The “March for Science”–No Laughing Matter? Says Who?

Some cheesy jokes about this Saturday’s March


By Sam Kazman

Back in February, Yale Computer Science Professor David Gelernter, who may become the next White House science advisor, had this to say about the upcoming March for Science and its organizers: “It’s like this is some sort of Looney Tunes thing. I must be trapped in an alternate reality. They couldn’t possibly be serious.”

But with science marches now scheduled in many cities for this Saturday, timed to coincide with Earth Day, the organizers obviously are serious. Too serious, in our view. Using street protests to handle scientific controversies like climate change is only a few steps above using animal sacrifice.

At times like this, we need some perspective. And we need some cheesy science march jokes.

1. Why did the marcher walk straight into a tree even though he clearly saw it?
Because he refused to let an empirical observation get in his way.
2. Why did hundreds of marchers kiss the feet of one woman?
Because she was a model.
3. Why were so many of the marchers in tears?
Because they were far too sensitive.
4. Why did several hundred science marchers bump into each other at a red light?
Because they refused to recognize that the march had paused.
5. What percentage of the marchers had kale for lunch?
97%.
6. What did the Mexican food vendor say when the marchers complained about his salsa?
“I don’t change my recipes; the salsa is settled.”

Advertisements

291 thoughts on “The “March for Science”–No Laughing Matter? Says Who?

  1. The irony is SO THICK! the way they go on and on about how they are on the side of science, and you know it is all leftist politics that motivates them, this Saturday will be great, to see the hypocrites march again.

    • How many Bill Nye’s does it take to discredit a march?
      “Just the one.”
      “How many you got?”
      “It was once creditable?”

      Ok, that was weak…I’ll wait until I find some comedy gold next time.

    • As someone from the east side of the pond, this one doesn’t really work with an ‘English’ pronunciation. It needs to be spoken with a ‘full american’ accent to work.

    • I like the quote: “Everybody wants to save the world, but nobody wants to help mom with the dishes.”

      These people are not going to save the world, they’re not even smart enough to save themselves. They ought to go home and do the dishes.

      • Peter Gleick died and went to the Pearly Gates to see if he would be admitted into Heaven. St. Peter looked at him with a harsh glare. MY NAME IS PETER, TOO! Your lying and cheating reflect badly on all of us. What do you have to say for yourself? Do you really think you’re worthy of walking through those gates?

        Peter Gleick said, I have always considered myself to have the utmost integrity, sir. I was saving the planet. If being zealous in a noble cause is a sin, then I suppose I’m guilty.

        St. Peter pointed to the top of a giant slide and said, down you go. And as Gleick was gaining speed at the top of the long fall, he heard St. Peter say “you can put all your skills to work where you’re going. AND I agree to revisit your application if you can manage to cool Hell down to 40 C degrees, in say, 200 years.”

      • Peter Gleick met with William Connelly and said, jeez, Bill, the critics really nail me to the wall on Wikipedia, every couple of days. Can you create one of your famous sock puppets and put some of your magical Wiki editing skills to work to keep my page clean? Sure, said Bill, you want me to pull a Stoat to effect a Gleick.

      • Peter Gleick agreed to be part of a Lewandowsky polling experiment designed to prove that climate deniers were hateful bigots. John Cookie ran the IT for the poll, and Dana Nutella ran the primary analysis. The final result? 97% of deniers were found to be hateful bigots. Oh, wait, this needs /sarc or something, so people know it’s NOT a real Lewandowsky experiment.

  2. Why did the science march end up going on on a totally different route than the one they planned?
    That was only a projection.

    • Why are the Science Marsh Mellows marching behind each other in the middle of the street? Because this is the mean of the Chimp5 models. And why do they miss their goal anyway? Because they do not keep the 2 degree goal and always march towards 12 o’clock.

  3. Why didn’t the science marchers release the details of the march to skeptics?
    Because you’re just going to try find problems with them.

  4. Why did the science marchers walk backward through Tiljander?
    Advanced statistical techniques reveal this is the correct marching form.

    • I frequently note that people are always “throwing chickens to the crocodile” in the hopes the chickens will appease it. They never believe the animal will tire of the small morsels and go for something much larger.

    • My little niece in-law, 9, last night said she knew Bill Nye when she saw him on Netflix while we were looking for a movie to watch. She said his videos are screened at her school, specifically the global warming/climate change videos. I was so saddened to hear that that our school children in Australia are being brain washed with his gutter “science” trash!

      • Isn’t a niece-in-law a niece in the English language kinship system?

        I for instance called the husbands of my mother’s sisters “uncle”, even though they weren’t my mom’s brothers.

      • “Chimp April 20, 2017 at 6:36 pm”

        Given my “blended” family is Anglo-African, now all in Australia, many things mean many things. Like my sister in-law, in her culture, is considered my wife. My step-daughter, 10, speaks 4 languages including English and Zulu.

  5. What better way to show the earth you care than to fly across the US, drive to a hotel, drive from the hotel a march, drive back to the hotel, drive to the airport, and they fly back the next day!

      • Hi, Vukcevic: Thanks for the poster about the Climate Clowns (and with that disgusting twist of the little “Boy Scout” pervert with a plastic (ahem) doll at home which he calls “Girlfriend”).

        Those clowns will yell and flounce and cavort through the streets….. while all the while, the buildings rising high to their left and right, and even the very pavement they walk upon, bear silent, powerful, testimony:

        Free markets (i.e., “wealth“) are what data produce.

      • He is actually a grown-up supposedly ‘award-winning video and interactive producer’ for the Guardian newspaper.

      • For a nice environment-friendly banana, I wonder how much oil gets burned moving one’s bananas around from where they’re grown?

  6. “I do not share your view that the scientist should observe silence in political matters, i.e. human affairs in the broadest sense.” A. Einstein

    • Yes, indeed. You see the truth about AGW, RS: resting on pure conjecture, AGW is not at all about science. AGW is envirostalinism.

      • Well, Mr. Lane, while my imagination invented that (for me), I have no doubt that thousands of others thought it up, too, so, I have 0 copyright to it (smile). You are very generous to imply that I might have been the original inventor, though, so, thanks! :) (“Enviroprofiteer” is another you might like, btw. :) )

        Reality.

      • Socialism is liberating. For those who believe that government can steal enough from those who work to guarantee that they will never have to work again.

      • Socialism is liberating. For those on the receiving end of stolen funds.
        For those who have to fund the party, not so much.

      • Let them Fact check it Janice to prove you didn’t embeginate that particular econoun !

        G

      • Janice,

        Brilliant. When I write my long awaited (by me) book on the CAGW fiasco, I will entitle it Envirostalinism and I will credit you – even though you have modestly disclaimed copyright. Keep up all you good, sane, honest work at WUWT.

      • Miss Janice, the epitome of humbleness. : )

        “”while my imagination invented that (for me)””

        You’re quite good at propagating goodness from your imagination, dear.

        Respectfully, a friend in truth
        Ej

      • Ej!

        How kind of you! You made my week! What a blessing of a woman you are!! Thank you, oh, thank you.

        I hope that your goals are coming together very nicely. Especially your writing — you have a gift.

        Your friend,

        Janice

        P.S. I have to pray for humility ALL the time (being such a wonderful person, you know) — thankfully, lol, unlike something like overeating, that sin is usually unseen!

    • Why should anyone observe silence with regard to politics? The question and danger is the Infallibility of Science.

      Our freedom in the West is a largely a result of the imprisonment and deaths of millions of people over hundreds of years that fought against the infallibility of the Church and the effect this had on politics. Until finally Church and State were formally separated.

      Now we face a similar situation with Science. History shows us repeatedly that Science is fallible. Most of what Science believed to be true only 50 years ago has since been shown to be false. Even today we find that in many branches of science, the published results cannot be recreated and are thus likely false.

      However, many scientists themselves have a serious conflict of interest in admitting that much of what passes for science is in fact likely wrong. Rather, scientists have a vested interest in promoting their results as being correct, otherwise they are unlikely to receive further funding and/or employment.

      So in effect, scientists are promoting the Infallibility of Science, and then promoting this Infallibility of Science into the Political Arena, with all the inherent dangers that were present when the infallible Church meddled in the affairs of State.

      • “Most of what Science believed to be true only 50 years ago has since been shown to be false.”

        Sorry, that is just so much BS. Go to a 50 year old science text and find what proportion is “false”. Even in Biology, a decade and a half after the discovery of the structure of DNA, the text books were factually correct more than 99% of the time.

        Because one or two things were viewed incorrectly before they were corrected, that is far far from “most”.

        Your statement is is false.

      • Ferd,

        You’re right that millions died in the European wars of religion in the 16th and 17th centuries, to include the 30 Years’ War, on both the Catholic and Protestant sides and no side. Millions more died in spreading Christianity to the New World, as previously happened to pagans in Europe and subsequently Asia, Australia and Africa. The Taiping rebels were also nominally Christian. Their revolt killed 20 to 100 million people in 1850-64, without bringing freedom to China.

