Scientists Plan March on Washington

The Debate is Over. By Joe Brusky, source Flickr
The Debate is Over. By Joe Brusky, source Flickr

Guest essay by Eric Worrall

Scientists are apparently planning a march on Washington. My question – will anyone notice?

Scientists Are Planning the Next Big Washington March

Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).

A group of researchers have proposed a March for Science. What started as a discussion on Reddit has quickly blossomed into a movement.

The march would be the latest in a string of actions taken by scientists following Donald Trump’s election and his inauguration as president. His administration has been widely viewed as hostile to science — from the transition period through hearings for his cabinet nominees through silencing key federal science agencies and freezing grants.

“This is not a partisan issue. People from all parts of the political spectrum should be alarmed by these efforts to deny scientific progress,” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march, said. “Scientific research moves us forward and we should not allow asinine policies to thwart it.”

Read more: http://www.climatecentral.org/news/scientists-march-washington-dc-21111

My opinion is these hordes of near zero output climate scientists have a grossly over-inflated view of their value to society.

If sanitary workers go on strike, within days the cities are a stinking rat infested nightmare. If doctors go on strike, sick people die. If farmers go on strike, people starve. If police go on strike, law and order breaks down.

If climate scientists go on strike – the food still arrives, laws are enforced, sick people still receive medical treatment, and the garbage still gets collected.

I’m not saying science, even pure science, has no value. When scientists produce a breakthrough, it can be world changing. Scientific research, especially research with commercial applications, is vitally important to maintaining economic growth.

But look at climate science specifically. 30 years and climate scientists are no closer to closing the joke size range of their climate sensitivity estimate. Worse, there is substantial evidence climate scientists are ignoring indications that most of their climate sensitivity estimates are way too high.

If sanitary workers go on strike the effect is immediate and brutal, but climate scientists could walk off the job for a decade, and the only consequence to ordinary people would be a slightly smaller tax bill.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
190 Comments
Oldest
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
LewSkannen
January 25, 2017 8:21 pm

The longer they strike the better.

brians356
Reply to  LewSkannen
January 25, 2017 10:05 pm

Who’s going to pay the carbon taxes on their plane flights to DC? Are they planning on being reimbursed by their employers for business trips? Any who work for the government or universities need close scrutiny. Love the resuscitated hockey stick graph on that sign! It proves At a glance that 2016 was actually twice as warm as 1998, not fractionally as we all reckon. Who knew?

brians356
Reply to  brians356
January 25, 2017 10:56 pm

Wait, what? That chalkboard graph shows CO2, not temperature. Yes, the science there is settled, CO2 is up to 400 PPM, uh huh, yep. But the implication that 400 ppm is unprecedented? Not so much.

Phil B
Reply to  brians356
January 25, 2017 11:36 pm

Oh God I hope they’re marching in DC and get hit with a massive blizzard and some of them lose limbs to frost bite. I can’t think of a more perfect final nail in their alarmist coffins than their march being utterly destroyed by the cold.

PaulH
Reply to  brians356
January 26, 2017 5:28 am

I think the question is, who is paying for their plane flights/hotel accommodation/meals, etc? They seem to have an unending source of money for these stunts.

Cube
Reply to  brians356
January 26, 2017 9:47 am

So according to that pic, for the last 400,000 years CO2 was never above 200 ppm?

philohippous
Reply to  brians356
January 26, 2017 9:58 am

The first thing I thought when I saw the photo was “thay lying graph. Whoever drew it really learned how to misuse statistics.” 1950 was the middle of a drop in temperature ~.2 degC, so the real rise ’til today is ~.4 degC. On the Kelvin scale, which thermodynamics operates 0.4deg corresponds to 0.0014%- an insignificant number. We have no way to measure that kind of change on a global basis. It’s particularly insignificant because the climate operates on flows of energy, not temperature differences.

PiperPaul
Reply to  brians356
January 26, 2017 10:33 am

hit with a massive blizzard and some of them lose limbs to frost bite
Jeez, that’s funny!

Reply to  brians356
January 26, 2017 11:17 am

brians356: Who’s going to pay …?
I wonder about this question also. There was a “Spontaneous protest” in several cities in the US last night with lighted signs and posters. “Spontaneous”??? Yeah right. Who organized the “protests”? Who paid for all the signs and travel? Watching the news, it looked like someone had planned these “spontaneous protests” for a considerable length of time.
So, I am sure that certain individuals or groups would be inclined to provide funding for a march by “Climate Scientists”.
It appears that a lot of folks are invested in going after the new administration.
Not a conspiracy theory, just an observation.
The below is old news but it seems to confirm the process.
http://www.infowars.com/blocks-of-anti-trump-protest-buses-caught-on-tape/
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/11/10/trump-protests-intensify-as-doubts-swirl-about-spontaneity.html

Reply to  LewSkannen
January 26, 2017 6:10 am

Next up ? — March For Art, … then March For Energy.
Scientists’ Lives Matter … Artists’ Lives Matter
I’m an artist, by the way, among other things, … definitely NOT a climate … “scientist”.

Pierre Vallieres
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 26, 2017 10:22 am

I am a Professional Artist, I draw unemployment insurance.

Phil R
Reply to  Robert Kernodle
January 26, 2017 7:44 pm

Pierre Vallieres,

I am a Professional Artist, I draw unemployment insurance.

I am a professional comedian. I draw humor from your response. :>)

Stephen Greene
Reply to  LewSkannen
January 26, 2017 9:18 am

This is not science, this is ACTIVISM!

Danny Thomas
January 25, 2017 8:23 pm

Meh. Women scientists have already been there and done that.
““It’s DOCTOR Big Tits to You!”” https://www.theatlantic.com/science/archive/2017/01/the-women-scientists-standing-up-to-trump/514094/

Goldrider
Reply to  Danny Thomas
January 26, 2017 6:17 am

This is nothing more than the “flash-mob” effect due to social media. It’s why we’re suddenly plagued with a “group” for just about everything. Most of them only have pseudo-existence on Facebook or some similar platform. Yelling “Yeah, yeah, yeah!” from your keyboard is a little different than taking time off from work, paying for plane, hotel, and meals, just to make an asshat of yourself in the streets. The way to defeat this nonsense is to IGNORE these mindless, juvenile “protests.”

Dave Fair
Reply to  Goldrider
January 26, 2017 10:57 am

It is no longer “asshat.” It is now “vaghat.”
Thousands of unaware women parading their crudity on international TV. Potential employers, spouses, etc. may not appreciate being associated with someone wearing that on their head.

