of many who oppose dialogue and for whom the science is settled, and where contrary assessments of the same data is not allowed, these people feel justified in their intransigence as giving in to any measure of uncertainty is blasphemy. And, as the jihadists have shown, blasphemy is punished by death, not dialogue.

        The Treaty of Westphalia meant that each party would go their separate ways. In to day’s climate wars, there appears to be no such option: life or death. The narrative seems as a ship, a ghostly galleon tossed upon a cloudy sea.

      • Leaky boat ‘Deception,’ RiHo08, carried on the tide.

      • Beth

        “Leaky boat ‘Deception,’ RiHo08, carried on the tide.”

        Does this mean that not all boats will rise with an incoming tide? Are some boats already sitting on their keels? or, are their shorelines so taught that the tethered boat will succumb to the sea cascading through the companionway and portholes?

        “March for Tiljander
        and hide the decline,*
        the right to refuse data
        because it’s mine.”

        I believe the latter metaphor is correct: holding too tight.

      • I dunno, RiHo08, I’m jest a serf. Maybe a frail craft, no
        moral compass, breaks its moorings, so adrift…Kinda’
        like science w/out rigour.

  35. David L. Hagen

    Bill Nye: The Perfect Talking Head for a March Against Science Stephen C. Meyer

    Most warmists’ models have predicted steep rises. But these models don’t match the real global temperatures collected after the fact. So why believe the dire predictions that those same models make about future temperatures before the fact?
    Bill Nye, Al Gore, and former President Obama have said we must accept what “the scientists” say. To listen to the skeptics would be to reject “settled science.” But skeptics of extreme warming include many top scientists: physicists, biologists, earth and atmospheric scientists like Richard Lindzen (MIT), Freeman Dyson and William Happer (Princeton), Roy Spencer (University of Alabama, formerly NASA), John Christy (Earth System Science Center, University of Alabama), and Matt Ridley (DPhil, Oxford). How strong can the “consensus” be if such stars of science question the idea?

    It’s not ‘Earth Day’ – it’s ‘Anti-Trump Day’

    “The entire march is based on the premise that President Trump is destroying the earth, destroying the climate, and [that] this is going to be devastating,” [Marc Morano] tells OneNewsNow.

    “If there were a real march for science, we might very well be glad to participate in it,” says Cornwall founder and national spokesman Cal Beisner. “A real march for science would tell us for instance that sound science can lead to good environmental stewardship, and it would tell us that there’s a difference between rational, evidence-driven science and most of the science that lies behind environmentalism’s scare-mongering.”
    Beisner also says a real march for science would explain that real science “doesn’t work by consensus, intimidation, data manipulation or personal attack” – but instead “by painstakingly comparing theories and predictions with real-world observations.” . . .
    “Scientific consensus gets overturned all the time,” he responds, “but the reality is that the notion that 97 percent of scientists agree that global warming is real and dangerous and all of that, is built on terrible confusions, terrible equivocations.”

    Earth Day 2017 and the Anti-Scientific ‘March for Science’E. Calvin Meisner

    A march for sound science would also be open to the truth about man. It would not exclude groups like ours, which explain that people aren’t mere consumers and polluters. We don’t just use up resources and poison the planet. We are made in the image of the Creator. So we don’t have to leave nature as we found it. We can steward the earth to enhance its fruitfulness, beauty, and safety. And we can do it to glorify God and serve our neighbors.

    The Phony Diversity of the ‘March for Science’

    March organizers say they believe that “science works best when scientists come from diverse perspectives.” They also claim that the “scientific community is best served by including voices and contributions from people of all identities and backgrounds.” . . .
    So according to the leaders of the March for Science, if you argue that science provides evidence of purposeful design, you’re anti-science. But if you argue science disproves God and shows humans “suck,” that’s fine. . . .
    March for Science organizers fret about “underrepresented” groups in the sciences. But the biggest underrepresented group among scientific elites by far may be theists. . . .
    Science grew in large part because early scientists thought nature was the product of a rational agent. This meant it could be investigated as something rational and orderly rather than as the result of a haphazard process.
    . . . the March for Science has shut out scientists who see design in nature and embraced groups that use science to attack faith. That’s not defending true science. It’s undermining it. And for all of us who value science, that’s truly unfortunate.