        But the West had an Enlightenment (c. 1688-1789), which separated Church and State (although Established Religion nominally still exists in Britain), that much of the rest of the world hasn’t yet enjoyed.

        I might quibble however with your assessment that most of what science “believed” to be true 50 years ago has been shown false. There definitely have been some major revisions, as with the (probably) accelerating expansion of the universe, but I’d say these changes amount to “much” rather than “most”.

        By 1967, “continental drift” was already generally accepted among geologists, in the form of plate tectonics, due to the discovery of seafloor spreading in the ’50s. Confirmation of the Big Bang Theory was widely recognized in cosmology, thanks to the serendipitous observation of the CMBR by Bell Labs scientists in 1964. The central dogma of molecular biology was well established, first formally stated by Francis Crick in 1958. These were however then recent developments in the history of science.

        But if you go back to the beginning of modern science in 1543, its whole subsequent history has been of revolutions and paradigm shifts in understanding. And to reinforce your main point, it has been accompanied by liberation from theology, both by the Reformation (1517-1648) and by brave individuals of all Christian denominations and none.

      • ferdberple, (on your knees facing East !
        see how easy it is to get it wrong ???
        you say “with all the inherent dangers that “WERE” (should be are ) present when the infallible “CHURCH” (should be religion ) “MEDDLED” (should be meddles ) in the affairs of state.

      • Chimp, those wars were religious in name only. Had both sides had the same religion they still would have fought.

      • Now that I think about it, no scientific discovery comes to mind from the past 50 years to equal those of the previous half century.

        The first pulsar was discovered in November 1967. That the expansion of the universe appears to be accelerating is an important discovery, if found valid. Understanding of subatomic particles has advanced. So has knowledge of the metabolism of microbes. That stomach ulcers are caused by an infection is good to know, but not a major revelation. Lucy, aka Australophithecus afarensis, was found in Ethiopia 1974. Ribozymes, RNA enzymes, were discovered in 1982, which fact is significant in origin of life research. Genome sequencing has advanced greatly in the past 50 years, building upon earlier work. Most of the advances of the past 50 years have been follow-ups on prior big breakthroughs.

        Please help me out if you can think of some other developments during the past half century comparable to those from 1917 to 1966, from 1867 to 1916, from 1817-1866 or prior 50-year intervals. It seems to me that the past 50 years pale in comparison with the previous half century.

        The proton was discovered in 1917 and the neutron in 1935. Nuclear fission was achieved in 1938. Quantum theory had its roots earlier in 1900 and 1905, but was formulated in the 1920s.

        The Big Bang Theory was confirmed in 1964, thanks to radioastronomy. Space exploration began in the 1950s and ’60s.

        Chemistry advanced in this period with valance bond theory and subsequent developments to shell theory in 1958.

        As noted, plate tectonics dates from the 1950s and ’60s, and catastrophic floods finally accepted by geologists as real around the same time.

        In 1919, the base, sugar and phosphate nucleotide unit of DNA was identified. X-ray diffraction studies of DNA began in 1937, leading to discovery of its structure in 1953. Its role in heredity was confirmed in 1952. Ribosomes were observed in the 1950s. The Krebs cycle was worked out in the 1930s, and photosynthesis in the late ’40s and ’50s.

        That chromosomes are responsible for genetic inheritance was recognized during this period, although suggested earlier. The number of human chromosomes was correctly found to be 46 in 1956, rather than 48 as reported in 1923.

        Penicillin was isolated from mold in 1928.

        Physical anthropology advanced greatly during this period. Genus Australophithecus was discovered in South Africa in 1924, but the African origin of humans wasn’t fully appreciated until the Leakys’ discoveries in East Africa during the 1950s and ’60s.

        I’m sure I’ve overlooked some major finds.

      • MarkW April 20, 2017 at 12:34 pm

        There were other issues in some of them, but religion was paramount.

        For instance, the French religious wars of the 16th century, second only to the Thirty Years’ War in megadeaths among such conflicts, retained their theological character without being confounded by dynastic or economic considerations. Had Calvinism not spread in France, those wars wouldn’t have happened. They were waged between Protestant Huguenots and the Catholic regime.

        The Thirty Years’ War did develop non-religious influences, but wouldn’t have started and engulfed so much of Europe without the religious aspect of enmity between Catholic and Protestant states. It morphed into a rivalry between France and the Hapsburg dynasty, both nominally Catholic.

      • ferdberple,

        “So in effect, scientists are promoting the Infallibility of Science, and then promoting this Infallibility of Science into the Political Arena, with all the inherent dangers that were present when the infallible Church meddled in the affairs of State.”

        The infallible State? How dare any lesser gods meddle in the State’s affairs ; )

        (Life sure seems simple when labels march around doing this and that . .)

        Kids, the “State” was a few hyper-wealthy man-god type ruling elites back then, not “a government of, by, and for the people” . . that got ruined by the “Church”.

      • At least in Biology: discovery of splicing (late ’70s) and miRNA (’90s), and molecular confirmation of evolution(’80s onward).

        Possibly CRISPR and editing of genomes (’10s).

      • John,

        Those states used the church to help oppress the people. Both Catholic and Protestant states were intolerant, but there was at least a shot at religious tolerance in some Protestant enclaves.

        The Dutch rebels against the Hapsburgs included both Catholic and Protestant provinces.

        After Charles V abdicated, the Holy Roman Empire enjoyed a certain kind of toleration, in which each local ruler could decide which communion, whether Catholic, Lutheran or later Calvinist, would be practiced in his principality, duchy, whatever. This usually aligned with the convictions of the populace. But religious tensions started breaking out more often in the early 17th century. When the relatively tolerant Matthias, Holy Roman Emperor and King of Bohemia, died, he was succeeded by his Jesuit-educated cousin Ferdinand II. In 1618, the largely Hussite Protestant nobility and people of Bohemia dramatically rejected the fiercely Catholic Ferdinand by throwing his representatives out a window (the Defenestration of Prague), and the war was on.

      • ReallySkeptical April 20, 2017 at 1:30 pm

        Those are good instances, but again rely on work from previous decades. I should have mentioned recombinant DNA and gene splicing, as Joshua Lederberg was a prof of mine at Stanford. MicroRNA is another good one.

        I did mention sequencing technology and genome projects, human and otherwise. Synthetic biology and directed evolution hold great promise for health.

        Genetic confirmation of evolution is good to have, but the fact of evolution was not in doubt anyway, based upon all the other mountains of evidence, to include direct observation. Observing and reconstructing evolution on the molecular level has however been of value to medicine.

        I might also have slighted immunology.

      • Chimp – April 20, 2017 at 12:42 pm

        Now that I think about it, no scientific discovery comes to mind from the past 50 years to equal those of the previous half century.

        No surprises there, Chimp, ……. given the fact that private funding for R & D has pretty much terminated during the past 50 years ……. as Federal government entities have been deciding who gets the R & D money ….. and what that money has to be expended on.

        And Chimp, …… pleas re-think this statement of yours, to wit:

        ….. but the African origin of humans wasn’t fully appreciated until the Leakys’ discoveries in East Africa during the 1950s and ’60s.

      • Samuel,

        I agree that usurpation of “research” by the state has had a generally baleful influence on science, but there is still private funding, too, as with drugs. Private medical research has its problems, too, though. The state has its place, but has gotten out of control.

        While Darwin did correctly identify Africa as the ancient homeland of our species, not everyone agreed with him. Some still thought Asia. It took more fossil finds to validate our African origin, and narrow the date down. I recall texts that thought Ramapithecus, a relative of orangutans, might be on the human line. But now we know that African great apes diverged from Asian great apes (c. 15 Ma) well before the human/chimp-gorilla (~10 Ma) and chimp-human (~7 Ma) splits.

      • “At least in Biology: discovery of splicing (late ’70s) and miRNA (’90s), and molecular confirmation of evolution(’80s onward).”

        Confirming what exactly? Genetic coding is vastly more sophisticated than anything humans have ever produced . . How the hell that confirms Evolution, I have no idea. It’s pure bullshit as far as I can tell . . much like Climate Change “science” having proven human emissions are sending the world into a catastrophic meltdown . . because CO2 molecules can intercept certain wavelengths of radiation. Basically customized “proofs”, validated by people whose entire freaking career and reputations depend on them being confirmed . . backed by people who want more control of humanity.

        Same game, as far as I tell. There’s those pesky unalienable rights, to be overcome ya know . . and it there’s no Creator, wallah, no unalienable rights . .

      • Chimp April 20, 2017 at 1:35 pm

        Mark and John,

        Which raises the question of when the TYW could be seen to have switched from a religious war to a more dynastic conflict, ie the Bourbon v. Hapsburg rivalry. (Oddly enough, the Bourbon dynasty started out Protestant, but Henri IV famously said that “Paris is worth a mass” and converted in order to be King of France.)

        Counter-Reformation proponent Ferdinand II started the war by trying to impose religious uniformity, ie Catholicism, on the whole Holy Roman Empire, in 1618. Ferdinand won the early innings, as the Caltholic League of mostly southern states, with Spanish aid, defeated the Protestant Union at White Mountain in 1620. The terrible conflict retained a largely religious character with the 1630 involvement of Lutheran Sweden, at least until French intervention, beginning is a small way in the late 1630s in support of the Protestants. France defeated the Spanish-Imperial army at Rocroi in 1643.

      • JohnKnight April 20, 2017 at 2:32 pm

        How genetics confirms evolution has been repeatedly explained to you. The details of genomes in organisms more closely related and more distantly related shows precisely how they diverged and evolved. Molecular clocks are compared with the evidence from rocks to estimate divergence time as well as evolutionary relationships. Our genomes contain molecular fossil records.

        You seem hung up on the size of genomes of multicellular organisms. Unicellular genomes are generally smaller. Sometimes much more so. For instance, in 2006, Carsonella ruddii, which lives off sap-feeding insects, took the record for the smallest genome, with just 159,662 base pairs of DNA and 182 protein-coding genes.

        http://www.nature.com/news/2006/061009/full/news061009-10.html

        By contrast, The human genome contains over three billion DNA base pairs and codes for an estimated 19 to 20,000 (constantly revised downward) protein-making genes.

        The first protocells would have had even smaller genomes, probably RNA. The smallest known RNA virus genome is just 1700 bp long. A protocell needn’t have been any bigger, since it would have lived in such a food-rich environment that metabolic genes could have been few. The first one might have had but a single gene, ie protein-making sequence, or none in the strict sense, if all it did was replicate itself, ie making a new strand of RNA rather than a protein.

        The genetic complexity which so transfixes you evolved over billions of years from much simpler beginnings. Biochemistry suggests hydrothermal vents as the incubators of life, but IMO evidence also supports a role for ice. But please bear in mind that abiogenesis is a process distinct from biological evolution, which operates on things already alive.

      • John.

        Although more science-y, CAGW is far more akin to the antiscientific myth of creationism than to the scientific fact of evolution.

        It’s quite amusing that you reject all the overwhelming evidence showing the fact of evolution, wanting to see every previous species leading to present species, but accept on blind faith, without any evidence whatsoever, biblical fables which even their authors knew weren’t literally true.

        After about 800 BC, some Bible stories do have an historical basis, but with spin. Before that they are merely legends, and before that myths, mainly borrowed from Mesopotamia, but also with some Egyptian and indigenous Canaanite influences.

      • I should add that not all unicells have little genomes. A big single-celled relative of animals, the protozoan Amoeba dubia, has the largest known genome, at 670 billion base pairs. The genome of a cousin, Amoeba proteus, has “only” 290 billion base pairs, making it almost 100 times larger than the human genome.

        The longest sequenced genome belongs to the loblolly pine, at 22.18 billion base pairs, making it more than seven times lengthier than the human genome. A total of 82% of the genome was made up of duplicated segments, compared with just 25% in humans. Plants are famous for polyploidy, as I’ve noted before IIRC, which is the process by which so many plant species have evolved in a single generation. Even so, humans have at least two whole genome duplication events in our ancestry.

        The more I study genetics and genomics, the easier it is to see how tiny genomes four billion years ago managed to reach such enormous sizes by, presumably, just one billion years ago, if not before. Think of the ~80 trillion microbe generations during three billion years, at about one per 20 seconds. Starting with on the order of only 1000 base pairs, just 26 doublings, or one per 115 million years, gets you to 100 billion bp in three billion years (please check my arithmetic).

      • There is much written these days about the extent to which people have lost faith and trust in our historic institutions–government, clergy, medicine, even marriage. Well, the LAST “institution” I still trusted, thinking it was by definition objective, was Science. Then I got educated–and found out how much of “science” is exaggerated, data massaged, biased by design, up to outright lies and just follow the money. Anyone pushing CAGW, anyone pushing “death by saturated fat,” anyone claiming The Planet ™ is in need of “saving” instantly loses all credibility with me. They might as well be saluting a commie flag with the likes of Maxine Waters!

      • Well Chimp, you missed one very recent discovery that will change the world.

        That was the discovery by Shoji Nakamura, that GaN preferred the Wurtzite lattice to the Zinc-Blende lattice.

        And that was probably less that two decades ago; not even a full valid climate observational interval.

        G

      • >>
        Chimp
        April 20, 2017 at 2:03 pm

        While Darwin did correctly identify Africa as the ancient homeland of our species, not everyone agreed with him. Some still thought Asia. It took more fossil finds to validate our African origin . . . .
        <<

        Since humans are missing the baboon virus marker, that would indicate that our human ancestors were not in Africa 6-8 million years ago when the virus was supposedly active. Here’s two links for starters:
        http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v261/n5556/abs/261101a0.html
        http://jvi.asm.org/content/14/1/56.short

        Jim

      • Jim,

        Those findings from the ’70s have been explained since. Other viruses infect different groups of monkeys and apes but also skipped humans and orangutans. These instances however are not evidence that humans didn’t evolve in Africa, any more than they indicate that African monkeys which weren’t infected evolved in Asia.

        https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2005/03/050328174826.htm

        Not every primate on every continent is infected by all available viruses and gets the viral genome incorporated into its genome.

      • Chimp,

        “How genetics confirms evolution has been repeatedly explained to you.”

        And human caused climate change has been repeatedly explained to you, O logically challenged one ; )

        “The details of genomes in organisms more closely related and more distantly related shows precisely how they diverged and evolved. ”

        Wow, similar creatures have similar coding . . Who’da thunk it? ; )

        Ya know, that logic “proves” cars and planes and building and computers and all sorts of things evolved from one another too . . in a flying pigs ass ; )

        Please explain why, if living creatures were created (you know like cars and planes and such were . . I trust we can agree ; ), one would expect the genetic coding of living things to be other than we find it?

        The thing I hope people here can grasp, is that no one in their right mind would try to develop new computer software (or jet fighters. etc.), by randomly altering an existent version, bit by bit, in hopes that new and improved features and functions would emerge. In fact, as far as I can determine, no one uses “Evolution theory” for anything at all . . (except hatin’ on creationists ; ) . . No inventions, no patents, no technologies, nuthin’.

        Yet, I could get quotes by celebrity brainiacs that speak of it being the very foundation of modern science . . Some rather famous ones, and, strangely, they also advocated CAGW . .

      • John,

        Organisms inherit noncoding as well as coding material, mistakes and all. Their detailed evolutionary history is visible. It’s not just because they are similar. It’s because they share common descent, hence derived traits, good, bad and indifferent.

        Consider vitamin C. Most animals can make it, but we and our closest relatives among the primates can’t. Guinea pigs and Indian fruit-eating bats also can’t make it, but their vitamin C genes are broken in different places from those of tarsiers, Old and New World monkeys and lesser and great apes, to include humans.

        Explain please why in your fantasy world of Bronze Age fairy tales and fables, a creator of species would reuse broken genes for such an important nutritional enzyme for tens of millions of years? BTW, tarsiers are insectivores, not fructivores. Why did the creator condemn humans, other apes, monkeys and tarsiers to the risk of scurvy, but not our fellow primates, lemurs and lorises?

        And why do you suppose that lemurs now live only on Madagascar, when the environment there could support the great panoply of African primates just as well? Previously lemurs lived not only on Madagascar, but Africa, North America, Europe and Asia. In fact, it appears that they evolved in then subtropical Paleocene/Eocene Wyoming. At least that’s where the oldest fossils have been found.

        Sorry, but there is zero evidence for creation from any source, but least of all genetics. And all the evidence in the world against it. Any prediction made on the basis of the hypothesis of creationism is readily shown false.

      • George and Greg,

        You get into a gray area with technological inventions and mathematical logic. I had basic science in mind.

        The mouse is a big deal, but electronic computers bigger still, and they date from the early postwar era, created to model thermonuclear reactions, which even the brain of Johnny von Neumann couldn’t do on its own.

        A better battery the world needs badly, but is that physics or engineering?

        Maybe the distinctions among math, engineering and science don’t matter. Tesla presents such a problem. IMO “computer science” isn’t science, except maybe applied. It’s more like EE crossed with mathematical logic.

        But what do I know? Thanks for the suggestions.

      • “Organisms inherit noncoding as well as coding material, mistakes and all.”

        So what? I don;t have time for your meandering BS . . I’m not arguing against imperfect replication, or gradual diversification through natural (or unnatural ; ) selection. I’m arguing for the POSSIBILITY that the Earth was “seeded” with a variety of “kinds” of critters, already containing the coding needed to generate an array of variants that would suit an array of environments, such as we can actually observe in things like dogs. Like Pugs and toy poodles were bred in a relatively short time, with no sign of any new coding coming into existence. Which is to say evolution, but not Evolution.

        Right now, and for many years, money is taken (essentially at gunpoint) from a great many citizens who don’t BELIEVE in Evolution, to indoctrinate their children into your religion . . You wouldn’t want that situation in reversed, no doubt, and neither would I.

        Now, if Evolution were some sort of actual foundation to all manner of scientific this and that, a case could be made for spreading your beliefs by force like that, but it’s not. It’s just a philosophical matter, that just so happens to “enthrone” the minds of some “experts” . . A better case for such enforced indoctrination can be made for the CAGW, it seems to me, since there’s at least some hypothetical real-world value involved.

        It’s basically the worship of human imagination to me, for no good reason, and quite possibly for some extremely bad ones. And it opened the door for other “experts say so” types of Sorta Science, like the CAGW . . As long as folks like you cling to Evolution as settled science, I think we’re going to have trouble escaping the man-worship trap, I see as set intentionally.

      • John.

        What your worship of Bronze Age myth calls “meandering BS: is known in the real world as “science”. You’re afraid to study reality because you know it will show your religion false.

        Scary stuff for a true believer in nomadic mythology.

        Happily, what you believe on the basis of blind faith doesn’t matter. Those whose jobs are to save lives and advance human understanding of nature know better.

        You have nothing but spew. Hope it helps you deal with your utter insignificance, beyond the consideration that all people, no matter how pathetically deluded, deserve.

        That you can’t handle the truth is your problem, not mine. I’ll go on saving lives, while you wallow in the antediluvian (!) mire.

      • Wow, all the way back to the bronze age . . pfft

        I tire of your meandering zealotry, Evo Justice Warrior, Chimp

      • To be sure: I am a religious person.
        However, I do NOT believe that religion should dictate to the state. Therefore, I applaud Nevada for allowing prostitution and gambling, even though I do not participate in nor condone either. Both are artifacts of religion’s influence on the state, as are the weird drinking laws in Utah (in particular); many states and counties throughout the US also have inexplicable laws. (I DO over-indulge in alcohol frequently!) There is a difference in telling people how to live a moral life, and telling people they can live any way they want as long as they don’t impinge on the freedoms of others. The former is the milieu of the church; the latter is incumbent on the state. No one has the right to compel another to live a moral life according to their interpretation of morality, as long as it does not impact the lives of their neighbors.
        The Church has clearly demonstrated that they are not infallible in venues outside religion. I am forced to doubt their infallibility inside religion, since they don’t seem to recognize their boundaries.
        That said, I live in Kalifornia, a state of the US. We have a new religion: worship of the goddess Gaia, and protection of this weak goddess is paramount… and STILL a religion. It is wrong. They should call for separation from the Gaians, Christians, Muslims, Atheists, Deists, and all other religions. They won’t; it is a useful tool to manipulate the weak-minded and poorly educated population of Kalifornia, and increase taxes.
        The State won’t deny (some) religionists as long as they promote State control, and we’ll have to see if the new SCOTUS believes in separation of ALL church influence on the State.

      • Chimp:

        You say

        The mouse is a big deal, but electronic computers bigger still, and they date from the early postwar era, created to model thermonuclear reactions, which even the brain of Johnny von Neumann couldn’t do on its own.

        Postwar? To model thermonuclear reactions?
        No and no.

        Colossus was the first programmable electronic computer, it was based on the ideas of Alan Turring, and it fulfilled its purpose of solving the Enigma codes used by the Germans in WW2.

        Tommy Flowers spent eleven months designing and building Colossus at the Post Office Research Station, Dollis Hill, in North West London. After a functional test, Colossus Mk 1 was delivered to Bletchley Park in late December 1943 / January 1944, was assembled there by Harry Fensom and Don Horwood , and was working in early February 1944.

        Colossus was the first of the electronic digital machines with programmability, albeit limited in modern terms. The notion of a computer as a general purpose machine – that is, as more than a calculator devoted to solving difficult but specific problems – would not become prominent for several years.

        Colossus was preceded by several computers, many of them being a first in some category. Colossus, however, was the first that was digital, programmable, and electronic. The first fully programmable digital electronic computer capable of running a stored program was still some way off – the 1948 Manchester Small Scale Experimental Machine.

        The use to which the Colossi were put was of the highest secrecy, and Colossus itself was highly secret, and remained so for many years after the War. Colossus was not included in the history of computing hardware for decades, and Flowers and his associates were deprived of the recognition they were due for many years.

        As you say, the last 50 years have been less productive in science than the previous 50 years. Sadly, one reason for this is the requirements of world war provided leaps forward in science and technology.

        Richard

      • Chimp – April 20, 2017 at 6:01 pm

        IMO “computer science” isn’t science, except maybe applied.

        You are 100% correct with that statement.

        There t’aint nothing scientificy about learning to “program a computer”.

        “DUH”, every day there are thousands of people learning to “program” the “remote control” for their newly acquired TV//Satellite …… but no one has yet been stupid enough to refer to the aforesaid as being “Remote Control Science”.

        It t’was in the late 60’s and 70”s that college Boards and Administrators figured out they were missing out on a horrendous “Cash Cow” by not offering potential students the opportunity to learn about and/or study the different “means & methods” of programming a computer. And as a “teaching aide” was the sole reason for the creation of the BASIC programming language. And when colleges began offering a Degree program in computer programming they had to give it an important sounding name ….. and thus the term Computer Science was coined.

        And Chimp, concerning the fossil history of hominoids that we currently have knowledge of, keep in mind that all of said fossils evidence was found or discovered ….. at or above the current sea level of the present Holocene Interglacial …… which said “discoveries” have only been above sea level for the past 10K years …….. whereas the Family of Great Apes and their descendants have been resident on the earth’s surface for tens of millions of years.

        And ps, …… the “missing link” is still missing that directly ties or connects Homo sapiens sapiens with any of the other extant species of hominoids (Great Apes). IMLO, Homo sapiens sapiens evolved their unique physical/mental attributes as a result of tens-of-thousands-of-years ….. of an extremely close relationship with a “water environment” from which they easily harvested all the food they required for a “leisurely” survival on the shores of salty lakes, salty seas and/or salty ocean tidal zones. And the above noted “missing link” may never be found …… until this interglacial is defunct and sea levels again begin to drop/decrease.

      • Chimp, states have always used whatever tools were available to keep the people subservient. Religion was just one. If it hadn’t been available, something else would have sufficed.

      • Chimp, all of the work and discoveries that you mention also relied on previous discoveries.
        Remember what Newton said “I have only seen so far, because I stood on the shoulders of giants.”

      • John, I agree. The most intolerant people I have ever met have all been atheists.
        For all of Chimp’s whining about religious wars, atheists have killed way more people than religious people have.

      • Richard,

        If an electronic, digital computer with no stored program and no memory counts, then the first one was built in 1942 by John Atanasoff at Iowa State, but it wasn’t programmable. Colosus had no RAM and no stored program, so was not a general purpose computer, like the ENIAC of 1946, for instance.

      • MarkW April 21, 2017 at 7:56 am

        You must not have read my earlier responses to you. The French religious wars were religious from start to finish. The TYW was strictly religious for most of its run, until about 2/3 of the way through, when France came in on the Protestant side. At that point it became both a religious and a dynastic war, but it began as religious and for the Protestants was until the end. In its last third, two Catholic dynasties were also fighting each other. But contrary to your assertion, the wars were not mainly dynastic. Not even close.

        As for atheists killing more people, that is true for the 20th century, but not for any previous century. Hitler and Stalin were both raised Christian, and it showed. Hitler was actually a pagan rather than an atheist. Stalin and Mao were indeed atheists, or at least they pretended to be.

        Napoleon was agnostic or atheist, but felt the need for a state religion to control the populace. Not all 19th and 18th century wars were religious in nature, some being balance of power struggles, but the worst were religious, like the Taiping Rebellion, in which tens of millions died. The Russo-Turkish wars were nominally religious, although in the Crimea, Christian France and Britain sided with Muslim Turkey.

        In a sense however all modern European wars were religious. Prussian and later German Imperial and even N@zi Wehrmacht troops wore the motto, “Gott mit uns” on their belt buckles and other heraldic gear. Russian Imperial troops also used the same motto, “Съ нами Богъ!”.

      • Chimp – April 21, 2017 at 10:11 am

        If an electronic, digital computer with no stored program and no memory counts, then the first one was built in 1942 by John Atanasoff at Iowa State, but it wasn’t programmable.

        Chimp, given your “selection criteria” for determining who built the 1st “electronic digital computer”….. then you missed it by 54 years and got the name wrong, To wit:

        William Seward Burroughs received a patent for his adding machine on August 25, 1888. He was a founder of American Arithmometer Company, which became Burroughs Corporation and evolved to produce electronic billing machines and mainframes, and eventually merged with Sperry to form Unisys.

        Ps: an electric adding machine satisfies your criteria of: ….. no stored program, …… no memory, ……. non-programmable.

        Cheers, Sam C, ….. the ole computer designer dinosaur

        And pps: the 1st “programmable” mechanical computer was the Jacquard loom, invented in 1804.

    • Scientists are free to enter politics, although Einstein turned down the opportunity. What they can’t do is fudge their results to match their ideology.

      • Climate science seems to say that they can. Isn’t that the science that believes the models are more important than the raw data?

      • Michael,

        To anyone familiar with English, the subordinate clause obviously refers to “communist”.

        Perhaps English is not your native language.

      • Science has been F,d with for a long time, one can not even trust maths, during the forties to make the maths align with the experiments during the Manhatten project. The equations were proved right the answers wrong.
        The Manhatten metric was used that worked fine Pi was changed to 4, now if I was god designing a universe the value for Pi should be an easy value. Turns out that since that time it has been known that Pi equals 4 when motion is involved in a circle. We cannot even teach our children real maths in case one of them learns how to design a nuclear weapon. Pathetic.

    • Now, ReallySkeptical, can you provide the context in which Einstein said those words. What was he responding to, and WHY did he respond this way?

      I believe that everyone from mechanics, to truck drivers, to ballet teachers has the right to express their personal opinions on anything, including politics. Einstein voiced his opinion on a matter of human affairs, but he is not remembered as a great politician is he?

      • Two things actually. The Nazi’s before WWII, and, after the war, about the development of nuclear weapons, for which he was very outspoken.

      • Einstein wasn’t reticent on political issues either in Europe or the US. Despite his role in starting the Manhattan Project, he was a socialist pacifist. Also however a Zionist. In Paris, he once responded to a question by saying he wasn’t “very Red or very Jewish”, but that was an understatement on both counts. He regretted having to decline the offer of the presidency of Israel, because he wasn’t very good at dealing with human beings.

        The N@zis tested his pacifism, but during the Cold War, he reverted to it.

      • PS:

        In the US, he publicly championed the civil rights movement, recalling his experiences in Europe with antisemitism.

      • Politics is one thing, activism is another. Scientists can voice their opinions on politics, but once they cross into activism, they stop being scientists.

      • “Scientists can voice their opinions on politics, but once they cross into activism, they stop being scientists.”

        That is complete BS.

      • ReallySkeptical April 20, 2017 at 3:29 pm

        , but once they cross into activism, they stop being scientists.”

        That is complete BS.

        Note Einstein was not an “activist”.
        Yes, he used his reputation as a introduction and appeal to authority, but his communications were private and not appeals to the masses. He stayed out of politics though he sought to influence policy.

        He remained a scientist.

        michael

      • Mike,

        Einstein did make public statements on public policy, too. He got away with it because of his high repute, and because, he was a socialist but not a communist, advocating the overthrow of the Western democracies. As an ivory tower theoretical type, he didn’t appreciate the genius of capitalism.

      • PS:

        Too bad he never read the Austrian economists!

        Einstein was born a subject of the German Empire, but was later a resident or citizen of the Austro-Hungarian Empire and Switzerland, as well as stateless, before coming to America.

        He, like Orwell, thought that capitalism was not only mean but inefficient. Wrong!

        Socialism is the system with internal contradictions leading to its demise. Witness Venezuela.

      • Michael,

        That’s what I said. How did you interpret it otherwise?

        I plainly said that, unlike communists, his socialist ideology didn’t advocate the violent overthrow of the West. But in the postwar period, he did advocate nuclear disarmament of the West, which would have meant Soviet tanks on French beaches in weeks.

      • Chimp, a person that advocates nuclear disarmament is not advocating the overthrow of the Western democracies. If you think Einstein was advocating the overthrow of any democracy, please post a link to something he said to that effect.

      • Michael,

        How many times do you need me to point out that you have apparently willfully misread what I wrote?

        I plainly said that, while a socialist and disarmament proponent, Einstein was not a communist, so didn’t advocate violent overthrow of the capitalist democracies.

        Please read what I said, then kindly STFU.

        Thanks.

      • ” he was a socialist but not a communist, advocating the overthrow of the Western democracies.”

        ..
        You ought to re-read what you wrote.

      • Michael,

        Please see misplaced response above.

        The subordinate clause obviously modifies, “communist”.

      • WRONG, the key is that “he” is the subject…… re-written would go like this: He was a socialist, but he was not a communist, and HE advocated the overthrow of the Western democracies.” ….Keep your daytime job, and don’t even think of teaching anyone English, or writing.

      • Michael,

        Nope. The subject of the dependent clause, to any native English speaker, is “communist”. It doesn’t modify “he”. That’s just your imagination, or an outburst motivated by some personal quirk.

      • Chimp, the problem you have is that you put a comma after the word “communist.” I know what you meant to say, but that comma separated the clause making it a conjunction instead.

      • Chimp April 20, 2017 at 6:03 pm

        My point is he did not cross a line where he started to pick sides in the the political arena.
        Also remember, he helped start the Manhattan project, it is natural that he would be concerned with the result of his advocacy.
        Oppenheimer, was also concerned by what he helped create. Edward Teller of course had different views.

        Human beings all, no other group has ever had a similar set of obligations responsibilities and history placed on them. In the end they all behaved admirably. Unlike some some opportunists today.

        michael

      • Michael, Chimp’s statement is clear and you have completely misread it.
        Chimp, arguing with Michael is a lost cause as he is incapable of arguing honestly. Always changing his argument and never actually dealing with any arguments you make.

  7. A sacked climate scientist get retrained as a butcher. A customer comes in late in the day and asks for a chicken, but the butcher has only one skinny chicken left, he weighs it, ‘one and a half pounds’.
    She says, ‘that’s a bit scrawny, do you have a bigger one?’
    The climate scientist puts the chicken under the counter, pretends to rummage around, puts the same chicken on the scales and puts his thumb on the scales. ‘Three and a half pounds’

    The sceptical customer says ‘I’ll take both of them’

  8. Perhaps we could have a march for calculus? A march for Algebra? I know, a march for advanced statistics. A march for astrophysics? Maybe a march for isosceles triangles?

  9. Why were so many science marchers hospitalized after tripping over potholes?
    Site quality has no effect on outcomes.

  10. Q: A blogger, a barista, and a street activist are all wearing lab coats. Which one is the scientist?
    A: For media purposes, all of them.

    • Do we have any reports from the field on how many white lab coats were handed out by the Rent-A-Crowd company event organizers?

      • The event is this Saturday. You should go to an event near you and do a head count. Then ask a random sample what their profession is. We can then estimate the ratio of baristas to scientists. That’s the scientific method. ;)

      • I saw something peripherally on TV with people in lab coats blah-blah climate change, so I thought it had already happened. If I go on Saturday, that’ll just add to the crowd estimates that will no doubt be already artificially inflated for “optics” by the media – plus, I might catch some airborne stupid.

  11. Why didn’t the science marchers take umbrellas when they saw the obvious black cloud about to pour cold water on everything they’d worked towards? Because the cloud hadn’t been peer-reviewed.

  12. If you live along one of these ‘march routes’, I suggest you place a large audio speaker in your window and play a short ‘loop’ recording of Barbara Streisand singing only these 2 lines, for all of the marchers to enjoy:
    “Send in the Clowns….. Don’t bother, They’re Here!”

  13. Q: How many science marchers does it take to change a light bulb?
    A: The bulb never gets replaced because all the science marchers are protesting the use of nonrenewable electrons…. in the dark!

    • How many climate modellers does it take to change a light bulb?

      None.

      When the light bulb fails to illuminate as expected, they simply change the performance standard to “Dark”.

  14. Look at the news. The question asked is always whether you BELIEVE in Climate Change. The “Wise Men” (computers) are INFALLIBLE, because everyone agrees they are.

    This is where human nature leads us if “Belief” and the “Wise Men” of the day are held to be infallible:

    • The alamy stock photo captures perfectly the diverse social mix and healthy LBGTQ representation.

      How did they know ?

  15. I did get in a spot of trouble for suggesting it would be a good place to get some anti dihyrogen monoxide petition signatures…..

  16. Q: Why did the science marchers march off a cliff?
    A: Their models told them there was no cliff.
    Q: How many science marchers can you fit in a bottle?
    A: 97.
    Q: What is the difference in the average intelluctual capacity between a monkey and a science marcher?
    A: It is too small to measure.

  17. Q: How many climate scientists does it take to change a light bulb?
    A: About 2000 scientists (600ish to analyse the light bulb and 1400ish to work out what effect it might have on the biosphere and to suggest alternative lightbulb solutions) and around 102 computer models. Total cost around £2trillion p.a., but at least the planet’s safe.

  18. I see the new pattern. The weekly queue of agency press releases directed by the Obama White House on all aspects of climate change has morphed into weekly protest march themes. Neither of these are random queues.

  19. Politicians of various persuasions have been hijacking the flag of science for a long time. On the left, one can go all the way back to Engels’ scientificsocialism. On the right there was a purported attempt to run Mexico scientifically. (Google cientificos.)

    That didn’t turn out so well for Porfirio Diaz.

  20. Descartes walks into a bar. They bartender asks him if he would like a drink. He said, “I think not,” and *Poof* he disappeared.

    • Decsartes on the global warming modelling:
      “in my dreams I am accustomed to imagine the same things that lunatics imagine when awake.”

  21. I wish I had a dime for every dollar of carbon offsets these dorks will pay to get to the march…

    Wait. What?

  22. Well, if you listen to any of their collateral comments – about such things as Colonization, racism, immigration, native rights, sexism, ‘trans-phobia’ – I think this is a good example of a community of ideologues, who are so indoctrinated in their close-minded worldview – to the point of being almost unaware of their almost total prejudice and conformity on almost ALL social matters – and it is as good a reason as any to take pretty much anything they say as coming from a position of advocacy and (incredibly arrogant) opinion, with not even a passing nod to objectivity, and certainly not science.

    In fact, if you, yourself, are not likewise encumbered with such absolute one-way blindness (I call it bigotry, because it’s the same mechanisms at work), it’s actually quite easy to see how AGW has been promoted beyond all possible reason… because reason was jettisoned early on.

    http://acsh.org/news/2017/02/02/why-scientist-wont-be-attending-science-march-10811

  23. A bulwark of science is replication. Any valid scientific study should be reproducible. In that light most science papers are not valid because they can’t be replicated. link That is true even in chemistry, physics, and engineering. The Wiki article doesn’t break out climate science specifically but I expect that 97% of us agree that it’s the worst.

    We desperately need good science and what we’re getting is junk. I don’t have a solution and I expect that whoever does solve the problem should receive several Nobel Prizes.

    I would go on a march for science if I thought the result might be good science.

    • You get what you pay for. Governments, academia and the Green industrial complex pay for junk science to justify their tyranny and theft.

  24. From the March for Science website:

    “……Nevertheless, the march has generated a great deal of conversation around whether or not scientists should involve themselves in politics. In the face of an alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus and restricting scientific discovery, we might ask instead: can we afford not to speak out in its defense?

    There is no Planet B. Join the #MarchForScience……”

    IMHO, there are two mistaken assumptions they make in the above quote:

    1) Science is infallible and never gets things wrong (like when Pluto was considered a full-fledged planet in our solar system. That is what I was taught in grade school). Therefore, they need to get politically active to defend it. The MSM seems especially deluded by this notion that climate alarmist scientists are infallible.

    2) That politics and tax dollars are incapable of corrupting science. The truth is that they can corrupt everything they touch, and there is no reason to believe that science would be exempt. If these marching bozos think that no one is aware of that, they are kidding no one but themselves.

    Feeling the need to march on Saturday only goes to show me that that they lack faith and confidence in their so-called “science”, especially if it is the CAGW theory they are primarily marching in support of.

    • … Science is infallible and never gets things wrong …

      I will reiterate my post above. Most science papers are junk because they can’t be replicated, even by their authors.

    • Forget third false assumption:

      3) That consensus serves as an acceptable substitute for proof in science. Yeah, right. I’ve heard it said that if Hitler had died in Germany in the late 1930’s before starting WWII, he would have gone down in German history as one of its great leaders……..

    • In the face of an alarming trend toward discrediting scientific consensus exposing JUNK SCIENCE and restricting scientific discovery funds WASTED on pursuing the implications of proven-FAILED models

      ….

      ….we climate hu$tlers had better get out there and….. HU$TLE!

  25. Over 31,000 bona fide scientists say: “No.”

    We urge the United States government to reject the global warming agreement that was written in Kyoto, Japan in December, 1997, and any other similar proposals. The proposed limits on greenhouse gases would harm the environment, hinder the advance of science and technology, and damage the health and welfare of mankind.

    There is no convincing scientific evidence that human release of carbon dioxide, methane, or other greenhouse gasses is causing or will, in the foreseeable future, cause catastrophic heating of the Earth’s atmosphere and disruption of the Earth’s climate. Moreover, there is substantial scientific evidence that increases in atmospheric carbon dioxide produce many beneficial effects upon the natural plant and animal environments of the Earth.

    (emphasis mine)

    See: http://www.oism.org/pproject/

    Further:

    1350+ Peer-Reviewed Papers Supporting Skeptic Arguments Against ACC/AGW Alarmism

    (Source: http://www.populartechnology.net/2009/10/peer-reviewed-papers-supporting.html )

  26. ‘Bama don’ allow no cheap coal burnin’ ’round here…
    ‘Bama don’ allow no cheap coal burnin’ ’round here…
    But we don’ care what ‘Bama don’ allow,
    Gonna burn that cheap coal, anyhow!
    ‘Bama don’ allow no cheap coal burnin’ ’round here…

    ‘Da Mann don’ allow no global warmin’ ’round here…
    ‘Da Mann don’ allow no global warmin’ ’round here…
    But we don’ care what ‘da Mann don’ allow,
    Gonna warm this ‘ol globe, anyhow!
    ‘Da Mann don’ allow no global warmin’ ’round here…

    ‘Rite yer own, ya’ll!

    • Not even a fundamentalist Christian college would grant a PhD for a thesis claiming that Earth is flat and immobile, with the sun passing over it through doors in the dome of heaven, from which the singing stars hang, because the Bible says so.

      Muslim fundamentalism however is apparently exempt from the strictures of non-Islamic science.

      • You should be pleasantly surprised to learn that, in fact, the Bible has several passages that make reference to the Earth being round. And at least one classical mathematician calculated the circumference of the Earth, which while not correct, was impressively close. By Columbus’ time, Flat Earth was a fringe belief, if it was seriously held at all.

      • Dr. Ed,

        The Bible has no references to the earth being spherical, or even, if properly translated, a flat, round disk. But it does unequivocally refer to the four corners of the earth. Flatness applies even to the New Testament, by which time the pagan Greeks had already measured earth’s circumference.

        The ancient Greeks, unlike biblical authors, did indeed know that the earth was spherical. And Eratosthenes (~276 to 194 BC) did come up with a pretty good estimation of the size of the earth.

        Europeans did however know long before Columbus that the earth is a sphere. Early Church Fathers insisted on a flat earth, because of the Bible, but by AD 400 Augustine was arguing against a literal interpretation of the Bible if it kept educated pagans from converting.

        In the Middle Ages, the Church accepted Ptolemy’s geocentric model, since it at least agreed with biblical passages in which the sun moves but earth stands still. The model had concentric spheres, including a ball-shaped earth. Iberian and other European mariners could see the curvature of the earth, as for instance in the appearance of a ship’s mast before its hull.

        Contrary to Washington Irving’s fantasy, Spanish scholars’ problem with Columbus’ proposal was not over the shape of the earth but its size. He imagined that Asia extended much farther east than it does and that earth was smaller than estimated by Eratosthenes. If the Americas hadn’t been in the way, he would have had to turn back or run out of water. His crew was getting mutinous not from fear of falling off the edge of a flat earth, but because the winds blew so steadily from the east that they worried about being able to get back home. But Columbus knew they blew steadily from the west at a higher latitude.

      • Dr. Ed,

        My prior reply to you was lost in cyberspace.

        Nowhere in the Bible is earth anything but flat. That includes even the New Testament. Being round, as in a flat disk, isn’t supported by a good translation. The four corners of the earth however are. The earth is not a sphere in the Bible. At best it’s shaped like a round plate, but that’s based upon a faulty translation of the word usually rendered in the KJV “circuit”, but in Job better as “edge”. Nowhere is it described by the Hebrew word for “ball”.

        Nor was a sphere to Early Church Fathers, who insisted, rightly, that the Bible clearly shows the earth to be flat. However, by AD 400, Augustine argues that a literal interpretation of the Bible should be rejected, since it cost the Church possible adherents among the educated. Thereafter, the Church adopted the geocentric Ptolemaic system, which a spherical but immobile earth at the center of the universe. At least that allowed keeping the sun moving over the earth, as in the Bible.

        The ancient pagan Greeks, by contrast, did know that earth is sphere. Aristotle cites evidence. And, as you mention, Eratosthenes measured earth with some accuracy in Hellenistic Alexandria, centuries before the New Testament.

        The Medieval Church therefore accepted that earth is a globe, motionless at the center of a universe of nested spheres, which make music. So too did mariners, who could see the curvature of the earth because a ship’s mast appears on the horizon before its hull. Contrary to Washington Irving’s fantasy, the issue which Spanish scholars had with his proposal was not the shape of the earth, but its size. He argued that Asia extended farther east than it actually does and that earth is smaller than Eratosthemes’ estimate.

        Had the Americas not occupied the longitude in which he expected to find Asia, Columbus would have had to turn back, for lack of water. His crew feared not falling off the edge of the earth, but that they couldn’t get back home because the winds blew so steadily from the east. Columbus however knew that at a higher latitude, they blow from the west.

      • Biblical cosmology:

        Flat earth, whether rectangular or circular, covered by a solid dome:

        More detail:

      • Well, well, Chimp. Doing your fervent best to shore up your atheistic orthodoxy, I see. Setting aside the issue of how you interpret “חוג” (hvg) to = refer to a “flat circle” when Hebrew scholars seem to prefer “encircle” (as in what may be done with a sphere),

        setting aside that issue, I say, for one far more important, I ask you:

        What have you done to take care of what will happen to your soul when you die?

        We are all going to live forever. Our only choice is: where.

        In short: What have you done with Jesus? Is He: Liar — Lunatic — or — Lord? (C. S. Lewis)

        Or, like rgbatduke, do you pretend He just never existed at all?

        That would make it easy, except for one thing: all the evidence says that He was;
        moreover, that he died and that he came back to life.

        The weight of the evidence is against you.

        The prima facie case, given the evidence, is that Jesus lived and made bold claims, including that he is your personal savior.

        The historicity of Jesus is only disputed by quacks. Mainstream historical scholarship holds that Jesus was really here.

        Thus, once again, I ask, was Jesus: Liar — Lunatic — or — Lord?

        Your answer determines where you will go when you die, a vitally pragmatic question.

        For God so loved the world
        that he gave his only begotten Son,
        that whoever believes in him
        should not perish
        but have eternal life.

        John 3:16

        You are resting on belief, either way.

        It takes an enormous amount of faith
        to keep on believing that God does not exist.

        Your posts above show how hard an atheist must work to maintain his or her faith. Someday, when you are weary of that, just stop fighting
        and accept Truth.

        Someone is after you. How can I tell? Because you are so vigilantly fighting to ward Him off.

        Praying for you!

        Janice

      • Janice:

        I write to make two comments; one that agrees with one of your stated views and one that disputes another of your stated views.

        First my agreement. I strongly support your factual statement saying

        It takes an enormous amount of faith
        to keep on believing that God does not exist.

        The problem of stating such facts in a place like this is that most atheists don’t know what faith is.

        Religion is about faith and superstition is about certainty.

        One of my duties as a preacher is to give people constructive doubt which makes them challenge their beliefs so they can deepen and grow their faith.
        But superstition is about unquestioning belief: only certainty is allowed.

        I strongly suspect that superstitious belief in global warming is the motivation for most who will be on the march which this thread is discussing.

        Now my disagreement. You say

        Thus, once again, I ask, was Jesus: Liar — Lunatic — or — Lord?

        Your answer determines where you will go when you die, a vitally pragmatic question.

        Sorry, but that does not concur with recorded words of Jesus.

        Jesus said, the Sun and the rain fall on the good and the bad alike. Simply, we don’t get what we deserve (I am personally grateful for that). This raises the question of what we do get, and He told us that, too. He said, “In my Father’s house there are many mansions” and “I go to prepare a mansion for you” which I understand to mean that we each get a “mansion” uniquely suited to each of us. And in many ways he said we get the ‘mansion’ which the actions of our faith show we want. For example, He pointed to the different treatments to be expected by a rich religious man who made play of giving to the Temple and a poor widow who tried to hide that she could only afford to give a mite. He told a Roman soldier whose religion was probably pagan that the soldier’s faith had cured his daughter. And He told the parable of the Good Samaritan to demonstrate that God’s love can be provided by and is available to believers in other religions. etc.

        So, according to Jesus nobody – not you, not me, not anybody – can decree where anybody will go when they die. God is our judge and he prepares our ‘mansions’. We are saved by Grace through faith alone.

        The people intending to march on Saturday want to impose the effects of their superstitious belief on others. They are claiming that which belongs to God alone. We who proclaim the love of the Risen Lord have no right to commit similar sin to that.

        Richard

      • Dear Richard,

        Thank you for your affirmation. Thank you, also, for the opportunity your disagreeing with me provides me to clarify my theology. Not I but Jesus, as I read Scripture, said where one goes when one dies (based on the choice one makes about Him during life on earth — I realize that Roman Catholics believe you get further opportunity, but, I am only stating “mere Christianity,” here) when he declared, I am the way, the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father but by me. (John 14:6). I will never say I know for certain that any given person ultimately is not going to end up in heaven (only where they are at that time very likely going, given their stated belief, at that moment — God alone knows whether or not they have believed, perhaps, as a little child, or will ever come to believe in Jesus as their savior before they die); I will only state the way I believe one must go to get there. I like to think that we will be happily surprised at many of the people we meet up there!

        When Jesus or Scripture talk about God’s blessings, such as rain for crops, falling on good and evil people alike, it is (in my reading of Scripture) not referring to their soul’s salvation. The Roman soldier called Jesus “Lord,” thus, he believed in Jesus and, thus, was headed for Heaven, just as was the thief on the cross to whom Jesus said, “Today, you will be with me in Paradise.”

        Jesus singled out (as I see it) the widow and her mite to make the point that she, having given “all she had to live on,” gave “more” than the wealthy man who gave a much smaller % of his wealth. It was not about her soul’s salvation that Jesus was talking, but about how much more valuable her gift was in the eyes of God.

        Yes, God’s love is supporting and surrounding all of us. That is a separate issue from the salvation of our soul. Confucianism and Buddhism, for instance, have many good tenets — they do not, nevertheless, provide the means to save one’s soul. Such philosophies are based on works which ennoble a person, but, cannot save them. The Tao ends something like this: This is the Tao; I do not know if anyone has ever kept it {completely}. As C. S. Lewis would say, you can go straight from there to Paul’s Epistle to the Romans. Or to the Ephesians: For it is by grace you have been saved, through faith — and this is not from yourselves, it is the gift of God — not by works, so that no one can boast. (Eph. 2:8, 9)

        Even if you believe (as I do not) that there are “many ways to God” (as to salvation of one’s eternal soul), I hope that you would, at least, urge someone like Chimp to believe in Jesus as Pascal did….

        To believe Jesus when he boldly stated:

        I am the resurrection and the life. He or she who believes in me will live,
        even though he or she dies; and whoever lives and believes in me
        will never die.

        (John 11:25, 26)

        Thank you, again, Richard, for honoring me with such a thoughtful reply. We disagree on much, but, having both, you and I, called on Jesus as “Lord and savior,” believing that Jesus died and rose again, I believe that we will one day meet — in heaven. :) And I don’t care if all I get is a heavenly shack — just being there will be good enough for me.

        Take care,

        Janice

        P.S. Please forgive me, if you answer this with more arguments. I don’t think it would be helpful to Chimp to get into an extended dispute about salvation. So, I won’t. I think that what I’ve written is enough (for him to find the Way).

      • Dear Janice:

        You say to me

        Please forgive me, if you answer this with more arguments. I don’t think it would be helpful to Chimp to get into an extended dispute about salvation. So, I won’t. I think that what I’ve written is enough (for him to find the Way).

        OK. I accept that request.

        I write now because you mention ‘Pascal’s Wager’ and I think the ‘famous last words’ of Voltaire are more amusing.

        A Priest leaned over the unbeliever Voltaire who was lying on his deathbed.
        The priest said to Voltaire, “Now, in your final moments will you at last renounce the Devil and all his works.”
        Voltaire replied, “Now is not the time to be making enemies”, and then he died.

        Richard

        PS I have used the ‘famous last words’ of Voltaire as a sermon illustration more than once.

  27. The 2017 March for People Who Love Pictures of Science and The Associated Snarky Comments, but Frankly Not the Math Part So Much, Thank You.

  28. A climate marcher walks into a bar with a polar bear sitting on his head.
    The bartender says “Can I help you”?
    And the bear says “Yeah. Can you get this guy off my @ss” ?

  29. They once had a march for science
    They all walked with an air of defiance
    They said with a rant
    You better give us that grant
    Cause we all have no other reliance

    • It’s sponsored by PIPS (Professional Institute of the Public Service of Canada), their union. And like any good union, their primary focus is to get more money for their members. In other words, the CAGW gravy train has to keep on a-rollin’.

  30. It seems to me that those who march for science, whatever that means, are people who do not fully understand what science means. Science used to mean truth until political activists started to redefine it by demonstrations, and yes, political marches.

    Let science and its truth be evidence based, as it used to be, and not some belief argued by a bunch of activists, whatever their unshakeable convictions.

    Evidence lays out the case for truth and can be challenged, moulded and changed until that truth is universally accepted. That is a better basis for science than the politically driven conviction that a trace gas controls our entire climate.

  31. Climate scientist have offended many, none more so than the cattle stock with the statements like this one
    “Cow ’emissions’ are more damaging to planet than CO2 from cars”
    printed in the London’s Independent.
    The UK’s cows decided not to take this ‘straw man’ science laying down. All over country in their thousands they are travelling to the capital for an organised counter-march.

  32. ReallySkeptical April 20, 2017 at 10:40 am

    “Most of what Science believed to be true only 50 years ago has since been shown to be false.”

    Sorry, that is just so much BS. Go to a 50 year old science text and find what proportion is “false”. Even in Biology, a decade and a half after the discovery of the structure of DNA, the text books were factually correct more than 99% of the time.

    I don’t know about the last fifty years, but most of what is published in scientific journals these days is refuted within a couple of years … and that’s not counting the papers that are outright frauds.

    Science is currently very ill. It’s far from dead … but it is sick.

    w.

      • For instance, how many people are rotting in early graves because they followed the “science” of the Government-mandated “Food Pyramid” which directed everyone to eat “6-11” servings of starch daily? Washed down with “heart-healthy” trans fats and all the sugar they wanted?

      • “Sick”. Absolutely. Here’s an example of what I see regularly with astronomy papers.

        https://scute1133site.wordpress.com/2016/11/28/radec-anomaly-in-67p-spin-axis-precession-papers/

        I make a blindingly obvious correction and notify the authors via the official contact email. They don’t reply but more importantly, they don’t retract because the blindingly obvious correction isn’t peer reviewed.

        However, about half do reply, usually to politely disagree and a couple have issued corrigenda. I only correct what is beyond any reasonable debate as in the eg above. The fact some do reply doesn’t absolve those who don’t.

    • “but most of what is published in scientific journals these days is refuted within a couple of years”

      So you are saying, go back to an Science issue in the 80s say and that more that half of the papers have been refuted? That is BS. Just show me just one issue of Science or Nature or Cell where that is true.

    • And is case you didn’t mean the 80s, then any time. Any issue of Nature or Science or Cell where 50% or more of the papers have been refuted. (and BTW, a correction is not refutation)

  33. i don’t see the #marchforscience as a “street protest,” but as an expression of some citizens of their concern that science isn’t being understood and appreciated by this administration.

    i don’t see why that’s funny or why it has to be made fun of and i sure don’t understand gelernter’s comment. in the u.s. it’s anyone’s right to make fun of anything, but in the ’40s – ’60s conservatives had a great respect for science because they needed it to win the cold war, and i don’t understand where that went.

    • “i don’t see the #marchforscience as a “street protest,” but as an expression of some citizens of their concern that science isn’t being understood and appreciated by this administration.”

      This administration understands the science better than most of the marchers. That’s why they are skeptical that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change.

    • “i don’t see why that’s funny or why it has to be made fun of and i sure don’t understand gelernter’s comment. in the u.s. it’s anyone’s right to make fun of anything, but in the ’40s – ’60s conservatives had a great respect for science because they needed it to win the cold war, and i don’t understand where that went.”

      Just because skeptics don’t believe that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change doesn’t mean that skeptics don’t have respect for science.

      Here’s the definition of a skeptic:

      http://www.climate-resistance.org/2009/02

      “On the one hand, as scientists we are ethically bound to the scientific method, in effect promising to tell the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but – which means that we must include all the doubts, the caveats, the ifs, ands and buts.”

      end excerpt

      It’s not the skeptics who are unscientific, it is people who claim to know that humans are causing the Earth’s climate to change who are being unscientific because they couldn’t prove their claims if their lives depended on it.

      Skeptics just say the CAGW promoters haven’t made their case and they haven’t.

      • …and if the null hypothesis hasn’t been disproven by now (considering the $Billions spent studying it), I assert it never will be.

        Case closed.

    • Crackers: You obviously don’t know much about the AGW issue.

      Here’s a good place to start (free book):

      Available here (free): https://bobtisdale.wordpress.com/2013/09/24/new-book-climate-models-fail/

      — Next, you might set yourself a reading program using WUWT’s “Reference Pages” (top of this page).

      — The DVD, “Climate Hu$tle” and the book, Climate Change, the Facts (see upper right margin of this page) would be helpful to you.

      — Another good, very readable, book is Jim Steele’s, Landscapes and Cycles: an Environmentalist’s Journey to Climate Skepticism (available at Amazon)

      — The WUWT 10th Anniversary anthology (free pdf download in link at bottom of post) would leave you (be sure to read the comments!) unable to say, “I don’t understand” any longer, for you would be up to speed with the rest of us who regularly read WUWT.

      Happy reading/watching! :)

    • Crackers,

      Advocates of catastrophic man-made climate change have no science on their side. It’s just where their bread is buttered.

      The real scientists who helped win the Cold War recognize that the marchers have abandoned the scientific method, so are no longer scientists but trough-feeding bureaucrats sucking the life blood out of America and the world.

      • who is “advocating” a catastrophe?
        how has anyone “abandoned” the scientific method?
        if you just want to rant, fine, but you making heavy claims you ought to defend.

      • cracker, all of those topics have been discussed to death in articles over the last few weeks.

        Demanding that the null hypothesis be reversed is by definition, abandoning the scientific method.
        Modifying the data to fit the theory is by definition, abandoning the scientific method.
        Declaring that you are right because most people agree with you (which isn’t even true), is abandoning the scientific method.

    • Your failure is in your belief that climate “scientists” are doing science.
      That claim is easily refuted. And has been too many times to count.

  34. The Anthropological Carbon Dioxide Global Warming marching song
    (with apologies to Irving Gordon for basing it on his “Delaware” song.)
    Now just imagine Perry Como trying to sing it…

    Oh, what did UN do, boy,
    What did UN do?
    What did UN do, boy,
    What did UN do?
    They outlawed CO2,
    They outlawed CO2,
    They outlawed CO2,
    That’s what they did do.

    One, two, three, four!
    Oh, what a con-sen-sus
    What a con sent.
    What a con they sent us?
    Was science all alone?

    She sent back radiation,
    She sent back radiation,
    She sent back radiation.
    That’s what she did send.

    Uno, due, tre, quattro!
    Oh why the big decline, Mann
    Why the big decline,
    Oh why the big decline, Mann
    Through a nature trick.

    He used his Yamal tree.
    He used his Yamal tree,
    He used his Yamal tree,
    To make a hockey stick.

    Un, deux, trois, quatre!
    The Medieval Warmth, boy
    Where’s that oldtime warmth?
    Modeled a new reality,
    Remodeled where it’s gone!

    Gore’s stuck in a hiatus
    Gore’s stuck in a hiatus
    Gore’s stuck in a hiatus
    An Inconvenient Truth has gone!

    Eins, zwei, drei, vier!
    Oh, what do grant troughers do, boy.
    What do those troughers do?
    So what did grant troughers do? Boy.
    Do for me and you?

    They cost a pretty penny,
    They cost a pretty penny,
    Cost us pretty penny,
    To show haven’t got a clue!

    • The sun on the meadow is summery warm(er)
      The stag in the forest runs free
      But gather together to greet the (worse)storm
      Tomorrow belongs to me

      The branch of the linden is leafy and green(er)
      The Rhine gives its gold to the (rising)sea
      But somewhere a glory awaits unseen
      Tomorrow belongs to me

      The babe in his cradle is closing his eyes
      The blossom embraces the bee
      But soon, says a whisper
      “Arise, arise, tomorrow belongs

    • Tom,

      I get tossed into the spam bin on a regular basis. Sometimes, I’m in moderation, “Your comment is awaiting moderation,” and that usually means I used a “bad” word or had too many links in my comment. But, often, I have said nothing “bad” and there is no possible multiple link issue (and no excessive use of blockquoting or bolding or ALL CAPS — at least as far as I could tell). Shrug. About 80% of the time, my comment is fished out of the spam bin (I’m assuming that is where it went) — many times, over 12 hours later. Sometimes, I never see it again.

      All that to let you know that you are not alone! I have sometimes wondered if I was on some kind of “watch.” It was never the case.

      At least, from your 6:19pm comment, you can see that you are not being blocked based on your identity.

      Hang in there,

      Janice

      • No it’s just that I have to keep signing in at every comment and ‘the system’ (whatever it is) never acknowledges a comment. Yes I’m on a reasonably secure non-Windows/Apple/Google system however this site alone (and I comment on other WordPress sites) causes me this problem.
        Ho-hum I guess I’ll just have to just post and go, hoping the comments get through…

  35. I may have to attend the local march/rally. A high school junior is one of the leaders. I had hopes this nonsense had not infected the middle of South Dakota. Evidently I am mistaken.

  36. http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/dwightdeisenhowerfarewell.html

    Eisenhower’s Farewell Address is noted and remembered for its warnings regarding the need to guard against the rising influence of the “military-industrial complex”. Far less frequently quoted are the even more prescient paragraphs that follow almost immediately after…

    “Akin to, and largely responsible for the sweeping changes in our industrial-military posture, has been the technological revolution during recent decades. In this revolution, research has become central; it also becomes more formalized, complex, and costly. A steadily increasing share is conducted for, by, or at the direction of, the Federal government.

    Today, the solitary inventor, tinkering in his shop, has been overshadowed by task forces of scientists in laboratories and testing fields. In the same fashion, the free university, historically the fountainhead of free ideas and scientific discovery, has experienced a revolution in the conduct of research. Partly because of the huge costs involved, a government contract becomes virtually a substitute for intellectual curiosity. For every old blackboard there are now hundreds of new electronic computers. The prospect of domination of the nation’s scholars by Federal employment, project allocations, and the power of money is ever present — and is gravely to be regarded.

    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.

    It is the task of statesmanship to mold, to balance, and to integrate these and other forces, new and old, within the principles of our democratic system — ever aiming toward the supreme goals of our free society.”

  37. Why did the marchers tumble off an unfinished overpass ? Because the march model said it was completed …
    Why did the marchers sweat so much ? Because the models said it would be 40 degrees and they all wore coats …

  38. Why did so many climate change alarmists and activists stay home rather than participate in the march?

    Bad case of AlGoraphobia…

  39. Democracy champion in the world hosts a pathological science based march towards misanthropic command economy? On the 93th birthday of the revolutionary Bolshevik? What next? A national socialist president in France tomorrow?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s