Shooter
Reply to  Danny Thomas
January 28, 2017 8:46 pm

Those women are going to start ‘sitting down’ when they find themselves out of a job and unemployable :^)

January 25, 2017 8:28 pm

Let them eat cake!

M Seward
Reply to  Bill capron
January 26, 2017 6:40 am

That’s all the bloody do anyway. These so called climate scientists are the brioche scoffing brats of the 21st century.

William
January 25, 2017 8:36 pm

This may explain why someone with a science PhD usually earns less than someone who hits a ball with a stick for a living
Fries with that?

eyesonu
Reply to  William
January 25, 2017 8:48 pm

The value of a “Post hole Digger (PhD)” is greatly devalued if they don’t have enough sense to know how to use it.

Richard Saumarez
Reply to  eyesonu
January 26, 2017 1:27 am

+10

Stephen Greene
Reply to  eyesonu
January 26, 2017 9:22 am

BS – Bull Shit
MS – More Shit
PhD – Piled higher n Deeper

TRM
Reply to  eyesonu
January 26, 2017 10:55 am

I thought it was “Piled Higher & Deeper” ?? As in BSc=Bull Sheep complete; MS = More of Same and finally PHD
🙂

Reply to  eyesonu
January 26, 2017 11:19 am

Hey, maybe that’s the fluidity of language. When I earned by Bachelor’s degree in chemistry, it was bull stuff, more [of] same, then piled higher and deeper.

Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2017 8:39 pm

Well, if they wear white lab coats when they march, that means they must know what they’re talking about…

Not Chicken Little
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2017 8:43 pm

And just why do “climate scientists” need white lab coats? Are they doing “scientific” experiments in a lab utilizing the scientific method? Uh, that’s a rhetorical question…

Ill Tempered Klavier
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2017 9:32 pm

Remember, the lab coat long ago became not just the uniform, but the dress uniform of the scientist. 😉 😉
See C. Northcote Parkinson”s essay about it. 😉 😉

Roger Knights
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 25, 2017 11:55 pm

A lab coat is the empower’s New Clothing.

Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 26, 2017 12:14 am

Just keep letting these idiot leftists, communists, anarchists, racists (in the guise of tolerant, loving, democrats, etc.) social justice warriors, “scientists???”, and all the other a-holes room to hang themselves with their idiocy and hatred for reason, the laws and logic. They keep demonstrating how stupid, divisive, immoral and against freedom and real democracy they stand for.

1saveenergy
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 26, 2017 12:02 am

I thought the guy in the white coat was selling ice-cream

Latitude
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 26, 2017 5:28 am

The question is: what kind of hats are they going to wear

Reply to  Latitude
January 26, 2017 6:16 am

What kind of hats are they going to wear? … That’s easy:comment image

Reply to  Latitude
January 26, 2017 6:25 am

… and just for clarity, from Wikipedia (I think we might trust them for this):
In the late 1940s, science fiction fanzine artist Ray Nelson (himself still in high school) adopted the use of the propeller beanie as emblematic shorthand for science fiction fandom. This was in self-mockery of the popular image of fans as childish and concerned with ephemera (such as science fiction).

MarkW
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 26, 2017 7:19 am

Either that or they are pretending to be doctors.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2017 8:30 am

Great point, Mark W.
At least medical doctors are an honest bunch, they “practice” medicine. These climate clowns are so divorced from reality, it is just mind boggling!

Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2017 11:28 am

The good ones are honest and humble, for sure. Medical doctors are still human and make mistakes. Decisions have to be made in light of major uncertainty and getting it wrong may result in death. Heck, even getting it right may result in death. They are certainly subject to fads, just like the rest of humanity. Most are trained well enough to spot seriously flawed studies, given enough time to do some due diligence work. Their necks are definitely on the legal line here in the US.

MarkW
Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2017 11:45 am

I was thinking about the photo-op the Democrats held in support of ObamaCare while it was still being “debated” in congress. It was advertised as doctors in support of ObamaCare, and the organizers gave lab coats to everyone in attendence, without checking to see who was or wasn’t a doctor.
Lots of congress critters were photographed in lab coats.

starknakedtruth
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 26, 2017 7:48 am

You forgot to mention the fashion accessories with their white jackets–purple gloves and nerdy black glasses!

Gerry, England
Reply to  Not Chicken Little
January 27, 2017 8:51 am

It will make it very difficult to spot them in the blizzard though. I hope the snowblower drivers are careful.

January 25, 2017 8:40 pm

This should be a march of scientists demanding an apology for disseminating lies and defective science… or are we there yet? LETS DO IT!!!
For details on what to chant about, see Paullitely.com and on YouTube, Adapt 2030.

Pop Piasa
January 25, 2017 8:41 pm

Eric, I think you’ve brought up the subject that the garbage collectors are more relevant than the garbage emitters in science.

Janice Moore
January 25, 2017 8:52 pm

The clown parade passing by in the streets below will not change one iota what the adults inside the office buildings will do.
Just another “look at me” pompous display by the not-quite-rational pseudo-science knaves and their wretched dupes.
Pathetic.

Leonard Lane
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 25, 2017 10:28 pm

Janice:
Yes it is “look at me”, irrational climate seance, and more riff-raft littering the streets and parks. With each such nonsense event their impact shrinks.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 25, 2017 11:49 pm

The scientists are revolting!

MarkW
Reply to  HotScot
January 26, 2017 7:20 am

They stink on ice.

PiperPaul
Reply to  HotScot
January 26, 2017 3:12 pm

You were waiting for this, weren’t you?comment image

Max Photon
January 25, 2017 8:52 pm

Wussy Hats?

Reply to  Max Photon
January 25, 2017 11:34 pm

good to see, Max is back!

oeman50
Reply to  Max Photon
January 26, 2017 9:19 am

Love it, Max.

Dave Fair
Reply to  Max Photon
January 26, 2017 11:01 am

Spelled with a P?

January 25, 2017 8:57 pm

“I just can’t believe we’re having to yell, ‘Science is real.’”
Impressive proof yes? lol.

Janice Moore
January 25, 2017 8:58 pm

Lol, the debate is over. The debate never happened to any meaningful degree:
Whether it’s Gavin Schmt or, Al Gore, AGWers run away when challenged to debate.

(youtube)
Climate Clowns for Hire — We do Tricks! 🙂

Chris
Reply to  Janice Moore
January 26, 2017 10:39 am

They are not obligated to debate anyone who challenges them, especially someone who claimed to have cured HIV. Are vaccine scientists obligated to debate those who say that vaccines cause autism? Of course not.

MarkW
Reply to  Chris
January 26, 2017 11:46 am

The fact that they refuse to debate anyone who disagrees with them is quite telling.
The fact that you equate disagreeing about CAGW with the vaccines cause autism group is also quite telling.

ATheoK
Reply to  Chris
January 26, 2017 3:10 pm

After trying to read Willis’s article with all the trolls in full strut; I was wondering what moon phase is tonight”
Why, we’re entering a new moon phase. No wonder.

“Chris January 26, 2017 at 10:39 am
They are not obligated to debate anyone who challenges them”

Alarmist: “Debate is over!”
Other: “What debate?”
Alarmist: “Why the CAGW debate on what caused global warming.”
Other: “That’s odd, I never heard of any CAGW debate. When did that occur?”
Other: “Nor have we heard of any definitive proof(s) proving either catastrophic or human caused global warming.”
Alarmist: “Why there never was a debate! It is a position we’ve taken.”
Alarmist: “Plus, we decided that since everybody should be taxed to fund climate science, we do not need to waste money on simple proof.”
Other: “That is not science. Let us debate this CAGW science”
Alarmist: “Never! Why debating a denier, which is how we decided to demean real scientists, implies we will lower ourselves to that level.”
Other: “Then there never was a debate, so calling the debate over is specious and sophistry.”
No debate, the debate is not over.
That is falsehood promulgated by religious advocates believing in CAGW.
Nearly thirty years have passed.
Without the dreaded global warming actually occurring. i.e. Everywhere in the world should be watching daily records fall by a CAGW caused amount. It is not happening. Incredibly, global warming records only appear to fall when history is adjusted, the temperature record is short or temperature stations are badly located.
That has not happened.
Snow is still with us.
The Arctic still has ice cover.
Greenland is fully frozen.
Antarctica is still frozen.
The deep seas are still very cold.
None of wildlife is endangered by CAGW changing climate.
Rains still falls. (Drought was and often still is claimed to increase)
Storms are not worse or more frequent.
Tornadoes are not more powerful or more frequent.
No populations are migrating because of CAGW.
No deaths can be ascribed directly to CAGW.
CAGW is still a religion, not science. No debate, no science, no proof(s), no evidence, no real CAGW.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Chris
January 28, 2017 1:51 am

“Chris January 26, 2017 at 10:39 am
They are not obligated to debate anyone who challenges them, especially someone who claimed to have cured HIV.”
And then there is the case of people in Africa who seem immune to HIV, prostitutes in fact. The human body is an amazing machine.

January 25, 2017 8:58 pm

That “debate is over” chalkboard is the sort of meme we ought to all agree is antithetical to science.
The reason those folks prefer political demonstrations to scientific debate is that the facts are against them. Scientific evidence indicates anthropogenic global warming is real, modest & benign; anthropogenic CO2 is beneficial; and neither sea-level rise (SLR) nor extreme weather (the main supposed negative consequences of AGW) are accelerating.
Here’s one of the best sea-level measurement records in the world — where there’s been no SLR acceleration in >150 years:
http://www.sealevel.info/120-022_Wismar_2017-01_150yrs.png
The green trace is CO2. It’s up ~40%, yet has not affected SLR.
Here’s an interactive version:
http://tinyurl.com/WismarSL
No high-quality, long-term measurement record of coastal sea-level, anywhere in the world, shows significant SLR acceleration in the last 85 years. That means SLR cannot be substantially driven by anthropogenic CO2.
The same is true for “extreme weather” — no increase coincident with the increase in CO2:
http://policlimate.com/tropical/frequency_12months.png
But the leftists don’t care about real scientific evidence. These folks plan to “march for science” now, when there are signs that real science may actually play a role in policy-making, after eight yrs of Washington DC trampling science under politics’ heel. SMH.

Hivemind
Reply to  daveburton
January 25, 2017 10:24 pm

They’re protesting to prevent real science from having a role in policy-making. By bullying Trump into giving their fake science a free pass.

Reply to  daveburton
January 25, 2017 11:48 pm

Dave B
Should you not stress that this sea water in the ocean basins is analogy for mercury in a glass tube? If the temperature changes, the volume of each fluid changes, instantly and to an amount that can be confidently calculated with physics.
(But OTOH, for the oceans case, there is so little observation of the deeper half of the oceans that murder and mayhem could be quietly happening to change to basin volume at a rate just neat enough to be tricky – like similar to what warming might do.)

philohippous
Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 26, 2017 10:07 am

Uh, Geoff, the oceans aren’t constrained in a sealed tube. They also are the major part of the climate system and hold all the cards except the 2 of spades- energy, mass, volume, heat capacity, mass movement. The last 2% is the atmosphere moving the incident solar effects back out to the top of the atmosphere to keep the temperature balance close to zero.

Reply to  Geoff Sherrington
January 26, 2017 4:17 pm

phillohippous,
Agreed, the analogy is general not specific.
I still stress that so little is known about the deep ocean and its geometry change. We know that new islands appear in shallow oceans. There are like to be other types of geometric change as well.This has the potential to change ‘sea level’ in wauys not yet in the equations.
The assumption that all is well with present models is so anti-science that various climate authors should be ashamed. Just because you cannot measure a known variable conveniently or well, there is no excuse to ignore it and ‘hope’ it will not matter.
So we continue to have the physical science corrupted by wishful thinking ani-science.
Lament the scientif method.
Geoff
p.s Simply, it is like police sending out a description of a wanted person to get public help to find the perp, but failing to mention that perp has only one arm

January 25, 2017 9:01 pm

The spliced graph on the blackboard is fraudulent. But I suppose that won’t be mentioned during the march.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 26, 2017 9:21 am

You’re a chemist, aren’t you Pamela? So why do they have a structure for 2,3,8-trimethylnaphthalene on an AGW-demo chalkboard? And what’s with the aniline and nitrobenzene on the lower left? Exotic heat-enhancers, or what?

Janice Moore
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 26, 2017 10:27 am

Neat comment. And great question for Pamela, Pat! Wish she would respond (it would be a good read, no doubt).
Well (just a non-tech’s take based on secondary characteristics), aniline smells like rotten fish…. nitrobenzene is a precursor to aniline (so, more rotten fish on the way)….
Conclusion: there’s a stealth science realist among the rank ranks of Rotten Science (with a sense of humor).
#(:))

Reply to  Pat Frank
January 26, 2017 11:34 am

I couldn’t really see if you’re correct about the diagrammed chemicals, unless, wait…. I can see something potentially destructive being made using those three chemicals Pat mentions …. ugh.

Pat Frank
Reply to  Pat Frank
January 26, 2017 4:07 pm

cdq, the naphthalene is just down to the right of “Scientists Agree!!!!” And the other two molecules are just under the low point of the first glacial period.
Good observations, Janice. 🙂 Aniline is also pretty toxic, and nitrobenzene smells awful. Toxic and stinky — that pretty much describes the bequest of AGW, doesn’t it. 🙂

SAMURAI
January 25, 2017 9:09 pm

“If sanitary workers go on strike, within days the cities are a stinking rat infested nightmare. If doctors go on strike, sick people die. If farmers go on strike, people starve. If police go on strike, law and order breaks down.”
Perhaps businessmen should go on strike so the world can test Obama’s premise that, “You didn’t build that”….
“Who is John Galt?”

Leonard Lane
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 25, 2017 10:31 pm

I must admit that I would miss my garbage man much more than my mayor

Reply to  Leonard Lane
January 25, 2017 10:41 pm

+1 That’s going into my “quotes & aphorisms” file.

NW sage
Reply to  Leonard Lane
January 26, 2017 5:44 pm

And I tip my garbage man more than I tip my mayor too!

TykeClone
Reply to  SAMURAI
January 26, 2017 7:04 am

“Perhaps businessmen should go on strike so the world can test Obama’s premise that, “You didn’t build that”….”
They did. That is why the economy has not recovered at anywhere near the rate of a normal postwar recovery, and why the markets have taken off after the election

Michael Sexton
January 25, 2017 9:14 pm

The sign says the debate is over.
Was that on tv, cause I missed it.

chaamjamal
January 25, 2017 9:18 pm

i have a new climate research funding plan
for every dollar funding a climate alarmism there must be a dollar of funding for climate denialism..
it might not take too long for half of the marchers to switch sides.

Jeff L
January 25, 2017 9:22 pm

It would appear these marchers do not know the difference between scientific method / scientific thought process and political methods / political processes. Good science doesn’t need a march to gain support but a political movement just might.

Reply to  Jeff L
January 26, 2017 6:03 am

My favorite comment. Ever.

Reply to  Jeff L
January 26, 2017 11:34 am

I always thought that when your hypothesis was disproven or not provable that the next step was to go back and modify the hypothesis until it explained the experimental data. The new next step is apparently to march on Washington with a cool looking chalkboard. Now I know why they’re called ‘progressives’. Wait, progressives does mean insufferable whiners, right?

drednicolson
Reply to  chilemike
January 26, 2017 3:19 pm

I think it means “sore winners, sorer losers”. 🙂

J Mac
January 25, 2017 9:23 pm

Political theater, pretending to be science….

MarkW
Reply to  J Mac
January 26, 2017 7:23 am

On Willis’s post we have a couple of posers whining about how this site has been politicizing science.

RBom
January 25, 2017 9:42 pm

Can’t wait to see:
John Holdren with a large sub-group at the White House Gate where he will make a REALLY BIG speech in front of MSM WaPo and NYT to denounce the President, The Cabinet, The Government and The Country, and throw his WH security badge over the Gate (Persona Non Gratis, boo hoo).
Then, the OLD GIRL’S CLUB of AGU, AMS, APS, AAAS and NAS “CEO’s” will hoist their bras and tampons into a central pile, Al Gore will place a paper mannequin of Trump on the pile, Mikey Mann then douses the mannequin and bra/tampon pile with kerosene and Jimmy Hansen lights it up with a Bic singing “Amazing Grace” and everyone joins in.
What a spectacle of Phantasmagoria by the AGW astrologers.
Popcorn a popping. Ha ha

drednicolson
Reply to  RBom
January 26, 2017 5:54 am

Then somebody asks why they used kerosene on their bonfire when they’re supposed to be against the burning of fossil fuels, resulting in a very awkward pause.

MarkW
Reply to  drednicolson
January 26, 2017 7:25 am

If you watch them, it becomes obvious that they are only opposed to other people using fossil fuels.
Just like socialists are only opposed to other people becoming wealthy.

January 25, 2017 10:05 pm

We should all go there and challenge them to re-open the debate they so emphatically and defensively claim is over and convince us and the public (that they no doubt expect to be in attendance at their pointless march in large numbers); why and how their so called ‘science’ proves it’s over…
Challenge them with something simple, i.e. You will of course take this ideal opportunity to present to us all here: the indisputable facts supported by empirical evidence, proving indeed: THE “DEBATE” IS OVER!

January 25, 2017 10:21 pm

Some sciences are of great value and others are not. See http://www.evolutionnews.org/2016/06/theres_no_grand102935.html
By marching, these people expose themselves to the risk that more citizens will come to realize that their branches of science are of negligible value, and that their fields are more driven by politics than reality.

Johnny Terawatt
January 25, 2017 10:37 pm

Can I knit some snowflake hats for them?

Streetcred
Reply to  Johnny Terawatt
January 25, 2017 11:58 pm

Beaver hats, Johnny!

January 25, 2017 10:49 pm

Has the April Fool’s Day arrived to Washing DC already?

Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
January 25, 2017 10:51 pm

Apologies for the typo. Washington DC. The ex-capital of planet GIGO.

MarkW
Reply to  jaakkokateenkorva
January 26, 2017 7:25 am

On the other hand, it does need a good cleaning after 8 years of Obama.

Terry
January 25, 2017 11:01 pm

Gotta love the White Lab Coat. He must be a scientist who knows what he is talking about.

David Cage
Reply to  Terry
January 25, 2017 11:11 pm

Does anyone remember the lovely politically incorrect song about the nice young men in their little white coats are coming to take me away?

Reply to  David Cage
January 25, 2017 11:58 pm

HoHo..HeHe…HaHa.
Scaffold. Paul McArtney’s brother if memory serves me.

Angus Harris
Reply to  David Cage
January 26, 2017 2:48 am

‘They’re coming to take me away’ by Napoleon XIV.

AndyG55
Reply to  Terry
January 26, 2017 2:16 am

Lab coats are for REAL scientists usually doing REAL chemistry, to protect their day clothes.
I doubt that even one single “climate scientist™” has EVER done any chemistry.
You DO NOT need a lab coat when sitting in front of a computer. !!!

Pat Frank
Reply to  AndyG55
January 26, 2017 9:28 am

My jeans always had lab-work holes in them. 🙂

Reply to  AndyG55
January 26, 2017 11:41 am

Same with medical doctors, who need to keep blood and other body fluid contamination of their regular clothes minimized, though there are the paper gowns that are preferred these days.

Chris Hanley
January 25, 2017 11:05 pm

If the debate is over, the facts in and the evidence clear, their job is done their role no longer necessary, I wouldn’t be shouting about it if I were them.

January 25, 2017 11:06 pm

About 35 hours from now the annual March For Life will take place. Every year it is one of the largest demonstrations in Washington, DC, but the press largely ignores it, even though they’ll undoubtedly lavish attention on the leftist demonstration for politicized science.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/leahbarkoukis/2017/01/25/shocker-networks-give-129-times-more-coverage-to-womens-march-than-march-for-life-n2276803
https://www.google.com/search?q=march+for+life+washington+dc+-dublin&tbm=isch
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2013/03/30/article-2301374-18C9D470000005DC-155_634x324.jpg

Reply to  daveburton
January 30, 2017 3:40 am

This year was the first time I attended the March for Life in DC. That photo (from a previous year) doesn’t begin to capture the scale of the thing. It was mammoth.
I snapped quite a few pictures, but the “crowd shots” weren’t my favorites. This was my favorite:
http://www.sealevel.info/IMG_20170127_132932_tightly_cropped.jpg

David Cage
January 25, 2017 11:10 pm

I think it would be better if Trump met the scientists and told them that if the science is beyond question then they will not mind say half the previous spend on climate science going to research into the quality of climate science. If this does not turn up any evidence of questionable data or predictions of normal climate then he will accept it as proven and transfer the money to engineering departments for research into renewable energy that provides power when needed.

Reply to  David Cage
January 26, 2017 6:14 am

Ask research folks to do that? The fox guarding the hen house? No. I suggest just ending funding for it.

philohippous
Reply to  David Cage
January 26, 2017 10:13 am

I’d suggest that he simply say Federally funded climate science will be limited to the basic physic involved. Any other monies will go directly to research into dispatchable, renewable energy(nuclear). Nuclear power including some breeder reactors to produce fuel could become a massive energy resource.

David Cage
January 25, 2017 11:16 pm

For a start no matter how high the qualification the claim the science is beyond question excludes them from claiming to be a scientist. Science requires theory to match observation without “adjustments” that in engineering are called fiddle factors.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  David Cage
January 26, 2017 8:07 am

Or SWAG.
But in their case, the “S” is truly missing ……

Alex
January 25, 2017 11:43 pm

People that ‘discuss’ stuff on redit have rather over-inflated egos. The ones that discuss climate science ( I use the term loosely) are the most rabid of them all. They think the world is going to end yesterday. Apparently, we all live in a post-apocalyptic world where we have to fight climate zombies to survive.
I do go on Redit sometimes, particularly when I’m really, really bored and my bladder isn’t full enough to go to the toilet.
The cat pictures are cool.

Streetcred
January 25, 2017 11:57 pm

I’m fascinated why “scientists” think a white coat identifies them … most of them have never seen the inside of a true laboratory where white coats are mandatory for protectings one clothes. I’d more clearly label these posers as lab rats … part of a Soros social experiment.

Alex
Reply to  Streetcred
January 26, 2017 12:04 am

How can you be pretentious without a white labcoat?

drednicolson
Reply to  Streetcred
January 26, 2017 3:30 pm

The white collar and cassock had already been done, so the self-ordained clergy of the CAGW faith chose the white lab coat for their vestment.

Roger Knights
January 26, 2017 12:02 am

The march and the sign will give networks an opportunity to invite the protestors to a debate series with climate contrarians.

Alex
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 26, 2017 12:10 am

The opportunity has always been there for networks. They just didn’t take it. Their audience has the attention span of chimpanzees. After a 30 second debate, it will be finished off with ‘There you have it folks, full story at 9.

Roger Knights
Reply to  Alex
January 26, 2017 7:10 am

Until now, if a network had sponsored a debate, it would have been slammed for “giving d*ni*rs a platform.” Now, with the sign’s claim that “the debate is over,” a network is more “covered” in making such an invitation. In addition, the debatability of the CAGW hypothesis is now “on the table,” given Trump’s actions.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Roger Knights
January 26, 2017 7:57 am

That will never happen. A fellow “denier” who gave a presentation a while ago was asked if, given the opportunity, he would debate climate change with David Suzuki (Canadian).
His response was excellent: “I would love to, but I am 100% certain that Mr. Suzuki would never attend.”

Green Sand
January 26, 2017 12:08 am

What are they hoping to achieve? Prove a scientific hypothesis by ‘marching’ in Washington, DC? Well I suppose if the scientific method comes up with a blank, then what is left for a committed earner?

Alex
Reply to  Green Sand
January 26, 2017 12:13 am

‘Look at me, look at me, I’m on TV’

ToddF
January 26, 2017 12:12 am

I saw no scientists at that website. I did see a website with “Political” Science written all over it, though.

commieBob
January 26, 2017 12:33 am

I’m not saying science, even pure science, has no value. When scientists produce a breakthrough, it can be world changing. Scientific research, especially research with commercial applications, is vitally important to maintaining economic growth.

Most people don’t get that. According to the Malthusians and the Club of Rome, we should have run out of a couple of strategic materials by now and society should have collapsed back to the stone age. Why didn’t it happen?
We haven’t run out of any strategic materials because we keep developing technology. If a material becomes too expensive, we find a way to use less, or we find more of that material, or we find a way to use a different material. That process relies on the development of science and technology. We have a tiger by the tail because, if that process stops, we are in big trouble. link
By subverting science, the warmists are actually putting our survival at risk. They have a lot to answer for.

AndyG55
January 26, 2017 1:15 am

Love those saw-tooth graphs, they absolutely DESTROY the CO2 warming anti-science.
They show that at its maximum, CO2 CANNOT maintain maximum temperature.
In fact, at CO2 maximums, the temperature actually declines.
End of Game..
End of FARCE !!

Graemethecat
Reply to  AndyG55
January 26, 2017 2:18 am

..and not forgetting the 800-year lag between rising global temperatures and higher atmospheric CO2 concentration. Higher temperatures cause increased atmospheric CO2, not the other way round. How do proponents of CAGW explain that away?

Patrick MJD
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 26, 2017 2:34 am

“Graemethecat January 26, 2017 at 2:18 am
How do proponents of CAGW explain that away?”
By sticking their fingers in their ears, closing their eyes and minds and chanting “blah blah blah but the models say…blah blah blah”! Settled science!

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 26, 2017 7:53 am

Proponents of CAGW are the followers of a cult religion.
Think heaven’s Gate.
Think the late David Coresh at Ranch Apocalypse.
This cult religion is finally being exposed for what it truly is. Praise the Lord!!!

MarkW
Reply to  Graemethecat
January 26, 2017 8:00 am

They explain it away by declaring that while something else may have started the warming and that caused CO2 to be released from the oceans, at that point the unknown something faded away and CO2 took over.
How do they know this? Because the models have proven that CO2 control temperature.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  AndyG55
January 26, 2017 7:55 am

A “greenhouse gas”, it is not!
CO2 is plant food – take six CO2, add six water, add sunlight and presto, you have sugar and six O2. That is the scientific truth surrounding CO!

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Darrell Demick
January 26, 2017 8:35 am

Arrrrgh!!! Last one should be CO2. Sorry about my bad typing skills ….

POQ
January 26, 2017 1:35 am

Let’s be blunt. Some folk are just stupid. Some of them are “scientists” who never learned what science is about and never read Aldous Huxley.
On to the wankathon.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  POQ
January 26, 2017 7:51 am

Yup POQ, and I can fix a lot of things, but I cannot fix stupid.
Hopefully the march turns into a “lemming relate” affair ……

ironargonaut
January 26, 2017 1:57 am

Ouch, but true.

Patrick MJD
January 26, 2017 2:09 am

Notice how the word debate is in ” “? Meaning there was no debate and no debate was ever desired. The politics is in. The politics are clear.

knr
January 26, 2017 2:17 am

Can you blame them , AGW has been the means by which third rate ‘scientists’ have gained first rate lifestyles, with many of them otherwise basically unemployable . And who would want to see their area of science filled with people with such poor academic practice and such massive over inflated ego’s if for no other reason that they have enough of the latter already .
All in or get out , that is there options.

George Lawson
January 26, 2017 2:21 am

” Caroline Weinberg, a medical researcher who is helping organize the march,”
No one told me that the President was curtailing medical research!

Martin Mason
January 26, 2017 2:25 am

Just for info it was Napoleon XIV that was coming to take him away. 🙂

willhaas
January 26, 2017 2:29 am

The 97% is meaningless because science is not a democracy but is is also not factual since scientists never registered and voted on the AGW conjecture. Despite the hype there is no real evidence that CO2 has any effect on climate. Yes, Mankind has caused an increase in the amount of CO2 in our atmosphere but has no effect on climate. There is plenty of scientific reasoning to support the idea that the climate sensivity of CO2 is really zero. The AGW conjecture depends upon the existance of a radiant greenhouse effect caused by the LWIR absorption properties of so called greenhouse gases. The reality is that such a radiant greenhouse effect does not exist in a greenhouse, anywhere on Earth, on Venus, or anywhere in the solar system. Because a radiant greenhouse effect does not exist the AGW conjecture is science fiction. The blackboard represents a collection of misconceptions.

hunter
January 26, 2017 2:30 am

Most of the people marching will be pretend scientists. President Trump should dismiss them by ignoring them. Hit first. Hit hard. Hit often.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  hunter
January 26, 2017 7:47 am

Based on the quintillion bytes of video data that will be available post-march, employ the best facial recognition software and order a great big batch of pink slips ……

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Darrell Demick
January 26, 2017 7:49 am

Of course the database size referenced in the previous post is a SWAG. Better scientific input than these supposed climate “scientists”, mind you.

High Treason
January 26, 2017 2:42 am

The crooked climate scientists who pump out junk science for $$$ will do anything to avoid the truth being revealed. Look forward to more desperation measures to maintain the lie. Look forward to more and more rallies to try to overturn Trump and his march to expose the lies.

January 26, 2017 3:16 am

Notice the white lab jackets – that shows THESE GUYS ARE REAL SCIENTISTS.

Resourceguy
Reply to  arthur4563
January 26, 2017 10:25 am

If there are activist volunteers or actors, then they need extra extra long sleeves.

CheshireRed
January 26, 2017 3:28 am

These are the same guys who’ve spent at least a decade closing down free speech on the very subject they want to march about in order to retain free speech. Let them; the debate suddenly becomes live again and then, well, we all know the outcome when well-informed sceptics go up against alarmists. We win every single time. So yeah, bring it on.

January 26, 2017 3:45 am

. The proposed protest march being planned for Washington could well take place in some really nastly cold weather. With luck it could tirn into something like Napoleon’s retreat from Moscow,. Hopefully they will be dressed in Lab Coats and silly Pink Caps. A good cull of these ‘Scientists’ could well be the shot in the arm that real Science needs..

Dave Fair
Reply to  ntesdorf
January 26, 2017 11:18 am

When I was in the U.S. Army, we called our equivalent of the Pink Caps C-Caps. Just sayin’.

tony mcleod
January 26, 2017 4:07 am

If sanitary workers go on strike the effect is immediate and brutal, but climate scientists could walk off the job for a decade, and the only consequence to ordinary people would be a slightly smaller tax bill.
But opinionated bloggers, we definitely could do with a few more of them.

gnomish
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 26, 2017 4:58 am

and paid commenters. they are the baptist/bootlegger combo of the 21st century!
and of course, the CEO of Click a Claque is rakin it in.
click bait catches fish!

MarkW
Reply to  tony mcleod
January 26, 2017 8:03 am

If you don’t like it, you are free to leave.

ClimateOtter
Reply to  MarkW
January 26, 2017 12:10 pm

Mark, except for his last sentence, tony was almost on target. I think the tax bill will be even smaller than he thinks.

Thomho
January 26, 2017 4:11 am

I noticed top of their chart said “The Debate is over”
Really they need to careful of slogans like that
The incoming CEO of Australia’s CSIRO
our premier Aust Govt owned and funded
Research Institute picked up on our scientists claim that the “Science is Settled”
Right he said in that case you wont be
needing to do any more climate research
thus freeing up positions and funds for
other more useful research
You possibly heard the screaming from America by our outraged climate scientists who had not quite been expecting to be taken literally
when they claimed “the science is settled”

Graham
January 26, 2017 4:13 am

“If sanitary workers go on strike…”
They are. They’re not fit to be called scientists when you consider what they peddle.

jazznick1
January 26, 2017 4:21 am

Put down the popcorn – pick up the rotten fruit – fire at will !!!!

Reasonable Skeptic
January 26, 2017 4:54 am

If the debate is over, why do they keep asking for more money?

Gary
January 26, 2017 5:44 am

“What a field day for the heat
A thousand people in the street
Singing songs and carrying signs
Mostly saying, “hooray for our side”
– Buffalo Springfield

Mumbles McGuirck
January 26, 2017 5:55 am

From the March for Science website:
“Who can participate:
Anyone who values empirical science. That’s it. That’s the only requirement.”
So it won’t just be scientists (or especially climate scientists) marching. That would be far too small a number. It’ll be a hodge-podge of outraged leftists of any (or no) occupations. But they will all be wearing white lab coats, so anyone looking on will assume….
Also the site says:
“Diversity
We will both have a diversity committee and a diverse steering committee that represents people of
many backgrounds and identities.”
Later on they claim to be non-partisan. But it’s obvious that the usual leftist politics (gender identity and ethnic bean counting) are driving much of their decisions. Let’s face it. If this were truly a group of practicing scientists, the crowd would be overwhelming old, white men.
I’m a scientist. Can I participate if I hold up a sign that says “Science is NEVER settled”? and refuse to wear a white lab coat because I don’t wear one at work?

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mumbles McGuirck
January 26, 2017 4:02 pm

Wear a pink one and you’re in!

Dave Fair
Reply to  Gunga Din
January 26, 2017 5:03 pm

Would you call it a lab-ia?

DrSandman
January 26, 2017 5:57 am

The damage these clowns will do to ALL science (by politicizing one tiny cult of pseudoscience) will be immeasurable. The typical Low-Information-Voter will believe even more firmly that ANY science is open to debate, and not subject to rigorous scientific examination.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  DrSandman
January 26, 2017 7:45 am

DrS, I daresay “the damage these clowns HAVE DONE ….”
+1 by the way
: )

Alba
January 26, 2017 6:00 am

The article in Climate Central states:
“Last weekend, a massive milieu of women in pink hats descended on Washington, D.C. for the Women’s March. The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats (and likely a few pink hats as well).”
This is either an enormously misinformed statement or a deliberate misstatement of the facts.
The so-called Women’s March (that some women weren’t allowed to join) was held on 21st January. There does not yet seem to be a date yet for the march by some scientists. However, there is a march in Washington planned to take place on 27th January. This is an annual march which has been taken place since 1973, hardly something new which people are unlikely to be aware of. The Women’s March in Washington claims to have been attended by half a million people. This annual march was attended by 650,000 in 2013. But this annual march is one which the liberal elites do not approve of so it gets very little coverage in the media, despite the huge numbers of people involved.
“Specifically, during their morning and evening news shows, ABC, CBS, and NBC spent at least 1 hour, 15 minutes, and 18 seconds on the Women’s March. In comparison, they spent only 35 seconds total covering the 2016 March for Life.”
(http://dailysignal.com/2017/01/25/womens-march-got-way-more-media-coverage-than-2016-march-for-life-this-coalition-wants-to-change-that/)
Yes, this march planned to take place on 27th January is the annual March for Life, a march in aid of the millions of babies who are not allowed to be born.

TA
Reply to  Alba
January 26, 2017 1:55 pm

“The next big protest being planned for the nation’s capital could involve a sea of lab coats”
I’m wondering just how many people would show up at such a thing. What are the alarmists going to do if they get a low turnout? They need to get Soros involved to gin up the numbers by sending some of his employees to the protests.

Gunga Din
Reply to  TA
January 26, 2017 4:00 pm

Low turnout?
Site the cameras very carefully.

January 26, 2017 6:18 am

Hmmm. The facts are in? About the climate? Then we should be reading all kinds of facts about how the climate itself works. Oh. You say we don’t have all the facts on that topic? Then erase the f-in chalkboard!

Gunga Din
Reply to  Pamela Gray
January 26, 2017 3:58 pm

Not till after the picture is taken.
(That will make the rental cost of the lab coats seem worth it.)

Frank K.
January 26, 2017 6:20 am

There’s a new Twitter account designed to make it easier to identify areas for budget cuts at the NASA:
https://twitter.com/RogueNASA
(Please support my idea for moving the NASA GISS office from NYC to Minot, North Dakota!) \sarc

Resourceguy
January 26, 2017 6:25 am

Invest in DC food carts. It’s the next big thing. It’s like selling hardware and supplies to the gold rush miners instead of prospecting, digging, and fighting.

Nigel S
January 26, 2017 7:01 am

‘If doctors go on strike, sick people die.’ There’s quite a lot of evidence that death rates go down, at least for a while. Here’s one result, plenty more online …
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1127364/
A bit more pedantry …
‘a massive milieu of women in pink hats’
‘Milieu’ doesn’t mean what they think it means. It means ‘the people, physical, and social conditions and events that provide the environment in which someone acts or lives’
A similar mistake to the one Gordon Brown made when boring on about his ‘moral compass’.
Hebrews 12:1
Wherefore seeing we also are compassed about with so great a cloud of witnesses, let us lay aside every weight, and the sin which doth so easily beset us, and run with patience the race that is set before us, …

Ktm
January 26, 2017 7:38 am

I spent 20 years in academic research, and I’m sickened by how political academic scientists are. I’m conservative, and quickly learned to keep my head down. I still remember from years ago when republicans would highlight questionable research as wasteful spending. Rather than accept that some research sounds pointless and use it as an opportunity to explain/educate people on why the research is valuable, they went the other direction. They said congress has no right to question research spending, and questioning it is an attack on all science. What a crock.
No, it’s not an attack on all science, it’s an attack on science that sounds pointless and wasteful. Among my non scientist friends there is a common perception that science spending is wasteful. It doesn’t help science to then rebuff all attempts at oversight or scrutiny. Academic science is a closed system that entirely depends on non scientists to fund it.
This march is more of the same from the ultra liberal academic establishment. They are purely driven by self interest, and have no concern for the well being of the country. A prime example is how so many of them will take US taxpayer grants, and then use the money to train and educate foreigners instead of qualified American applicants who are passed over. This is solely done to advance their own careers.

Uncle Gus
Reply to  Ktm
January 26, 2017 11:05 am

I remember when I was at Uni we had a talk by a guy who ran a really great treatment centre for mentally disabled kids. All through the talk something was bothering me, so at the end I put up my hand and asked the question. “How much does this cost?”
I got shouted down.
Bear in mind I’m not and was not a conservative. Quite the reverse. I just wanted to know the chances that those ground-breaking techniques could be could be rolled out to every child who needed them. But any hint of realistic economic thought in that milieu wasn’t just unacceptable – it was *shocking*!
This was forty years ago, but groupthink doesn’t change.

Darrell Demick
January 26, 2017 7:43 am

A boondoggle of stupidity.
All over a trace molecule in our atmosphere, and this trace molecule is plant food and should be 3 to 5 times the current atmospheric concentration.
Yup, gravy train is derailed, these supposed intellectuals will have to start looking for real work now. Personally I wouldn’t want them to serve me French fries, given how they have so totally missed the target on apocalyptic global warming.

David
January 26, 2017 8:21 am

I’m wondering what they will be wearing on their heads.

Resourceguy
Reply to  David
January 26, 2017 10:01 am

+10

Bruce Cobb
January 26, 2017 9:14 am

“Who can participate:
Anyone who values empirical science. That’s it. That’s the only requirement.”
Further requirements: No ethical qualms about flat-out lying for a Cause, and a willingness to Believe in fairy tales masquerading as “science”.

Ray in SC
January 26, 2017 9:40 am

The mushroom cloud is a nice touch.

Resourceguy
January 26, 2017 10:19 am

When do the plants and plankton get to march? And I don’t mean plant eaters like vegans.

Darrell Demick
Reply to  Resourceguy
January 26, 2017 10:40 am

Agree 100% (blows the 97% number out of the water). A rough calculation is that plants are “breathing” at an equivalent elevation of 20,000 feet above sea level, with the current atmospheric CO2 concentration. I am assuming a mere doubling of CO2 is sufficient – Dr. Patrick Moore recommends five times current atmospheric concentrations.
http://www.engineeringtoolbox.com/air-altitude-pressure-d_462.html
If they did get to march, it would be very well deserved.

Reply to  Janice Moore
January 26, 2017 11:25 am

Janice,
The first photo should have been accompanied by the sentence, This is your brain on climate science., while the second photo should have been accompanied by the sentence, This is your brain on science. … followed by, Any questions ?

Joel Snider
January 26, 2017 12:18 pm

Ah, yes. The ‘temper-tantrum’ approach to getting one’s own way. Sort of a pre-school version of terrorism.
Best addressed with corporal punishment, IMHO.

drednicolson
Reply to  Joel Snider
January 26, 2017 3:49 pm

I’ll get the paddle, you get the stool.
For anyone who complains, we upgrade to a belt. Especially egregious cases may require a switch.

rw
January 26, 2017 1:05 pm

Is this a demonstration of prissy power?

January 26, 2017 2:20 pm

When I hear people claiming to speak for science, I think of this quote:

Only kings, presidents, editors, and people with tapeworms have the right to use the editorial ‘we.’
Mark Twain

Editor
January 26, 2017 2:23 pm

Dwight Eisenhower’s other warning
In his farewell speech as President, he gave his famous warning about “the military industrial complex” in January 1961. He also gave another warning, which has been ignored for too long…

Yet, in holding scientific research and discovery in respect, as we should, we must also be alert to the equal and opposite danger that public policy could itself become the captive of a scientific, technological elite.

The warning comes at 10 minutes 30 seconds into the Youtube clip. I believe I have it cued up properly to start there…

co2islife
Reply to  Walter Dnes
January 26, 2017 3:46 pm

That exact clip was used in the documentary “The Changing Climate of Global Warming.” It should be cued up correctly. Here it is, with text so you can better understand what is said.
https://youtu.be/QowL2BiGK7o?t=1h2m7s

ATheoK
January 26, 2017 3:22 pm

Sounds like there is going to be another “paid for by activist billionaires” fake political march on Washington DC.
Reading through the list of “Soros supported” groups who marched on Washington DC during the recently past badly defined women’s march included 350.org.
It wouldn’t surprise me that 350.org will be included again along with the likes of Oreskes.
It will not be a March of scientists, it will be a march of costumed fools.
Wait, I think I have some lab coats stashed away. I wonder how much people will pay for them?
And I could paint a thermal ink message on the back; “Just looks sciency, Trick or Treat!”

co2islife
January 26, 2017 3:43 pm

The last thing I would do if I were a scientist would be to allow myself to be associated with the Global Warming/Climate Change political movements. Nothing has done more to destroy the credibility of science more than Climate Change. Here is just a short list of just how wrong this “science” truly is.
Climate “Science” on Trial; The Smoking Gun Files
https://co2islife.wordpress.com/2017/01/17/climate-science-on-trial-the-smoking-gun-files/

Gunga Din
January 26, 2017 3:53 pm

From their website:

Who can participate:
Anyone who values empirical science. That’s it. That’s the only requirement.
Diversity
We will both have a diversity committee and a diverse steering committee that represents people of
many backgrounds and identities.

So this will be billed in the MSM as “Scientists” marching but 97% of them will be members of The Union of Concerned Scientist? With at least one of them on a leash? 😎
PS How many of “The (less than a) Million Mom March” a decade or so ago were actually “moms”?

Mr Bliss
January 26, 2017 5:42 pm

‘If climate scientists go on strike – the food still arrives, laws are enforced, sick people still receive medical treatment, and the garbage still gets collected.’
But the data? Who will ‘correct’ the data?

Paul Westhaver
January 26, 2017 8:30 pm

The a-h0les are marching for their own sake. (if indeed they do march)
Their gravy train just stopped so they have no option. What else are they going to do?
There are about to be 97% unemployed global warming scientists.
Empty bellies are quite the motivator.

Johann Wundersamer
January 27, 2017 1:28 am

Never heard of Charles Goodyear going to strike for science.

RAC
January 27, 2017 1:03 pm

Non too subtle subliminal implant there, chalkboard in nice oldy worldy varnished wood frame, oooh that just oozes good old fashioned education. And of course every scientartist sweating over his computer, computating the latest scatter of chicken bones needs his symbolic white coat plus scientists big beard double plus nerdy glasses……….well that’s convinced me, will only burn pure natural coal and oil in future……..That’s the answer he wanted……..right?

pkatt
January 27, 2017 4:31 pm

Well it occurs to me that anyone who wants to march really doesn’t need grant money.. just sayin.

Russell Johnson
January 27, 2017 5:39 pm

Why would anyone notice, why would anyone care? Good news travels fast; government grants for promoting this hoax have been terminated. You are officially unemployed, now march!!!!!!

%d bloggers like this: