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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
Put down the popcorn – pick up the rotten fruit – fire at will !!!!
If the debate is over, why do they keep asking for more money?
“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
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?
Wear a pink one and you’re in!
Would you call it a lab-ia?
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.
DrS, I daresay “the damage these clowns HAVE DONE ….”
+1 by the way
: )
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.
“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.
Low turnout?
Site the cameras very carefully.
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!
Not till after the picture is taken.
(That will make the rental cost of the lab coats seem worth it.)
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
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.
‘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, …
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.
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.
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.
I’m wondering what they will be wearing on their heads.
+10
“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”.
The mushroom cloud is a nice touch.
When do the plants and plankton get to march? And I don’t mean plant eaters like vegans.
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.
“Scientists”
http://urbancrazy.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/02/2.-The-men-in-white-coats-arrive.jpg
Scientists
http://image.al.com/home/bama-media/width960/img/alphotos/photo/2015/03/18/-d31d862f34f9cf64.JPG
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 ?
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.
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.
Is this a demonstration of prissy power?
When I hear people claiming to speak for science, I think of this quote:
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…
The warning comes at 10 minutes 30 seconds into the Youtube clip. I believe I have it cued up properly to start there…
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
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!”
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/
From their website:
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”?
‘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?