  36. I think after today Trump supporters and swing voters will be convinced that scientists are not actually above average. And that scientists are just another interest group demanding more money from the taxpayers.

    The photo of Mike Mann and Bill Nye in the front row of marchers will come in for much derisory comment.

  37. A reduction of the $433 billion science budget, in order to “fix crumbling infrastructure” is not a war on science, it is a change in funding priorities – you are arguing we need to paint the house, he is saying we need to fix the walls and foundations first.

    A significant decrease in climate science funding is not a war on science when the advocates have been suggesting for years (rightly or wrongly) that “the science is settled” – if there is already sufficient evidence, why spend scarce resources to find more?

    Clearly, this is a political movement, and will do more harm than good.

  38. Reblogged this on Climate Collections.

  39. I haven’t seen 314 referenced.

    Did anyone else go to a rally and note local environmentalists or scientists running for office?

    My local rally did – the most notable environmentalist announced running for a county commission seat. I’m not sure this is all that good an idea – he’s not really charismatic and will have to deal with providing services and a whiny electorate not just global warming.

    I get the sense that a lot of Tom Steyer’s money went toward this as a grass roots campaign starter to change gov and achieve power.

  40. pretty good

  41. –March organizers say “our diversity is our greatest strength.” They say “a wealth of opinions, perspectives, and ideas is critical for the scientific process.”–

    What they truly believe is opinions, perspectives and ideas are diverse to the extent they are opinions about the revealed truth of the left’s project from different races, genders, etc.
    They believe they already are the recipients of the one true dogma, but that it can be refined by the “diversity” of other recipients of the one true Gnostic dogma not infected with white/western/male/heterosexual/Judeo-Christian disease.
    That’s science to the same extent Professor Clyde Crashcup was a scientist.

  42. The #marchforscience was not for science, but for government-controlled and enforced beliefs. It was a march for State Science

  43. alanlonghurst

    Good grief….stop the world, I want o get off!

  44. These are simply insecure people participating in these marches, mostly afraid of Trump. Nothing else.

  45. “The good thing about science that its true whether you believe it or not” -Neil DeGrasse Tyson
    One of the worst quotes about science I’ve ever heard. Why?:

    The good thing about Christianity is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Islam is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Zen Buddhism is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Zoroastrianism is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Tarot reading is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Homeopathy is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Khmer rouge party philosophy is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Pastafarianism is that its true whether you believe it or not
    The good thing about Kim Il-Sung’s writings is that its true whether you believe it or not

    Need I say more?

  46. We’ve lost our fear of hellfire, but put climate change in its place
    By Boris Johnson
    12:01AM GMT 02 Feb 2006

    “Billions will die,” says Lovelock, who tells us that he is not normally a gloomy type. Human civilisation will be reduced to a “broken rabble ruled by brutal warlords”, and the plague-ridden remainder of the species will flee the cracked and broken earth to the Arctic, the last temperate spot, where a few breeding couples will survive.
    But the more one listens to sacerdotal figures such as Lovelock, and the more one studies public reactions to his prophecies, the clearer it is that we are not just dealing with science (though science is a large part of it); this is partly a religious phenomenon.
    Humanity has largely lost its fear of hellfire, and yet we still hunger for a structure, a point, an eschatology, a moral counterbalance to our growing prosperity. All that is brilliantly supplied by climate change. Like all the best religions, fear of climate change satisfies our need for guilt, and self-disgust, and that eternal human sense that technological progress must be punished by the gods.
    And the fear of climate change is like a religion in this vital sense, that it is veiled in mystery, and you can never tell whether your acts of propitiation or atonement have been in any way successful. One sect says we must build more windfarms, and these high priests will be displeased with what Lovelock has to say. Another priestly caste curses the Government’s obsession with nuclear power – a programme Lovelock has had the courage to support.

  47. Progressives love science when they can use it as a club to silence their opposition and when it aligns with what they want. But they oppose GMOs, Golden Rice, nuclear power, inherent sexual differences, spraying for mosquitos, fracking, and on and on. They immediately jump from “it is warming” to “solar power” without any consideration of feasibility, costs, risks, or even environmental impacts (such as windmills killing birds). When their preferred policies hurt the poor (e.g., the cost of energy in Europe) they stick their fingers in their ears.
    Science can only inform. Values, tolerance of and perceptions of risk, and tradeoffs must be considered. Noble ideals can have disastrous consequences. It is not virtuous to be naive.

  48. March for Science is a protest against eliminating welfare programs for scientists, among them:

    •Wetlands restoration for San Francisco Bay, the Great Lakes, Chesapeake Bay, Puget Sound and South Florida. (saving $427 million)
    •Science to Achieve Results grants for university research on environmental problems. ($10.6 million)
    •Climate Protection Program, including the voluntary Energy Star efficiency label for appliances. ($70 million)
    •Climate change research conducted in coordination with the U.S. Global Change Research program. ($19.4 million)
    •Marine Pollution Program, which prevents dumping of harmful material into the ocean. ($4.2 million)
    •National Estuary Program, which helps Morro Bay and San Francisco Bay address declines in ecosystem health. ($20.5 million)
    •Water Sense Program, a voluntary labeling program for products such as shower heads and toilets that conserve water. ($3 million)
    •Non-Point Source Pollution grants to address farm runoff. ($165 million)
    •Underground Storage Tank grants. EPA says 561,000 of these tanks store petroleum or other hazardous substances, posing their biggest threat to contamination of drinking water. ($1.5 million)
    •Endocrine Disruptor Program, which screens and tests chemicals that harm wildlife and disrupt children’s growth. ($6 million)
    •Does not eliminate but slashes by 80 percent, or $542 million, the agency’s Science Advisory Board “to reflect an anticipated lower number of peer reviews.”

    Climate science at other agencies

    Trump’s budget request would terminate four key Earth science missions at the National Aeronautics and Space Administration:
    •PACE, an ocean monitoring program.
    •Orbiting Carbon Observatory-3, a satellite under development to study distribution of carbon dioxide on Earth.
    •The Deep Space Climate Observatory
    •The CLARREO Pathfinder that measures heat in the atmosphere.
    Note: Trump’s plan would also zero out $250 million in programs at the National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration that support coastal and marine management and research, including the Sea Grants program.

  49. I have a different perspective of “big science” and the truth of it all. My Xwife has an Multiple Sclerosis like illness and because it wasn’t officially MS, (or really anything) there was not treatment options at all. I’m in Canada where angioplasty of neck veins for MS is Banned. Angioplasty is supposedly to open up the neck veins and help oxygen get to the brain quicker. Conferring with other Canadians, including a doctor with MS and reviewing their videos and the evidence, I elected to bring her to California to a “maverick” doctor who did the angioplasty primarily to “reactivate” the vagus nerve (which runs beside the jugulars) and to treat symptoms of “autonomic dysfunction”. His rational was so powerful! “Symptom relief begins on the operating table, the moment the balloon is expanded in the vein!” But the moment the balloon is expanded, there is NO blood flow, This means that this symptom relief cannot be from improved blood flow at that moment. So he started treating patients based on autonomic symptoms and sure enough, even those with no detectable narrowed veins, were often getting MASSIVE symptom relief! When My X got it done, she thought her veins were narrowed but he said “your veins were fine, I didn’t do it to fix your veins”. This is heresy for both sides of the vein debate in the “MS wars”! However he did it based on the scientific reality of massive improvement in about 1/3 of MS patients who have angioplasty and of minor improvement in another 3rd. He catalogued their “symptom sets” and started using heart monitor tests under exercise stress to better figure out who would be helped. However, now, the FDA has issued him a stop order. There have been no clinical trials of his version of the treatment. The clinical trials of the other venoplasty treatment (in Canada) haven’t passed peer review. However interim results (negative) have been released at a conference and this is what the FDA based their response on. At the same conference, it was noted that the Canadian researchers were using the wrong (low pressure and small) balloons and didn’t seem too bothered if they had not actually opened veins enough. My Xwifes experience before and after are catalogued on youtube in a playlist. She had wonderful, magnificent relief from symptoms, which began on the operating table. Some of the relief has lasted till this day, some has declined, I think the main reason the treatment is banned here is the cost. It cost me $10,000 while a year’s supply of an ms drug from a prescribing neurologist costs about $60.000, It’s pretty clear to me why neurologists have refused to measure improvements (and dis-improvements) in returning patients. If the new treatment greatly helps 1/3 of patients, (As discovered by MP Kirstie Duncan, when she surveyed returning patients). it would mean a massive loss of earnings for prescribing neurologists! Anyway, those who pay the piper often call the tune, and the playlist (including side by side before and after videos), is at https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkzXlmAwZTZfQ01RnN-8Ip5lUz0HrNWzN

  50. My point above is that narrowed veins are probably a minor factor in the causation of multiple sclerosis, and that everyone on both sides in the “scientific” debate are ignoring the huge elephant in the room. Angioplasty is affecting the nervous system immediately and directly. WHY? And HOW? There are nerves around the Jugulars that come from the Vagus nerve. They are likely stretch detectors. Possibly to detect how full of blood it is.

  51. March for Science = Trump Tantrum by progressives. Majority of marchers not scientists, including Bill Nye the science guy.

  52. What seems to be left out of all these ” political ” comments, and yes they have there own biases , is that there is a deep strain of fundamentalism gaining grown in this country which infects and spreads with the anti-intellectualism which already exists. The vice-president is up there with his anti-evolution, fundamentalist views so please don’t just say republicans are anti big government and ignore that their base and many of their representatives are fundamentalists as are many of the representatives. They are allowed to be, there is no law against them but as citizens we have to right to demand better!
    And they want to slash the EOS ( Earth Observation System) of satellites which has led to a great transformation in our understanding of the Earth and provide so much invaluable data which is needed to make serious policy decisions. It is understandable to be angry and that is where our energy should be spent fighting, to stop these attacks and many comments here deflect from that, give cover and camouflage to that ideology.

    • John, “The vice-president is up there with his anti-evolution, fundamentalist views so please don’t just say republicans are anti big government and ignore that their base and many of their representatives are fundamentalists as are many of the representatives. ”

      Being anti-evolution after the Eugenics interpretation hasn’t damaged science progress as far as I can tell. I believe both parties have had the Easter Bunny at the White House without too great an impact on science funding either. I hear there are even people that tend to lean away from string theory but can still do brain surgery.

    • Richard Lindzen does an excellent job in explaining what happens to Science in The Public square, when science is touted as “An Appeal to Authority” rather than science simply being viewed as a wonderful investigative process/methodology
      Richard Lindzen
      How Science can be Politically Useful (short clip)

      “And it’s part of NSF’s big mobilization. They’re spending quite a lot of money to find out why people aren’t buying the alarm. And this harkens back to my personal attitude. Ordinary people have sense, Academics don’t”
      Alarming Global Warming: What Happens to Science in the Public Square. Richard S. Lindzen, Ph.D.
      Science and Politics : Global Warming and Eugenics (Lindzen 1996)

    • Joe Crawford

      Jon: That “deep strain of fundamentalism gaining ground” is not just in this country but appears to be world wide (e.g., the Daesh). Historically, when science advances too fast and too much knowledge filters down to the populace too fast for people to absorb it they seem to fall back on fundamentalist religion to slow things down and maintain the status quo. In extreme cases such as e.g. the Dark Ages and the burning of the library at Alexandria they also destroyed or attempted to destroy the accumulated scientific knowledge of the time. I’m not sure your being disparaging and disdaining of the populace is going to help matters much.

      • Joe, you make an interesting point of whether CAGW skepticism is rejection of threats to culture or “future shock.” Certainly Islamic fundamentalism has been analyzed as rejection of modernity, or Western-ism. I doubt Dr. Curry or any of those here are anti-science or Western progress. But I can’t speak for middle America.

        What is your evidence?

        I think the Dark Ages and burning of the Library of Alexandria are necessarily different from any culture annihilation that occurs from a sacking rather than a slower political domination.

    • I think the fundamentalists are just holding their own. The middle allied with them and Trump was elected. The election wasn’t about religion for the most part. The intellectuals allied with the establishment and were wrong in the last election.

  53. What seems to be left out of all these ” political ” comments, and yes they have there own biases, is that there is a deep strain of fundamentalism gaining grown in this country which infects and spreads with the anti-intellectualism which already exists.

    Jon, what anti-intellectualism are you referring to? Can you give examples?
    Are you talking about fear of genetically modified foods, nuclear power, eating meat, intrusion on Gaia?

    Claiming ownership of the truth by declaration is the opposite of science. Saying one side is too simple to be appreciated as an intellectual argument is hubris. There always ore complex arguments than your own that make you look anti-intellectual.

    There is one way to sort out to find them — protest to shut up the other side (/sark).

    If you did not read the article linked above about how Carl Sagan, (one of my heroes) “ruined science” by making it a narrative it’s worth a read.http://thefederalist.com/2017/04/21/the-march-for-science-shows-how-carl-sagan-ruined-science/

  54. The statement in
    “the further expansion of powerful, centralized, science-informed government…” is not quite right. It would be better stated that conservatives oppose the further expansion of powerful, centralized, data-driven government in which the government and scientific establishment together control the data. Even better: conservatives oppose the further expansion of a powerful, centralized, government that can control data and its interpretation.

  55. “Under this model, acknowledging climate science would mean another significant upgrade in the power of government to regulate the economy not just in the United States but across the planet. For conservatives, the enemy is not science itself but the further expansion of powerful, centralized, science-informed government. For them it’s as much a crisis moment as it is for climate scientists: win now or lose the war for another century.”

    For me it is a crisis created by ‘experts’ who have predictably mismanaged things on a grand scale by imagining that they can reimagine societies and economies.


    The principles of responsible governance start with the cash rate. Manage that to target inflation which maintains stable markets. Then more or less balance government budgets and limit the size of government to grow economies.

    With progressives we have an ideal of expanding government into redressing imagined social and environmental grievances in ways that never work. Financed by deficits and ‘quantitative easing’. Somewhere in there is a glowing vision of a world government redirecting resources into pet projects globally. It is unrealizable nonsense that threatens economic instability. Something sought by some as a ‘tranformative moment’.

    The alternative in their minds is an anthropogenic apocalypse – and the realisation that their neo-utopia is never happening causes a descent into stark despair. So perhaps the march keeps hope alive.

    But many elements of government overreach do need to be dismantled. Start with those that don’t actually achieve anything useful. There is much better science and policy out there than this rabble dreams of.

  56. I’d be curious to see a Venn diagram of those “marching for science” and those who believe genetics and anatomy have nothing to do with gender. Talk about denying settled science.

  57. Reblogged this on Random Thoughts from My Mind and the World and commented:
    I wonder what science would look like in it’s purest form – without the influences of politics of money.
    I guess we shall never know.

  58. Reblogged this on Kirk M. Maxey: Blog and Website and commented:
    This was indeed a Protest with a split personality. Sadly, neither of them will be found very endearing to the American on the street (for transportation purposes.) On the one hand, there was the elitist persona. “You’re alive, safe, not sick, and have an iPad because of us. So kiss our ass and give us more money.” Equally elitist, but much more sinister, was the far-left persona of “it’s all about gender and feminism and identity politics and it’s only “science” because of this fat #climatechange missile that we have been riding because..it’s just working, that’s all.”

    I actually do make my living practicing science, but more important, I structure my life by practicing science. I’m very proud not to have tainted that by rubbing shoulders with either of these two kinds of effete upper-class hipster/protesters.

  59. He won, deal with it. His minions are in charge now and not listening to the public. they are all billionaire and millionaires. They don’t care. Listen to me THEY DON’T CARE. PERIOD.

    Public marches in open view are like fighting the revolutionary war with brilliantly colored uniforms all lined up for slaughter.

    If we really want to get science back and funded, we need to lead a gorilla war that will take 4 to 8 years. Turn up the heat so high on your local representatives they will have to change their thinking or wilt.

    This is simple, use this energy to work inside, not outside.

  60. “I’d be curious to see a Venn diagram of those “marching for science” and those who believe genetics and anatomy have nothing to do with gender. Talk about denying settled science.”

    I would have loved to see all those posters showing examples of the success of socialism in Venezuela.

  61. “For conservatives, the enemy is not science itself but the further expansion of powerful, centralized, science-informed government. ”

    Close, but not quite. For conservatives, the enemy is not science itself, but FAKE-science-MISinformed government.

    It is the FAKE certainty of not just attribution, but the extent of any human contribution.

    It is the FAKE certainty about the magnitude of the expected increase in temperature.

    It is the FAKE certainty of the accuracy and precision of data that is adjusted and homogenized to death.

    It is the FAKE certainty in the ability of climate models to predict temperature changes 100 years from now.

    Fake science leads to fake news, leads to fake policies, leads to ever greater government power, leads to ever more progressive control over the lives of hundreds of millions of people.

    THAT is what they marched for.

    In a sane world, the opinions of Michael Mann on economic policy would be unknown to everyone but his unfortunate students, not argued as a basis for legislation with global costs in the trillions..

  62. ‘Though it abide a yer or two or thre,
    Modre wol out, this is my conclusioun.’

    H/t Chaucer and Nay-chur.

  63. Pingback: The March for Science Is the Problem, Not the Solution – Areo Magazine

  64. Pingback: The “March For Science” | Transterrestrial Musings

  65. Pingback: March for Junk Science Trash… | The Universal Spectator

  66. BREAKING: i just heard that shots were fired last weekend at the UAH building that houses Spencer/Christy. Fired from the outside of the building, apparently after March for Science walked by

  67. This is probably the last of the marches we are going to see any time soon, since Trump has apparently completely capitulated to the warmongering military/bank regime.
    All of these ‘protests’ were heavily bankrolled events. Those bankrolling them really have no reason to oppose Trump any longer.


    • David Wojick

      I think there is another march scheduled this coming weekend. The left is not about to stop opposing Trump, especially not for the truly strange reasons that you alledge. I must say that you worldview is interesting, from a clinical point of view. Very interesting.

      • Well, there are bound to be residual protests and certainly the left will keep poking away at Trump, but they only really had power while they were aligned with the true forces against Trump, those that saw him as a threat to the thousand billion yearly dollars going to fight the ‘Russia threat’ and the ‘Terrorist threat’ and the ‘China threat’.
        Its all about keeping the money flowing to the military complex and keeping the petrodollar afloat by crushing any potential competition and trying to maintain the death grip on the fading/faded US world hegemony.

        The protests were an attempt to build to an internal color revolution and some type of impeachment situation, but it is unlikely that will continue to be pushed by the pwned establishment media and sources of funding now that Trump is essentially owned.

        Good article on the neocon’s and the Wolfowitz doctrine if interested, and why these psychopaths feel like American Empire is worth the destruction of the world:


    • “We believe that in this moment of division, turmoil, and fear, it’s important to put forward an alternative vision that inspires and connects. If we don’t put forward our own vision — of an economy built on justice and powered by clean, renewable energy — then we let fossil-fuel-soaked nationalism, xenophobia, and hatred win. We need to show that more people still believe in our shared vision for the future than in Donald Trump’s.”

      Not just deport the Mexicans nationalism, but do it with SUVs. Who can we pin the division, turmoil and fear on? Without an alternative vision there is one vision. Building an economy based on justice is going to have turmoil. If you don’t like the current laws, I guess you need turmoil if you aren’t patient. What are we afraid of? Ice will melt and it will be fossil-fuel-soaked? This country has survived a lot. Xenophobia is a climate thing? If we had immigration the climate would be better? Yes it would. More people would have access to reliable fossil-fuel-soaked energy.

      Visions. Alternative vision. Our own vision. Our shared vision. Our own vision is a shared vision. Donald Trump’s vision. Not their vision, Trump’s vision. You see our vision is a shared one and all those people who voted for Trump had and have no vision and just followed Trump. They are visionless. So it’s all of us versus Trump. Oh and maybe the climate change skeptics too. Their vision is that they don’t see. They are uncertain, and that’s not good vision. They need glass. But even if they had glasses, they still wouldn’t see. But our vision is a shared vision like the Very Large Array. Not that that ever found anything but it has good vision because of science.

  68. Reblogged this on 4timesayear's Blog.

  69. russellseitz

    This Saturday’s Marche du Jour is the 47 year old brainchild of Bill McKibben & Naomi Klein’s comraderie

    I fear climate week will leave them too tuckered out for May Day.

  70. Jon Rappoport exposes the bondage of 97% Consensus Group-Think


  71. russellseitz

    Since Jon Rappoport’s report seems in part mad as a hatter, here’s the latest lagomorph news.

    It isn’t pretty: